continue our conversation on federal spending and the budget. a freshman house appropriations committee members kervin yoder will join us. it dealt lowey will give us your perspective on farm spending. she is the ranking member on host: good morning on this friday, march 11, 2011. the world is awakening today to a natural disaster of enormous magnitude, the largest earthquake in japanese history, 8.9 on the richter scale. what you're looking at now is the tsunami that was caused by the earthquake as it crashes into japanese coastal communities. residents in coastal areas from ordered tooguam were

evacuate. hawaii and the united states is now on a tsunami warning and it is possible that waves could reach the shores in the next hour. we are telling you this because it will be dominating the news today and over the weekend. for our question this morning, we will turn to domestic events. in wisconsin yesterday, the assembly passed the scaled-down version of its budget act, which stripped out the union areas of the legislation and passed the legislation, sending it on to the governor for his signature. the governor says he is expected to sign that as soon as the law will permit. we will ask you this morning, because many people have been watching the wisconsin story, suggesting that it has national rahm of the nation's national -- ramifications. our question for you, the wisconsin union vote -- who wins

and who loses? good friday morning. i want to start with a couple of photographs. watching the tsunami story. some dramatic photographs this morning of some of the aftermath of the tsunami in japan. you can see the flooding and fighters. let me show you a couple of other pictures. this is from china. look at the floating vehicles submerged and the flooded streets in the miyagi region of japan. this is what it was like for people in a bookstore in a japanese city as the ceiling started to fall in the aftermath of the earthquake.

big, international story affecting millions of people on the pacific rim and lots of news coverage will be coming out as the death tolls become clear and also the damage. we are going to talk national politics today and we want to move to wisconsin. with the union vote in the assembly, the legislation is now sent to the governor for a signature. a reporter for "the wisconsin state journal" is on the phone with us. tell us about what the mood was like inside the chamber as the legislation passed. guest: hostile. there was about an hour or two of debate yesterday. the republicans called off debate and voted as they filed out of the chamber.

their democratic colleagues, along with some protesters shouted "shame" at them. host: the governor is expected to sign the bill, but the budget aspect has not been addressed because of the missing democratic senators. what is the next legislative step? guest: that all depends on when the senate democrats return. it appeared they were headed back yesterday for sure, but so far, they have not shown up in madison. they just have to wait for them and shake up the budget bill once they return, if they return. there's some uncertainty as to their plans. host: we're reading in the national coverage that there's some suggestion of recall efforts for the critics of the

republican leaders. how does the recall effort work in your state and what are people saying they are trying to do? guest: a lawmaker has to have been in office for one year in order to be subject to recall. a certain number -- i think it is maybe a quarter of registered voters in that person's district needs to sign a petition for recall. the way it stands now, i believe there are eight republican senators that are eligible for recall. there have been dry is beginning to recall them. the same is true for six democratic senators.

the governor is not eligible for recall until next january when he will mark his 1-year in office. host: i would imagine it's too early to tell the political fallout from this, but what are your sources telling you is the aftermath? guest: it is too early to say. even before this happened, the polls were trending against the republican position. people were strongly in favor of a compromise and also in favor of a keeping collective bargaining, which made it all the more surprising that the republicans held this surviving -- that the republicans pulled

this last-minute maneuver to strip out the bargaining. host: when is the governor able to sign the legislation? guest: today. host: is there a time set for that? guest: i don't know that for sure. he indicated he would sign it as quickly as possible. it sounds like fashion happen sometime this morning. host: thank you very much for your in-state perspective 4 c- span's national audience. that is dan simmons. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: we have headlines from across the country we will show you as we take your calls. it is not over in wisconsin is "the new york times" editorial today. here's what the right in the newspaper.

-- here is what they write. that is "the new york times" today. "the washington times" -- it says --

host: let's hear from you. ago are the winners and who are the losers in the wisconsin union vote? our first call is john, a republican, in maryland. caller: is is a battleground state between the conservative right and the socialist- communist left. if you think the crowd -- i understand that the permits were killepulled by the socialist pa. this is from a member of 32 years. i'm more patriot than worried about my pension and what not. let me just say that america is watching and we can ill afford for the governor to start implementing measures -- i guess

i'm shooting myself in the foot. it's coming to maryland on the 14th. i expect to see some of those young socialist-communist in the background when i watch msnbc to be standing at the rally, if i go at all. they would love to see him recall. if they do, the rest of america will fall behind him. host: next is a democrat in ohio. what do you think? who was the winner and loser in wisconsin? caller: i think the loser is the middle class. the gentleman who was just on is just a case of how the middle class is pitted against each other. huge tax breaks are given to people who make huge amounts of money and middle-class people are arguing amongst each other about things we should not be able to -- we should not have to argue about. people were properly taxed like

they're supposed to be, they would not be having these arguments. i'm not saying that we should not have a competitive business community, but come on. they are making huge amounts of money. i say go on wisconsin. wisconsin is showing the rest of the country what we should be doing as middle-class people. that is sticking together, and not being pitted against each other with stupid comments like communist and socialist. host: you a public employee? caller: i've worked for the uaw and i'm glad to pay union dues. the workplace would be a lot worse if we did not have some sort of representation. these people need that collective bargaining. they've given up everything.

they should not have to give up the pension and health-care benefits that they are wanting to give up. >> thank you for your comments. tucson, independent. good morning. caller: yes, i agree with the second caller from ohio. the first caller from maryland -- the comments were ludicrous. he's a prime example of what is happening. people are voting against their own self-interest for radiological reasons. it's not about ideology. it's about money. those who have, what it all. those who do not have will never get a chance to get anything else. i think it's totally ridiculous. i think walker, he campaigned on a bunch of lies. and a bunch of disconnect -- and

a bunch of discontent. like the lady said, the middle class is shooting each other in the foot and they're not watching what is going on. host: bob, a republican in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. the winner is the governor. the loser is the american media, most of us, for the way they covered the tea party like they were violent. you have these thugs in madison, wisconsin, going through windows, threatening the legislators, carrying communist signs. the american media is the biggest loser and you have stations like msnba. whye's been no inquiry jeffrey immelt can start at this administration at the start. nobody looked into that deal. host: thank you from indiana.

let's listen to the assembly speaker, republican jeb fitzgerald. >> we ran on this. we were going to get the fiscal house in order. this is what we ran in our elections. this is how we pick up 14 seats from you guys. you know what? you thought taxing your way out of a problem, pushing the problems down the road, increasing government spending was the way to go. that is okay, but it was not. the public spoke. they said -- no more. we want you to go to madison and do what we want you to do. host: back to your telephone calls. the wisconsin union legislation -- who was a letter and was the loser? good morning. caller: yes, i've called before. i'm very upset about this. i'm really watching my country devolved into -- i'm going to

say it. yes, fascism. george orwell, the author of "1984" prophetically said decades ago that when fascism comes to america, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross. i'm terrified from what i'm seeing happening here. the parallels between the republicans and the team baggers and the buildup of fascism in nazi germany -- the parallels are enormous. this labeling of communist and socialist -- the backers do not even know the meaning of these words. you think, america, that it will stop with these unions. they are going after the left. this is horrible class warfare. i'm terrified by what i'm seeing happening. i'm terrified of my government,

actually. i'm a lifetime democrat and i'm watching my president -- i'm watching it sherrod brown defending this president. i'm watching my country die. thank you. host: from twitter -- from "usa today" -- all but both the assembly approved the bill. "the outcome is far from settled.

several democratic senators planned to remain in illinois." host: as we talk about with our reporter, dan simmons, democratic leaders have promised to recall -- to begin recall efforts. now is a call from maryland. george is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. i think the american public is the loser in this. there's no way they united states, -- way the united states, which has the lowest rate of union membership, can further destroy unions. after all, they are democratic organizations. they are very well regulated. it is just a shame that this dividing -- this divide and

conquer mentality and the racial identity politics of the republican party seems to be like they are on crack. they cannot stop. the ability of the limbaugh listeners to dominate the republican party is tragic. after all, it was a republican, abraham lincoln, who fled the illinois state legislator rather than vote for the mexican war, which was a war for slavery. abraham lincoln had principal enough to jump out the window of the illinois state legislature. can they not at least admire the moxie of the representatives? host: from "the financial times ."

"and whether the push to restrict union bargaining rights might backfire against the republicans." host: across from this, in "the financial times." the headline, "obama stays out the political bickering." back to telephone calls as we discussed a successful union vote in the wisconsin legislature. who was the winner and loser in wisconsin? good morning to terry, a republican. caller: good morning.

i applaud the governor of wisconsin. we have to make sacrifices if we're going to get the budget down. a lot of them are uncomfortable, ok. the liberal agenda that the democratic party and obama have is insidious. we see id with the -- we see it with the earmarks and taking our liberties away. there the first to call on the republicans as taking our rights and freedoms away. i do not think that's true at all. i think we have to go back to very conservative values. as far as npr goes, the station that calls the tea party people gun-toting racist -- that is ridiculous. tea party people are very intelligent. if they support people's right

to carry guns, they're not unintelligent. let's go, republicans. let's go, conservatives. let's get this country back to our founding principles. thank you. host: greg is a democrat in philadelphia. good morning. caller: good morning. when you say who is the winner and who is the loser, the american people lost big time. the woman who was on the line before me, when she talked about the liberal agenda and these republicans -- i just cannot believe the language and hearing, although some of their mouths. republicanst about taking away union rights. they are trying to privatize america. the privatized two wars. the president may even be guilty of this, as well.

these governments, instead of making government smaller, they are privatizing. instead of infrastructure, they want to put casinos in every city in america. it's almost disgusting, what the politicians are doing to the people of america. to my point, the pencil pena -- the pennsylvania governor put a corporate guide to head his camp. this is happening all over the country. he is talking about cutting the deficit. they're not cutting the deficit at all. just like in michigan, you have the governor taking $1.7 billion from public schools and give $ 1.6 billion to corporations. that's what they're all doing. how can you be fiscally responsible when you are giving tax credits to so many businesses while you're taking

the money from the poror and the working-class people of america? it does not make any sense to me. host: thank you. this tweet -- talking about the union vote in wisconsin by the legislature. the governor is expected to sign it today. we are asking your reaction. who was the winner and loser in wisconsin? a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. the losers are the democrats that led wisconsin. they did not stay and fight for the people of wisconsin, the democrats. the winners are the american people getting back to the conservative agenda. thank you. host: thank you. wisconsin is next. this is a family. emily, you are in the middle of all this. you say you are an independent. what is your view? caller: there's so much

misinformation going around from the news media and our "milwaukee journal" that does not cover both sides of the story. they are in liberal paper. one week before it even came up before the governor and the congress were going to vote on this issue, the union was putting articles in "the milwaukee journal" saying that gov. walker was treating the teachers like slaves and they were not going to go for any of this stuff. this started prior to one week before it went to our wisconsin senate and assembly. since that point, walker got to the point that they were not going to sit down and negotiate with us, then we will figure this out ourselves. the union is going to be the biggest loser of what is happening here. the e-mails going around

wisconsin that all the teachers ' benefits are taken away and they're taking away the collective bargaining -- they are not taking away all the collective bargaining. their only taking away the portion where the union can come to this day and say they give up their health or insurance benefits. i even heard you, when you read it this morning from the newspaper you're reading from that they are taking away collective bargaining. we're only taking away a portion. they want teachers to pay for part of their health insurance and part of their pension. they are not touching anything that has already been given to them. the only thing they want to negotiate with the t-shirts -- the only thing they want to negotiate with the teachers is their wages in the future and what the teachers need to do, a good job in the schools.

as a wisconsin resident, when i see what the unions did, it is awful. because i live here, i see this all the time and it is all over the national press, too. governor walker is getting a bum rap by the unions. i do not think the teachers would have done what they had if the unions would not have come in. regular people were not teachers had to take off work to stay home and take care of their children because the teachers walked off. that was for a couple of days. they lost work. you have to live here to know how bad it is. i think the unions are going to go down major big time. thank you for letting me talked. host: thank you for calling in and giving us a state perspective of this story. the national politics in "the washington post" this morning. "wisconsin won the battle but

not the war, unions say." we will get a call and i will come back to this story. next is a call from los angeles. chase on the line for democrats. caller: thank you for letting me talk. wisconsin got exactly what they deserve. the republicans have been fighting and saying that obama is one to come in, this black guy is going to come in and destroy america and wisconsin fell for it. the owner of facebook just added $2 billion to his net worth. he is $15 billion richer and he added $2 billion to his net worth and the people for the poor are fighting to get basic rights.

host: from twitter -- the new legislation represents a major setback for organized labor, but the political battle over public employees and their right to bargain is likely to continue. despite losing the battle, it would have repercussions across the country. host: kimberly, wisconsin.

wally is a republican. good morning. caller: you cannot give people what you do not have. people go in debt on their own. the government is in that right now, too. you cannot expect the government to keep on paying when they are going in debt. people are not expected to do it. why should the government do it? the people -- you want to think that the people are winning or losing. people can talk like that, but the people are the ones paying the wages of people that are on the government payroll. i also want to mention this. you have people with their 401k 's and this and that three of the most they've ever managed the -- this and that. the most i've ever heard the match is 1/3. these people are asked to pay

5.6%. i do not see that as a problem. why wouldn't they want to? i know they've agreed to that. as far as i know, the bardem agreed to that. -- as far as i know, they have already agreed to that. collective bargaining rights means everybody gets to bargain for what they intend to get. if it is not collected, that does not mean you do not have any bargaining rights. my understanding is collective just means there are a ton of people that are able to express their collective opinion. every time i've asked for a race or every time i've ever asked -- every time i've ever asked for a raise or benefits, that is me. i made 20 or 25 people happy every day by making sure the other stuff works. i used to do maintenance. host: who did you work for?

caller: i did mcginnis for apartments. host: you were not a unionized worker. caller: no, but i worked hard for my living until i could not. i'm not going to get a pension of $400 per week after i retire at the age of 50 something. host: does your job offer a pension system at all? caller: absolutely not. maintenance workers in this vicinity -- i do not know what it is like in chicago where obama used to be a senator when he showed up, but around here -- i'm not against unions. people say that everyone does not have freedom, nobody does. if everyone is not in a union, -- there are people that are working their butts off and there are people like union rights. if everybody does not have it, then nobody has it.

host: thank you. another wisconsin residents calling in. the business section of "the new york times" -- "the burden of tensions on states." camerang to ask of our can go down to this chart. this shows the states with the highest pension replacement rates. the number of public employees covered by collective bargaining agreements. colorado tops the list at 94% -- at 90.4%. the other states with the highest pension replacement rates include new york, georgia, ohio, new jersey, california, kentucky, wisconsin, illinois, nevada, and misesouri. ronald, you are on the air. good morning. caller: they wanted the right away from the women, the people,

the muslims. the people who brought america to their knees are the same people they're going to give these private contracts back to. it was not al-qaeda that brought us down, it was the financial wall streeters and the big businesses. now they want to take away the rights from the unions. who is next? it might be a. have a good day. host: good morning to mark on the line for republicans. go ahead. caller: first off, lincoln jumped out the window because they were afraid they were going to beat him up. that's why he jumped out of the window, ok. like lincoln, the democrats ran away. they are cowards. they do not do their jobs. host: minnesota is next. this is garrick -- is derek on

the line for independents. who was the winner and loser in wisconsin? caller: all the taxpayers are winners. good morning, c-span. this is not an emotional thing. this is about fiscal responsibility. they can make up a great ruckus and they can take over a state capitol, which is outrageous to see this happening in our government. if i was a governor, i would have the national guard out there arresting all those people. this is corruption. we cannot negotiate with ourselves. do you understand these people are third-party unions? they are in control of our dollars and budgets with their states. they're all going bankrupt because of these kind of bargains. take out the unions and negotiate directly with the workers. they are citizens, first. god bless america. host: this tweet --

"washington times" gives front- page coverage to the union vote. take a look at that as we take our next telephone call from florida. this is sonya, a democrat. go ahead. caller: governor walker just gave huge tax breaks to corporations and had the audacity to take away collective bargaining from skilled teachers, who, by the way, have spent thousands for their education and have student loans to pay for and make meager salaries and were -- and are responsible for how well our children perform in class and their futures. if you take away collective bargaining from teachers, then i want to see governor walker take it away from ceo's who negotiate

for a pay packages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. and athletes who performed for basketball teams, football teams, golfers -- they have the ability to negotiate for their bonuses, pay packages, benefits, and there buyout packages to it if he is so eager -- and their by all packages. if he is so eager to take it away from the hard-working teachers, i want to see him take it away from the ceo's and the athletes. if you are going to take away collective bargaining from hard- working people who love spend thousands of dollars for their education, then take it away from those who come in my view, make an urn way too much money. thank you. host: thank you. next is claude on the line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning.

i used to be a union rep. i wish the people out there would just think. today, the unions are just another big business. before this all turned into a fiasco, the national should have stepped in and went after this governor. these people are going to be forced right into obamacare because they're not one to have any insurance. that happens in new york. they kept losing their benefits. the unions sat back on it. thank you. host: thank you for your call. let me show you "the washington times" front-page story. "more than 1/3 of the nation's

$9.3 trillion in pension assets belongs to state and local government employees." host: also on the front page of "the new york times" -- "wisconsin curbs public unions." we are asking -- who was the winner and loser in wisconsin? caller: people of this country have to understand there's not one job owned by the employee. it's always the employer.

before this is over, the taxpayers are going to thank the governor for saving them tax money in the long run. the reason they cannot cut the players' the ball benches is because they're not government employees. they are private employees. the only way this country's going to get back to good employment is for each citizen is to understand that they are not the owner of a job. the employer owns the job. the employees only work for the employer. host: thank you. he reminds us about the nfl worker issue today. there is a deadline that situation, as well. the wisconsin taxpayers are winners, says this person on twitter. we're asking -- who was the winner and loser in wisconsin?

the next is illinois. this is gary -- is jerry on the line for democrats. caller: police officers, firemen, i guess their collective bargaining rights will be compromised, as well. as it relates to who is the winner and losers, i think students are losers. teaching is an extremely demanding profession 3 you have to deal with so many issues that students face -- is a very demanding profession. you have to deal with so many issues that students face. teachers are not only teaching subject matter. they're doing a lot of things that people cannot imagine. you have a teacher up dealing with economic issues and not having secure employment, that will impact how they teach their students. it's important that teachers have the stability.

anyone in the profession has to know that. are you a teacher? caller: yes, i am. host: how long have you been teaching? caller: about 15 years. we are having a lot of problems. it's amazing that teachers are viewed as a scapegoat. i do not understand how that came about. it's a situation where we are saying that there are economic issues and everyone must take cuts and so forth. the union understands they have to make some concessions, but they are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. there are concessions that have to be made, and there has to be some kind of fairness. governor walker came in with a hatchet. it's unbelievable that teachers are used as a scapegoat. there has to be concessions. like republicans have said, we're all going through some issues. i understand that. to do what they did is

absolutely devastating. host: we're running out of time. thank you for offering your comment. this is from a person on twitter. related stories. "the wall street journal" front page. "families sliced debt to the lowest in six years." host: on middle east oil supplies, here's the front page of "the washington post" as the crisis in libya continues.

we'll be talking with a congresswoman about this and other foreign policy objectives in our program -- are shortened program on this friday morning. back to telephone calls on the wisconsin vote. central valley, california. good morning to joyce, an independent. caller: i'm from the central valley in california, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. i believe the biggest loser in the wisconsin vote is the entire state of wisconsin. we had a recall election with gov. davis and we got governor schwarzenegger. now look where we stand. they want to pay educated people to do very hard work down to minimum wage. these people will not be able to pay their mortgages, much less their medical insurance.

they need to look into their senators, also, that pulled this whatever you want to call it. it looks like you will be spending more money in court then the whole thing with the union. it's a sad day for america. host: thank you for your call. states are looking for additional sources of revenue. they've been looking for an online sales taxation. in this morning's "the wall street journal" --

host: back to phone calls. pauls valley, oklahoma. carol on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that a lot of people are calling -- they have what they don't have. all boils down to the haves and the have nots. the people without any pension benefits, instead of joining a union and trying to collectively bargain and get them some rights, they want to drag down everybody to their level. everybody will be working for peanuts instead of an income. they do not ever say -- while the state is saving all this money, what are they going to spend the savings on?

the public needs to decide what public services they're willing to pay for. i work for the public and i'm not going to -- i work in a prison. i'm not going to do my job for free. people need to understand. if you want to be protected in society or you want great roads to drive on, you need to decide what you are going to spend your money on. you know, the taxes are collected and should be to the benefit of everyone. if those people in wisconsin bargained in good faith, gave up concessions for their pensions and their salaries, then they should -- the state should live up to that bargain. host: thank you. "the wall street journal" has a map to give you a sense of the national situation.

all the states in black, public employees have some collective bargaining rights. this is all public-sector unions that we are talking about. the great color -- the grey-c olored states, collective bargaining only for police and fire. in the lightest, public employees have more meet and confer rights. the states in white, utah, arizona, arkansas, louisiana, north carolina, south carolina -- no rights for public workers established by law. the next call is from jeff, a republican in indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to respond to the lady in florida with a -- that we should take away bonuses and the high pay a ceo's of private companies and athletes.

they are forgetting -- those people went out in the private sector and earned that money. it's not taxpayer dollars that are finding them. they earn it. these people in wisconsin and the same thing is going on in indiana -- yes, they earn that money. jesse jackson said we must all share a little pain in this recovery. it strikes me ironic that everyone else is sharing in the pain except those in the public unions. no. that is not sharing. they are holding the taxpayer hostage. demand.and, demand, in my hometown, they just got a 4% raise for public employees.

there's another group that is negotiating a 4% raise. i have a hard time wrapping my head around that when everyone else is struggling and there are people out of work. these people are being paid and it is a fact that for a comparable job in the private sector, they would not make what they're making now and have the insurance benefits that they have. people out there pay nothing for their insurance. host: thank you very much for participating. a short show this morning. the house is in an 9:00 a.m. the gridiron dinner this weekend, the annual event of key journalists. it's a private club of 65 members. they get to invite a guest. as we have come every year, c-

span has asked for a camera coverage. it is closed to cameras. the president of the club says it is open to reporting after the dinner. we send our request. they will not allow cameras in this year. our letter to the gridiron club is posted on c-span.org, if you are interested in the case we made to the gridiron club for coverage, which they nicely, but nonetheless, declined three we're going to take a break. when we come back, you'll meet kevin yoder, a member of the appropriations committee. we will move from what's happening in the state to what's happening in the capital as the two states try to find compromise. in the break, we will give you updating reporting from nhk on the earthquake and tsunami in

japan in the overnight hours. >> east japan rail road company has suspended operations in tokyo and surrounding areas. the stoppage will stay in effect until it has confirmed the safety of the train lines. the tokyo's subway company has suspended all operations. the national airport near tokyo has decided to remain closed for the time being. the flight schedules have been disrupted. most highways connecting tokyo with northeastern parts of japan have been closed. some bus companies have resumed operations in tokyo. company officials say they are considering offering extra services if train operations remain shut down. power supply has been disrupted.

more than four million buildings in tokyo and surrounding buildings lost power soon after the earthquake hit and many places remain in the dark. another 4.5 million homes and buildings have also been hit by a power failure. phone lines and telephone signals have been disrupted over wide areas. police say at least 44 people have been confirmed dead so far. in the three northeastern prefectures, at least 34 people are dead. five people have been killed and many more are missing. in tokyo and three neighboring prefectures, 10 people are reported to have died. local police also reported that many people are dead in the coastal area of northern japan. prefecture police say at least 44 people have been confirmed dead so far as we have reported.

and the three northeastern prefectures, at least 34 people are dead. a local fire department says a facility has collapsed and killed five people and left many were missing. >> "washington journal" continues. host: let me introduce you to a freshman member of congress, kevin yoder, republican of kansas and a member of the appropriations committee. your first visit to the "washington journal." thank you for being here. glad to have you. we are going to talk about the federal budget and job creation. let's talk about the next strategy steps for the house republicans. "the wall street journal" is reporting a three-week bill on spending will be offered. can you tell us more? guest: house leadership is working on putting together a package of spending reductions that will keep the government open while keeping their commitment to reducing the size of the federal budget. about a week and have ago, we

passed a two-week extension that will expire on march 18. we are working on trying to come up with another extension. the end goal is to come up with an extension until the end of the fiscal year, which ends in september. in the meantime, as we try to negotiate what that bill will look like with the senate, we need to keep the government operating. our commitment is to reduce spending while doing that. i think our bill will continue to cut billions in spending while keeping the government functioning. host: how important is it for you to keep the government functioning? guest: i do not think the americans sent us here to shut down government. they sent us here to solve problems and reduce the size of the budget. i think americans in both parties from coast to coast want people in washington to lead and solve problems and reduce the size of the federal budget. i do not think shutting down the budget is the message that the americans are sending to us. they want us to try to solve problems.

host: i want to show a brief clip from the senate floor. majority leader harry reid yesterday. let's listen. >> i can only speak for my caucus. we accept the lessons of yesterday's vote. we know we will have to make a sacrifice to reach consensus. we are willing to do that. republicans have to be willing to move their position also. host: i have a number of questions. as a freshman member of the house, what has your lesson than about the bicameral legislature and when things move to the senate floor? guest: we are two for two. the senate is struggling in finding a consensus. the senate and house operate differently. the republicans are a minority in washington with the senate run by the democrats as well as the executive branch.

we know we will not be able to push something through without the senate in gauging and doing their part. we are all watched fall. we are doing everything we can to try to advocate for what we think they should do. ultimately, the senate will have to leave. at this point, it does not seem like they have a concise plan. host: i want to give you the phone numbers so you can join in on the conversation about funding the government for this year. also, there's work going on on the 2012 federal budget. you can reach us by e-mail and twitter. lots of ways to get involved if you would like to ask questions of kevin yoder of kansas. he also suggested that republicans will need to compromise. how willing are you to

compromise? guest: we do not think the legislation the house passed has gone far enough. we are running a trip to sit -- we're running a deficit of $1.5 trillion. the bill would reduce spending by about $5 billion. the rest of the year, we have to figure that out. we think reductions need to be greater than what the house has passed. we're not trying to force a government shutdown. we're not trying to put people in a situation where there are so many poison pills that they cannot accept the legislation. the same time, we just had an election. there's a new republican majority in the house precisely because we ran on the platform of change in the course of business in this town and reducing spending. we feel we need to stick to those principles. we understand we have to cooperate. host: papers are filled with some of the consequences of

cutting the federal budget stories. here are two. "the washington times." of course, this extends to municipalities, as well. they're talking about the sudden loss of block grants. they have said it is irresponsible, vicious, and hateful attack on the middle class that they would be cut and cut so quickly. this is "the new york times" this morning, talking about the consequences of cutting head start. this is an editorial in "the washington times" about ethanol subsidies. when it comes from talking globally to talking about specific programs, where are your bottom lines? what kind of programs are you willing to cut?

how are you approaching this philosophically? guest: it's very difficult when you start talking about every program and the impact to individuals. my heart goes out to americans held by programs that we've had to eliminate or reduce. i do not think we relish the idea in any of the situations that we are having to make these discussions. we are borrowing over 40 cents out of every $1 we spend in washington. it is not responsible. ever -- americans across the country have to do more with less. why can't the government? the folks in washington keep spending more and more. there are hundreds and hundreds of programs across this town that do things for americans that provide a service to them that is beneficial. we cannot afford all of them. that's the challenge. we are taking the tough task of finding reductions. i do not believe we can leave parts of the budget and approached. i think everything has to be on

the table. host: does that include social security, medicare, and medicate? we would never talk about any reform affecting 55 or older. we have to be careful about the debate. seniors who are at the age of retirement or receiving benefits or social security, they can rest assured that their benefits are protected. for the folks that are 55 years and under, we will have to enter a national dialogue. do we want to have dramatically higher taxes? i think that is where we are right now. we are engaged in a dialogue with the american people. we are not trying to ram it through congress. we are doing town hall meetings and discussing the problems that we face and are asking for input from americans. the ideas are not going to come from a roomful of bureaucrats.

host: the age has been addressed in the past. why are they off the table right now? guest: i think adjusting benefits for folks currently receiving them is not something we want to do in washington. we think folks 55 years and older who have determined that have paid in four decades into the system -- which do not think it is fair to start throwing them off of benefits. we want to figure out a long- term plan for those folks in their 20s, 30s, and 40's and figure out a system that works for us going forward. the younger generation has to figure this out. we will, with some solutions that provide for a balanced budget that will create prosperity that we all want. host: i want to get to some calls. let's begin with st. louis, missouri. jerry, you are on the air.

good morning to you. what are you thinking as you are watching this debate? caller: i have heard everything but i have not heard them wanting to give up anything. [unintelligible] host: ok. members of congress and how they are situated. guest: i think members of congress could give up just like anyone else. when i was in the legislature for eight years, we passed legislation to reduce our own pay. i think congress should step up and do those similar things. i think we should sacrifice and lead by example. i would be supportive of legislation or an amendment that would come to the floor. one of the things we first did was reduce our budget for our office.

we cut spending on expenses in our own office. that was a start. i agree with the caller. host: this tweet - guest: this is the essence of the national debate. there are folks who believe we should spend more money in washington to create more jobs back home. where i come from in kansas, we are not getting stimulus dollars that are creating all of these jobs. what creates jobs for small business owners and for folks who need help is helping small businesses so they can have the ability to create, innovate, create entrepreneurial programs. that is where jobs are created at home. i do not believe that sending more tax revenue to washington will create jobs or get this economy going. i think it will have the

opposite effect. the other senate is the history shows the more money we sent to washington the more money they spend. i think americans might be more comfortable sending money to washington if they knew it was going to pay down the debt and create solvency. washington would spend more money and the debt will continue to grow. we do not have the revenue program. we have the revenue problem. we have a spending problem. many of these programs are growing far faster than the rate of inflation. we have to cut back. we cannot spend more money that we have. there is a culture in this town that believes they can spend as much as they want regardless of what they have, and americans are fed up with that attitude. host: our next call comes from cape cod. good morning. caller: good morning. i have not heard this

representatives say anything about corporate america helping out america as well. everybody has to help out. why are we giving the subsidies to these oil companies? why are we giving these corporate tax breaks? he keeps saying don't tax the wealthy because they create jobs. from what i understood, there are no jobs. they had these tax breaks for the past eight years or 10 years. when you keep saying the mom- and-pop stores, savings on taxes, give them a tax break because they can hire more people, but your small business policy does not apply to them. it applies to the corporations, the millionaires, and they have maybe four or five employees. you are talking about -- you want us to take the hit as the

middle-class, but corporate america and the upper echelon does not want to pay their fair share. where is the fair balance there? guest: i think there is a culture of overspending and washington. we want to create an efficient and effective government that spends dollars wisely. the challenge is why are we spending so much? i understand the caller's concern that jobs are not being created in the private sector. we have already done that. the federal government is much larger than the needs to be. we need to stimulate job growth back home, and i do not believe greater taxes on small businesses or any businesses is going to encourage them to create jobs. many of the policies that have come out of washington, all the loot -- all the new rules and regulations have created a very hostile climate in this country

for folks to create jobs so people are shipping jobs overseas, not keeping them at home. we have one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world. my dream for this country is we would have the best place in the world to create jobs, started business, and build the prosperity of this country. i do not believe that raising taxes is going to recreate the prosperity that americans want to have it. i have a disagreement with a collar. i think is the wrong direction to take this country. host: we are trying with our limited national resource to keep an eye on the earthquake and tsunami story. the associated press has just announced and msnbc has tweeted that japan is issuing an evacuation order to thousands of residents near a nuclear power plant. certainly, we will keep an eye

on this. we will keep an eye on breaking news. this is a big day for people who are following what is going on in the world. jobs. i pulled the baltimore sun because it is typical of what is going on a run the country. home sales rising. we look at your own on and on the rate in kansas and kansas city and the city itself. what is happening with jobs in your district? against coke the job numbers that you are refering to -- guest: the job numbers that you are referring to -- the economy is probably stronger -- keep tax rates low and

below regulatory environment in kansas. we try to foster innovation through small businesses. we try to be very welcome to capital and growth. one of the things we are focused on in the kansas city is bioscience. host: arthur government subsidies supporting that? ? there are research dollars the come to our university. as i said, we are making these reductions in washington. some of these things hit home. i voted to reduce a lot of these things because i cannot continue to borrow 40 cents out of every dollar. even if it has an impact on federal money that transfers from my constituents to washington back home. we believe a lot of these projects and programs back home can be run better locally with state involvement. we think if we spend money in

washington, we get less money back. it has to go through the bureaucracy. the other issue at home is it is not just the unemployment rate. there are folks across the community that do not show up on those numbers that are taking pay cuts and struggling to survive it. what they are not asking for is another washington bailout. they are not asking for greater taxes. a great example is the 1009 and a requirement that we recently passed in the house to repeal, a requirement that every business in the transactions has to fill out irs paperwork. it is a bureaucratic nightmare. we are trying to help those businesses that can't create jobs. host: the next call is from tampa. good morning, becky. caller: good morning.

thank you for c-span. if we were not in two wars and the bush administration wanting to have hired the tsa, home and security, gave some much money to the defense department, we would be in a whole lot better shape than what we are in. certain things you are asking us to make concessions -- we make concessions every day. it's not one person in the senate or in the house are saying -- not one person in the senate or in the house are saying anything about their benefits. i am tired of the working people taking this from people like you. you did not answer the man's question in wisconsin. when are you going to make concessions? get us out of these two wars that cost us billions every three days. that is our problem. thank you.

host: thank you. guest: i do not spend my time focusing on which president or which congress made the mistakes. we could go through and re- debate a lot of these decisions. this is one of the biggest class's in history of new members because americans in both parties, independents across this country, are tired of seeing washington spend more money than it has that. that goes for domestic programs and defense programs. i think there are reductions that can be made. i believe that as the president works to remove troops overseas, we will start reducing those costs. these are things that we need to have. there are reductions that need to be made everywhere, including defense and our activities overseas in the middle east.

we are spending more money than we have that. we will have to approach all parts of the budget. i believe that we do need to -- i would support an amendment or bill on the floor that would do that. i am happy to do that. i think that is the type of leadership that we need to display. we reduced our own salaries. frankly, that is and then we could do here. host: next call is from virginia beach. good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i am 73 years old. and i have seen the federal government grow like [unintelligible] when the republicans came in, all of them said they were going to cut spending levels back for federal agencies. they seem to be just nibbling around the edges.

every federal agency above baseline got an increase every year of 4% to 7%. bush came in and cut it back to 4%. when the democrats took over, they raised it again 10% to 15%. in 2009, obama increased it another 28%. that is why that debt clock is ticking over and over again. the republicans promised to cut it back to 2008 levels. we are all going to have to suffer pain. what do you cut it back to 2008 levels right now instead of nibbling around the edges? guest: i think the bill that we passed to get to that $100

billion market republicans pledged to reduce in spending -- we are in the process now where the senate is making a very minimal set of reductions. they are looking at $6 billion worth of reductions. those dollars are real. they are necessary to make reductions. i agree with the caller that we are just nibbling around the edges. the house wants to make some startling reductions. we are does moving chairs around the titanic. we have to get serious. we need to government reform. i am ready to lead and be part of that. what is about is spending the money that we have and not borrowing 40 cents of every dollar. americans get it. there are small businesses and family budgets that they have to cut back. they are demanding more and more and more. i am looking on the appropriations committee for new

submissions that request thousands of new employees. the folks in washington just do not get it. we are here as new members in this congress to let them know that americans are fed up with the overspending. the caller makes an important point about of the increases that have happened over the years. this is less about party and more about sanity and fiscal responsibility. host: this is from honolulu, the prediction that the tsunami will be reaching the shores of hawaii at 3:07 a.m. eastern time. that is 8:07, right about now. we are waiting to hear about the impact of these waves. it is suggested from the national weather service that the alarms started sending overnight for people in the

coastal zones. it looks like the largest wave will be 2 meters, more than 6 feet, and all residents in the inundation zones have been ordered to evacuate beginning at 12:18 pm we are waiting for this big earthquake, resulting in a tsunami, to hit u.s. shores momentarily. we will keep you posted. we have about 10 minutes left with congressmen kevin yoder. henry is a democrat. you are on the air. caller: kevin, i would like for you, if you are really serious about doing something about the budget, first of all, i would like you to take some leadership and introduce a bill that would, of course, cut or make sure that congress pays for

more of their medical, make sure the congress takes a pay cut, introduce a bill that will cut subsidies to all states for every dollar that each state sends to the federal government. they should get a dollar back. there are no states that should have any kind of an advantage over another state. the republicans do not like government. then cut all of your government contracts. do not accept any more than your state sends in federal dollars. go to the 400 richest people who have more than 155 million people in this country in wealth and ask them to pay their fair share of the taxes. if you are not just trying to raise the misery index and make

president obama look bad and position your cells for 2012, then you will start doing some serious legislation that cuts everyone across the board, especially the ceo's and the thieves that got us into this position with the bonds that they sold and securitization -- host: thanks. we get your point britis. guest: i am not anti-government. what we are is looking to find an effective and efficient use of government resources. right now, there is a tremendous amount of government waste and inefficiency in this town. programs are growing without results. americans know that spending more money in washington is not going to create jobs back home.

i don't think the answer is going out and attacking americans, ceo's, individuals across this country and sending more money to washington. that is not the answer. where will have to decide. do we want a country that barrault's and spends and taxes and regulates and is that the answer to prosperity? do we want to create a free enterprise system of economic freedom for individuals to grow and create jobs at home? usually the answer in washington is for every problem there is a new regulation or a government program. the gao cannot with a list of hundreds of duplications in which we have -- the g a zero came out with a list of hundreds of duplications -- the diego came out with a list of hundreds of duplications -- the gao came out with a list of hundred of

duplications. i think americans are tired of that. i think what they want to see us do is balance our budget and live within our means. if we do not reduce spending right now and get this budget in line, in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, we are in a huge crisis. we are going to be bankrupt soon. the wall street journal reported earlier this week that we borrowed $200 billion a year in interest today. in 10 years, we are going to borrow almost $1 trillion in interest. the shipping of resources overseas to foreign countries that are learning this money. we have to decide what kind of country we want. what does america look like? i believe the best one we can create is one that creates prosperity in this system that allows individuals to work and grow and create jobs at home, not a system full of government spending and waste, bureaucracy,

taxation, regulation. i do not think that is the america that we want to build. the idea that we want to go home and attack folks and raise taxes and send more money to washington, that is not going to solve the problem. we have to work toward balancing this budget. host: we are out of time. i know you have already returned to your all of modern to students. can you give our viewers your overriding impression of what it is like to be in the house? guest: is an amazing experience. at the problems that we are facing are very challenging but we have a new group of folks who are very optimistic. i still believe that we can rebuild this country and restore the principles that made us so prosperous and such a beacon of hope around the world. it is very humbling and a job

that i believe the american people are counting on us to get the job done. i get up every day with the purpose of getting to work and trying to restore the principles and values of this country. host: think you for making your first c-span appearance. we will continue this discussion about federal spending with a special focus. nita lowey will be here to argue the case in our next break. yesterday, hillary clinton was before the appropriations subcommittee on the state and foreign operations talking about libya. let's listen to her and then we will be back. >> we are working to create an international consensus because we think that is critical. you can see that there is a lot of ambivalence in the

international community because for the reasons that you pointed out people do not know what the opposition represents. they do not know the most effective way to try to get rid nova muammar gaddafi. everyone is working hard. nato is working hard. we are looking at every option imaginable. at the same time, we are pushing out on humanitarian assistance and. we really believe that getting in as much help particularly for those leaving libya but also increasingly if we can figure out how to do it safely assisting those on the ground who are running short of medical supplies who need doctors, in some instances clean water, etc., that we are able to help them when we get a clear way of doing that. we are treading to sanction excess that he has in his account.

we are trying to make it clear that there will be accountability in the international criminal court and other steps taken. i appreciate the tenure of your questions because if this was easy we would have already done it. this is not in egypt where we had 30 years of relationship. it is a much less easily understood the situation, but we are making progress, talking to a lot of the opposition leaders. i will be meeting with them myself. we are suspending our relationships with the existing libyan embassy. we expect them to end operating as the embassy of libya. we are looking to see whether there is any willingness in the international community to provide any authorization for further steps. i am one of those who believe that absent international

authorization -- the united states acting alone would be stepping into a situation whose consequences are unforeseeable. host: that was secretary clinton yesterday in front of the committee of which nita lowey is a ranking member. thank you for being here this morning. we have a lot going on today. i am going to start with libya. again, leaders in europe are meeting, france pushing for a no-flight zone. what are your thoughts about the u.s. involvement level? how big should it be? why is that a good -- disco hit it is clear to me after discussing this in debt -- guest: the administration is actively involved in strategy sessions and discussions with the international community. the united states cannot act

independently. people may say no fly-zones, they may come up with all kinds of actions, but, number one, there are implications as secretary gates said to every one of the proposals. unless we act with the international community, i do not think it will be affected for us to take any action by ourselves. we have spoken out publicly. it is absolutely apparent that its leader is shooting and killing his own people. i hope there can be some consensus. host: we were anticipating that the big story would be saudi arabia. we heard some reports that there may have been some government shots fired into the crowd as they were assembling last night.

it is all but eclipsed by japan and the earthquake followed by the tsunami. guest: i just came back from japan as a part of a congressional exchange program. they are good allies. they have been an active member of the six-party talks in the region which is so very essential. this is just devastating. when you read the reports after you just met so many members and their leadership and you have been in their homes and you have had such in-depth discussions over three or four days, to see this happening is just devastating. japan is probably one of the most organized places i have ever visited. the streets are clean. the people are polite. there is a plan for everything that has to happen.

i know that they have been preparing for a possible earthquake or tsunami for a long time. preparing for it and then responding when the tall buildings are shaking and people are losing their lives, hopefully the lives lost will be kept to a minimum because of the preparations. host: this is also a domestic story. the waves are beginning to reach the coastline in hawaii. it is scheduled to do so right now as we are speaking. if you were just treated to us that oregon coastal areas are being evaluated. this.r is great ofor i want to talk about foreign aid spending. let's use an example of japan. when something of that magnitude hits, the international community gets

involved. we send resources. how do we budget for federally unexpected disasters? guest: first of all, our foreign aid budget is 01% of our total expenditures. i believe with many of the new members of congress that we should be evaluating every program, cutting out waste, fraud, and abuse. certainly there are programs that may not be as efficient as others. even in the foreign aid program when i was the chair and ranking member, we worked together in a bipartisan way to make sure there was oversight. we are sending billions of dollars to afghanistan, billions of dollars to pakistan. the total budget is only 1%. i got a deep, black.

about the $3 billion that was on a palette going from afghanistan. i immediately held up all that money until we came to a conclusion and an understanding as to where that money came from and where it was going. we provide excellent oversight on our foreign aid budget and weekends to do more because we have -- and we can still do more. when you see what happens in japan, they do not get foreign aid. in disasters such as what happened in haiti, we can respond and we do respond. number one, it is in the interest of the national security of the united states to respond to disasters. we know that when communities and countries in turmoil -- this can cause tremendous action on

the part of terrorist organizations such as al-qaeda recruiting people who do not have food, clothing, or clean water. i think it is important to remember 1% of the budget. our national security depends on defense, diplomacy, and our budget. host: i want to put a set of numbers on the screen and then go to your telephone calls. we are going to be out early today because house will be in session a half hour from now. the present for this fiscal year requested $56.7 billion. the amount suggested in the continuing resolution by the house, $45 billion. you have been speaking saying that is shortsighted. guest: number one, our national security, the united states of

america depends on defense dollars. those are being cut, too, but not in proportion to foreign aid. defense, diplomacy, and development. turmoil, terrorists -- they find a very for tile soil when they are in communities that are lacking the basic essentials of life. it is in our interest. secondly, we are amoral society. ithere are many people who support foreign aid because they understand it is important to help people whether it is hiv aids, malaria, drinking water. i have been to some countries where family planning is not adequate, and women who can barely support their children are having a ninth or a tent child. it is in the interest of the united states.

we are a society that believes we have to be helpful to others. host: one last article and then to your calls. the treasury secretary has been on capitol hill trying to make the case for maintaining funding levels for key foreign aid programs. here is the headline.

let's get to your telephone calls a. new york, cathy, a republican. go ahead. caller: i just want to tell the representative that my feeling is that we should have absolutely nothing to do with the libyan conflict. the best thing we can possibly do is to help the president of our country stand up and publicly state that the european union and the islamic countries need to solve this.

i don't really give a damn anymore whether we are a humanitarian or whatever we are. this is not our fight. i have a son in the united states navy. he is in the enterprise battle group. he is currently deployed. the last thing i want to have happened is handstanding off the coast of libya and our blood and treasure going to something that is not our fight. guest: thank you for your eloquence. i hope your son will come home soon. we have to understand that we are not living in isolation. i want to go back to a point that was made before and the article that susan read about the banks. we are focused like a laser beam in our country on jobs. that is what we should be doing,

creating jobs and putting people to work. the banks, by creating markets overseas, by investing in development and training and working in partnership with other countries, creates jobs because our exports to these countries are increased. it is not just because we are good people, also we are. it is in the national security interest of the united states, and when a disaster occurs, we have an obligation to be helpful. i know we will as we have been in haiti and responding to other disasters. host: next is its duty, an independent. -- next is judy, an independent. caller: i see some money going out for [unintelligible] things like that. i see a lot of money going up for military aid to governments

that are not necessarily too nice to their people. i would like to know the proportion of military aid we are sending to actual humanitarian aid. guest: that is a good question. it is about 20 times or more. i happen to agree with you. secretary gates and general petraeus and admiral mullin have made that point very well. we see in afghanistan that the civilian aid is absolutely essential to resolving this conflict. we are putting many, many billions more dollars in the defense program then in the civilian side. i think that has to be changed, hopefully in my lifetime. host: good morning. caller: i am from westchester county.

hello. i would love to have a town meeting with ms. lowey so we can look eye to eye so we do not have to be on the telephone for 40 hours to ask a question. howl are our national interests involved in helping women have babies in other countries? how does that help our national interest? the other two ladies -- we are involved in other countries, giving money to their military. a couple of years down the road, they are knifing us in the back. we have to stop giving all this aid to governments and let them figure out what they want to do. for heaven's sakes, it is not in our national interest to give money to people to stop

having babies in the third world countries. we have to help our own citizens. that is all i would like to say. maybe one of these days, which will have a nice, big town hall meeting where mrs. lowey is actually there. guest: i have been in office for 22 years. every year, i go to the supermarkets, libraries, office hours, and please call my office. you do not have to wait for a great, big meeting. i would be delighted to meet you one-on-one. i think it is important to know that we do not live in isolation. we are all connected. in the days of one part of the world and not getting to the other part -- what happens, be it in japan or china, what happens in afghanistan,

pakistan, is certainly relevant to our own security here. i mentioned the banks before because i am very concerned about jobs in west chester county. i have worked hard to get fda loans so we can help businesses expand. in terms of international assistance, again, we export to japan. they export to us. we export to china. we are all interconnected. when there are asian flus, they are exported as well. i would be happy to talk to you further. host: we are trying to give you some news updates on the earthquake and tsunami as we talk here about these federal spending priorities. this is a sad story.

as many as 300 bodies have been found in one city. the next telephone call as we talk about foreign spending with congresswoman nita lowey. this is a real personal story for her this morning. caller: i just want to say that i believe in giving foreign aid to people because people around the world need the help. a lot of the money goes to governments that keep it for themselves. as i was growing up as a kid, [unintelligible] i think they need to do a lot more in this country. thank you. guest: and thank you, sir. i do want to say that a good deal of our aid is delivered to

organizations like save the children who are working with families and villages. there is a small group in guatemala, for example, that is training people to make products such as pocket books so they can sell them and support their own families. let's remember, again, we are living in a global economy. we are living in a global world it. if there are diseases abroad, they can come here. if there is a disaster abroad, because of the good nature of the people of the united states of america, we do want to assist as in haiti. i do want to say that mexico, which is right on the border of texas, we may be assisting and training their police force and their military, but it is in the interest of the united states of america keeping us safe here to

help those in mexico. host: how is your working relationship with the new chair? guest: she is a delight. she is from texas. now she is chair and i am the ranking member. and maybe the only committee with two women. host: you feel that even though you have different priorities for spending, you can find consensus? guest: there is no question. many of our priorities are the same. we are looking to the whole budget to make sure every dime is spent effectively and there is no waste. the gentleman talked before about giving funds to the people rather than the government. corruption has been a big issue for me as it has been for secretary clinton. recently, when the president tried to raise taxes, there was a mass demonstration. frankly, if we are giving all of

that aid, there should be many more people paying their taxes especially at the top level. host: the next call is from new york. good morning. caller: i should probably say i am a tea party member more than a republican. i think andrew cuomo is doing some very good things for the state. i am so mad at the entire congress. our debt payments are larger than the state budget. we are destroying this country with the massive level of debt we are piling up. neither party is willing to do anything. one party is offering a third of a percent. while we are racking up debt at exponential levels. guest: let me say, number one, i have known in drew, since he was a kid. he lived to run the corner from

me in queens. i am very proud of him and i think he is doing a good job. secondly, i happen to agree that we have to tackle the debt. i am opposed to the $40 billion in subsidies to the oil industry. there are many special cause outs for large corporations and businesses that we have to attack. there has been major assaults on appropriations and earmarks. i have always said that you have to be careful when you provide a legislative director of it earmarked. no one is looking at the special giveaways. i think we have to do a lot more because addressing the debt is essential n. but you cannot do it with a sledgehammer. with ave to do it in scalpel. teachers would of been laid off. the programs would of been cut.

title 1 programs would of been cut. money to the national institutes of health providing research for cancer, alzheimer's, diabetes, wouldn't been cut. i am hoping we can come to some bipartisan solution in the senate so rationality will prevail rather than this hammer approach of cutting. host: from twitter -- guest: let me say that there has to be a balance because we provide a lot of money, if you are talking about haiti, to the non-governmental organizations. there are over 10,000 of them in haiti. they are there to deal with humanitarian services to help

build better schools. unless we train the government, unless we work with the institutions, i am very concerned that we are not going to accomplish what we really have to do, and that is removing ourselves. the non-government organizations cannot be there forever. the institutions have to train to deliver the services. what want to see if we want to develop communities outside of port-au-prince, i want to see what i call a community of learning, a school at the center of the community, and around that, job opportunities. a big career inferred just announced they were going to have a business in it -- a big korean firm just announced they were going to have a business in haiti. the purpose of foreign aid is to

help people help themselves. host: our next call is another new yorker, william, a democrat. caller: i would like to suggest several reasons why the the eight budget should be cut. the d.a. has offices in 63 countries and that is way too much. the second reason is [unintelligible] medical marijuana [unintelligible] something that congress is lagging behind with sentiment on this issue. i think this is something that needs to be cut. i think the people need to question its such as the congresswoman. guest: thank you, sir. i would say to you that the legalization of drugs is a debate that we really have to have. certainly in mexico when you see the drug cartels that have

infiltrated the military, infiltrated the police, our guns going over to mexico, and the drugs coming from central america to mexico to the united states -- we have to work on our drug control programs here. we have to try and do something about more effective programs to stop people from getting addicted to drugs. but i think the legalization of drugs is clearly a debate that we have to have that. host: the next call is from the bahamas. zack, you are on the air. caller: the national times that you were " prettquoting. host: i did not know the ownership of the financial times.

caller: you may want to check that. that is not the only publication that muammar gaddafi owns. ms. lowey, you strike me as very naive when it comes to foreign -- i am surprised that you are on the forum committee. -- on the foreign aid committee. i am familiar with eastern europe. i have some background there. anything is better than muammar gaddafi. the person leading the rebels has a ph.d. i am surprised the protesters and libya -- they are sitting

ducks. maybe some kind of advice [unintelligible] i tell you, anything is better than muammar gaddafi. that is my comment. guest: let me say that you certainly seemed well informed. the secretary of state and the president are very aggressively involved in this issue. the secretary of state is going to egypt, tunisia, and libya. i think she is leaving on sunday and working actively with other members of the community. our military is in afghanistan. we are in so many parts of the world. it seems to me although i would like to stop the murder rings and the killings immediately that we have to work in coordination with the international community. host: here is a headline from the washington post, the lead

story today. you suggest the white house is actively involved. there are critics who are saying they have been dragging their feet. what is your reaction? guest: well, i think words are find but action is what really counts. we have our forces in afghanistan right now. we are actively training and working in pakistan. and i would like to say that there should be a no fly-zone. then in my conversations with the secretary and others, it is not necessarily the whole solution. i think our secretary of state

going there this week, the beginning of next week, and working with the other members of the community is essential, speaking out and supporting the opposition is one thing. but sending our young men and women abroad is another. i think that they are being cautious but very directive in their thought process. host: let's move to the larger discussion over the continuing resolution. we hear there are republicans that going to announce another short-term continuing resolution with cuts. guest: i wish i had a vision that could assure me that we would not be making massive cuts that are really going to affect not just my community but all around. we have to be very careful when

we appropriate at the time of the huge debt. let's remember that when president clinton left the white house, we had a surplus. let's just remember that. we are all part of this effort in looking for waste, fraud, and abuse, but you cannot use a hammer. in my district, when i talked to several hundred people who are involved with head start, these are working people. what they going to do with their kids? there are teachers who are preparing to be laid off because there is no money at the state or local level to support them. police, firefighters, the national institutes of health. i am hoping we can do it in a bipartisan way and come up with a plan that does not get to the bones of our government and our

services to the people. host: we are going to be taking this weekend at the virginia festival of books on "book tv." we are going to be alive at this weekend from the organization of american historians. we will have live panel sessions on both saturday and sunday on c-span3. anbama, diana is independent. caller: i appreciate you taking my call. in reference to the foreign aid, let's bring that down to the united states grassroots. well with the perception be of me if i took my husband's income

and went across the road and fixed my neighbor's roof and painted his house and advised his children while at the same time allowing my home to deteriorate? there are advertisements on the tv to help feed the children. now they are putting u.s. children in there. i wish they would amend that and make it not north american free trade but make it north american fair trade because the blue- collar labor of the united states is not surviving here. we cannot protect or clothe our own. we have to take care of home first. guest: thank you and i appreciate your thoughtful comments. i visit the food banks in westchester county, n.y., and

the numbers have just increased dramatically, not just the people who are out of work, but people who have low-paying jobs and cannot afford to feed their family. that is why i and working so hard in the congress to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. to me, this is what our primary responsibility is it. when the unemployment rate keeps climbing, we have to focus on jobs. i agree with you that putting people to work is uppermost and is why i support the programs of the small business administration. in my community, i have seen jobs in the biotech field, going from 400 to about 1600. another company that installs solar panels went to half a dozen people to over 100 people because of support from some of

the small business administration programs. so, we have to focus like a laser beam on creating jobs. again, we do not live in isolation. what happens overseas affects us. china, for example, is taking our jobs, is frankly exporting more than we are exporting. this affects us. i mentioned the avian flu. people fly. they travel around the world. the flu does not stay in one place. we are all interconnected. when there is turmoil in one part of the world, it can affect us here at home. it is in national security issue to invest in foreign aid. host: we are almost out of time. let's take one more call.

caller: good morning and thank you. i would like to say that just what the congresswoman mentioned, if head start is not being funded properly, why are we giving to foreign aid to other countries? if there is any other country i would move to, it would be japan because they are such a great country. i want to say that we do not need to by our friends via financial aid. this is ridiculous. host: we do not need to by our friends. guest: is a matter of developing or alliances, working together in the interest of the united states of america. in haiti, when there is poverty and people do not have homes or a place to live, it is not a matter of buying our friends but to make sure we can bring stability in the country because they are right on our border. the same thing with mexico.

people travel everywhere and we are all interconnected. i hope that in addition to supporting our alliances and working together, we are going to focus on creating jobs right here at home because that is our first priority. host: thank you for being here this morning. we will be back at 7:00 a.m. eastern time tomorrow [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] .. vulnerable. today we pray for our families, friends and constituents out in the pacific and its surrounding coast. be with these island people who touched the members and delegates of this congress and have represented them always even in their hour of need. from our depths, o lord, we cry

out, have mercy, o lord, have mercy. 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 virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: if the house will rise. 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 from each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, ashton mcmurray, a 16-year-old kid with cerebral palsy, was walking home from a football

game in massachusetts when he was ambushed, beatened, stabbed and murdered. an illegal from cambodia was sent to prison. ashton's parents said he would be deported back to cambodia after his sentence. why? because cambodia and other nations refuse to take back their convicted felons from the united states. so the assassin, by u.s. law, has been released on the streets of america. he is still illegally here. mr. speaker, there are over 140,000 criminal aliens in the united states, like ing, that have been sent to prison or deported and their native nations stalls, delays and eventually refuses to take these outlaws back. so they're running loose mountain united states. the worst offending nations are cuba, china, india, pakistan and jamaica. the united states should consider cutting aid and stopping visas to a nation that won't take their criminals back and maybe that will get their

attention and they will take their people home. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the unnecessary spending act of 2011. many decisions from both sides of the aisle have contributed to the nation's debt. the reduce of unnecessary spending act provides another deficit-reduction tool to eliminate unnecessary spending. it grants the president expedited rescission authority to create another opportunity to provide a trimming of unnecessary spending cuts. it's a well-known concept with bipartisan support. the budget committee's current chairman, mr. ryan, introduced expedited rescission in the 111th congress. so did john mccain and senator

carper with 32 bipartisan co-sponsors. exercising fiscal responsibility requires strong discipline and a commitment to cutting unnecessary spending. expedited rescission provides another layer of spending cuts and another opportunity for deficit reduction. i urge my colleagues to co-sponsor the legislation, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, you heard it many times, energy is jobs. energy is jobs. we have a wealth of resources in our nation, oil, natural gas and coal. yet we see gas prices rising to unbelievable rates here in america. approaching in many places in excess of $4 a gallon. and what are we doing about it? not very much.

we got a permitting process that is failing america, and we have an opportunity today to show america just how bad that problem is. mr. johnson: later today i am going to be introducing a bill called the root to jobs act. it stands for regulatory, openness, accountability and disclosure. and we are going to show the american people through a report that's going to be required from the council on environmental quality just how flawed that permitting process is. requiring them to show the permits that are in cycle and what the economic implications are of not authorizing permits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. schwartz: the unemployment rate dropped below 9% for the first time in two years.

this is encouraging news but we have a long way to go to promote private sector growth. they are digging their heels of billions of dollars of economic cuts that are threatening our economic growth and put 700,000 american jobs at risk. we agree spending cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit. this is not about whether to cut or not. this is about whether to cut, how much to cut and how fast to cut. the republican agenda threatens our core obligations to our seniors, to our safety and to our future. we need disciplined budgeting, we need targeted cuts that won't hurt our economy and we need strategic investments to make america competitive for future generations. republicans are putting partisan politics ahead of priorities. instead of job destroying cuts, we should be focusing on creating jobs and sount budgeting. enough is enough. we need to pass a responsible spending plan that grows the economy and invests in the future. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i rise to commend the india business council. founded in 1975, the primary mission of the usibc is to strengthen bilateral investments in trade between our two great nations. america and india now share $50 billion in annual trade that mutually benefits both countries. our two democracies, the world's largest and the world's oldest have held joint military exercises, increwsed two-way tourism and have engaged in bilateral cooperation on many fronts, including the global war on terrorism. thanks to the leadership of president ron summers, the usibc, hosted by the u.s. chamber of commerce, has grown to 400 member companies creating jobs in america. indian businesses have invested billions across the nation, including metal steel in

georgetown, south carolina. they have opened the doors of american businesses in india creating jobs. in both countries, as strategic partners. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11. i cherish the memory of addison gray. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: i want to thank the hundreds of cyclists, parents, people, especially bike industry leaders who flood capitol hill this week with a message of bike bipartisanship. addressing the issues found on the front page every day in our newspapers about what would happen if we made it easier to use the most efficient form of urban transportation ever designed. it would make a huge difference on the health of our families, dealing with traffic congestion and air pollution, reduce the

tyranny of our addiction to oil if we burned calories instead of fossil fuel. it's also big business. billions of dollars are made from the sales, service, manufacturing and bike tourism. and most important, it makes our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. thank you, cycling advocates, for your positive message of hope. i hoped it found receptive ears here on capitol hill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: thank you. mr. speaker, we're engaged in a process now and over the next week to decide how we are going to fund the government for the next few months and for the next year. the republicans have already decided where they want to put the burden of the cuts that we all know we have to make in the budget. they want to put on the least fortunate in our country. well, let me read something from "the washington post" this

week, harold meyerson. mark looked at how they were dividing up the pie in every recovery since 1947 and found that 58% of their increases in productivity trickled down to their workers and increased wages. what's happened today? it's the other way around. only 6% of productivity gain have gone to our newly more productive workers. in other words, our people, our working families have already paid the price. one of the -- what have the corporations done? mostly they're buying their stock back. more than 100% and 200% of additional stock purchases back. they're not hiring people. they're not investing in research. so as we decide where we are going to tighten the belt as we move forward on our budget, let's make sure we tighten it on the fat cats as well as the people that have already been strangled. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. johnson: mr. speaker, it's difficult not to say anything about how we are damaging our future. we cannot consider the kind of cuts that are proposed to our future and think that this country will be prosperous. this plan eliminates the funding for math and science partnerships. we must make strategic investments in stem education in order to maintain a competitive work force. but this plan eliminates head start. it cuts more than $1 billion from head start. this represents a massive setback for youth who are most in need. this plan is especially damaging for our youngest children just beginning their academic careers. these children will fall behind before they even get started.

reading fundamental program has provided books to young children whose families cannot afford them. mr. speaker, we must not allow our country to continue to fall behind in competitiveness. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that members -- mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days on house resolution 836. the speaker pro tempore: the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 836. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. westmoreland, to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair: the house is in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 836 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to rescind the unobligated funding for the mortgage relief program and to terminate the program. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each will control 30 minutes. . the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman may proceed. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, the american people woke up several days ago to the very sad reality that this nation has just incurred its single largest monthly deficit in the history of the nation.

$226 billion with the back of the envelope calculation roughly $2,500 for every household in just one month. mr. chairman, february is the shortest month of the year. this is on top of our nation's first trillion dollar deficit, our nation's second trillion dollar deficit, and now according to the budget presented by the president of the united states, the third largest, the largest deficit in america's history and the third trillion dollar-plus deficit. mr. chairman, the nation is drowning in a sea of red inc. -- red ink. if we were to help job creators create jobs today, we've got to start taking away the uncertainty of this huge

national debt. if we want to save our children from bankruptcy tomorrow, we've got to start doing something about the national debt. but everybody says essentially not in my backyard. not with my programs. not today. let's do it some other day. let's kick the can down the road. mr. chairman, this is a nation that is borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and we are sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. this is a form of intergenerational theft. the democratic whip, the gentleman from maryland, when republicans were in control, and the deficit was a fraction, a fraction of what it is today, he turned -- termed it fiscal child

abuse. mr. hoyer, the gentleman from maryland, said that when the annual deficit was $200 billion. now, the monthly deficit is $200 billion. if we want to help create jobs today, if we want to spare our children bankruptcy, we got to quick spending money we don't have. so this week, mr. chairman, house republicans have brought a couple of bills to the floor to do something that is rarely ever done in this institution, and that is to save american families and save small businesses money. terminate a program. as we are coming off the 100th anniversary of ronald reagan's birthday, i'm reminded and perhaps i don't have the quote exact, but he said something

along the lines, the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a federal program. so the bill we have before us today is a program that was originally authorized in 1975 and was never funded in its 35-year history. now, $1 billion has now been allocated for this program. nobody's used that money. it's in a series of so-called foreclosure mitigation programs that the administration has put forth, almost all of have i have been abject failures even by their own yardstick, own measurement. number one, the best foreclosure mitigation program in america is a job. it's a paycheck. not government check. it's a paycheck.

job creators are hampered by the uncertainty of the national debt. historic levels of debt will lead to historic levels of taxation, which leads to historic levels of unemployment. the equation could not be more true, could not be more elementary. but don't take my word for it. let's hear from some of the job creators in america. let's hear from the c.e.o. of caterpillar which employ tens of thousands of people across our nation. quote, entitlement programs coupled with the coming wave of retiring baby boomers will push the deficit to untenable levels. it is a train wreck. mike jackson, c.e.o., auto nation. 19,000 employees, quote, the best thing that this town could do to help the economic recovery

become sustainable is to deal with the deficit. the former chairman and c.e.o. of home depot. over 200,000 employees in the u.s., if we continue this kind of policy, we are dead in the water. businesspeople, they don't know what's coming. the debt, the budget, this debt we have is in the trillions. i'm going to have to pay for this somehow. you know, mr. chairman, these are just a few of the voices of job creators. so i'm heartened to see that the unemployment rate has ticked down last month. frankly it is attributable mostly to the fact we now have divided government. job creators now know there is some check on the excesses of of the bomb. it is a testament to the fact

that at the end of the last congress, republicans were successful in blocking at least for two years the single largest tax increase in america's history, and i don't know any american who believes if you increase taxes on their company that that's going to lead to a raise, a bonus, employing more workers, and finally we have what warren buffett calls the regenerative nature of the free enterprise system. this is an economy that wants to recover. but since the great depression, we never had a longer recession or more tepid recovery and it's due to the policies of the president and the previous democratic congresses. so if we want to create, help create jobs today, we are going to have to show that we can put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path. this is a $1 billion program where not $1 has left the door yet. i'm sitting here thinking, mr. chairman, if this body, after

having 75, 76 some-odd different government housing programs that add up to roughly 56 some-odd billion dollars, that frankly have grown at an exponential over the family budget, the family budget has to pay for the h.u.d. budget, if we can't terminate in order to save our children from bankruptcy, in order to help create jobs, one program at $1 billion, where not one penny has left the door, how are we going to make the tough decisions that are necessary to save the country from bankruptcy? mr. chairman, at some point you got to quick spending money you don't have. at some point when do you ever say enough is enough? we are tired of borrowing money from the chinese. is this the future of our children? is it their destiny to shine the shoes of the chinese? is it our children's destiny one

day they'll wait tables for the chinese? that's not the dream i have for my 7-year-old son. it's not the dream i have for my 9-year-old daughter. it's not the american dream. the american dream is to leave your children with greater freedoms, greater opportunity, and a higher standard of living. that's what i believe the american dream is. and if we can't terminate one program, which the obama administration itself says we are going to lose 98 cents on the dollar, i didn't say it, but the obama administration said it, losing 98 cents on the dollar. if we can't do this, mr. chairman, i have great fear and great trepidation for the future. so i urge, i urge my colleagues to take one small, teeny, tiny, baby step towards the path of fiscal sustainability.

take one measured baby step and tell job creators in america we are going to put the nation's fiscal house in order. go ahead. it's safe to invest in america again. it's safe to create jobs. we are going to get this done. take one tiny step today. to help create those jobs and save our children from a pathway to bankruptcy. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frage, -- frank, is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i hope members will be careful walking on the floor right now, especially on the republican side of the aisle, because i wouldn't want anyone to fall into the enormous gap that has just been created between the gentleman's comments and his voting record. we heard a great argument about the need to cut the budget deficit and stop spending. during the recent debate on the

budget, an amendment was offered to limit entitlement spending to farmers to $250,000 per entity. the amendment said, no agricultural entity, no individual could get more than $250,000 per year. it was defeated by the republican majority. -- republican party. the majority of democrats voted for it. we had the brazilian cotton farmers, my friends on the other side hate for me to mention that because unpleasant reality is bothsome, over a four-year period we are going to spend more money subsidizing american and brazilian cotton farmers than we are on this program. now the gentleman from alabama said yesterday that it was obama that made him do it. rather implausibly he argued that he was compelled to follow this recommendation of the obama

administration to send $150 billion -- $150 million a year to brazilian cotton farmers for four years because the president told him to do it. well, that's a very selective invocation of the president. i must say no more persuasive than flip wilson having innoked the devil as having made him -- invoked the devil as having him made him do it. $150 million -- the argument by the way was that we have to send $150 million to the cotton farmers because otherwise we would be in trouble with the world trade organization. but we could have saved that $150 million to the brazilians by not sending $150 million to american cotton farmers. that would include american cotton farmers who get more than $250,000 a year. we are not debating about whether or not we should reduce the deficit. it is now. do you exempt agriculture, as many of my friends do because they represent agricultural

districts? and the conservatism, the free market, that's got no application to the growth of cotton or grain or many of these other programs that receive so much money. beyond that, we have the military. now, we are talking here about trying to stop a serious economic problem in american cities. we can't afford that. but $400 million was voted to be spent on infrastructure in afghanistan. i do not think that $400 million will be very well spent. i understand some national security needs. i think that war's gone on too long. but the notion of sending $400 million to build up cities in afghanistan and deny help in america makes no sense. we are also being told that we can send $1 billion for iraqi security forces over and above what we spend on the american military, we are sending $1.2 billion, i voted against that. members on the other side voted for it. the whole war in iraq, an enormous waste in my judgment of

american money at the cost of american lives, brave young americans went to war when they were asked to by their country, but it was a mistake for them to be sent there. the war in iraq has so dwarfed any domestic expenditures in this area i don't understand how members on the one hand can talk seriously about cutting the deficit and voted for more and more and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars for that war in iraq. now we have another point that should be made. it is true, this billion dollars that we are asking for, by the way it will cost the c.b.o. $840 million, not 98%, 84%, still a high number, but $140 million is $140 million. this will cost $840 million according to c.b.o. if it is fully run. it is going to come out of the treasury right now. let's be clear, the reason it will come out of the treasury as we try to deal with this -- here's what the program is, it says to americans who took out

mortgages, and became unemployed , that we will help them pay their mortgage because you can't afford mortgage payments out of unemployment compensation. that's the lavishness of this program. we are taking people who are in trouble and facing losing their homes and having more foreclosures, which have negative effects not just on the individual foreclosure but on the neighborhood, the city, the whole economy, this has a macroeconomic impact. . we are going to come to their assistance. in the financial reform bill passed last summer, we in the conference committee voted to take this money from an assessment on the largest financial institution. we voted that financial institutions with $50 billion or more in assets and hedge funds with $10 billion or more in assets would have to pay for this. and our logic was it was the activity of these institutions that caused the crisis that led

to the unemployment and led to the foreclosures. many of them profited from it and then we had the tarp. this is money that we voted in the tarp and in other set of programs and we said, you benefited from intervention. we didn't do it because we loved you. we did it because we had to save the economy from going upside down. i know members like to talk about bailouts. let's be clear. every activity in the united states known as a bailout recently was in the initiative of the george bush administration of mr. paulson and mr. bernanke and it was bipartisanly supported. i agree we had to do them. we had to do them was because of failure in past regulatory policies. the fact is in the bill we passed last summer this money wouldn't have come from the treasury. it wouldn't have been added to the deficit. it -- the republican party popped it.

not here but in the senate. i will make this announcement. i plan to reintroduce next week the prevention of the financial reform bill that would have taken the money for this program and other programs to alleviate the impact of foreclosure. the neighborhood stabilization program that helps gets foreclosed properties back into use, aid to homeowners who are unemployed and pay for it as we tried to do last year but republican opposition stopped us, not from the taxpayer but from the large institutions. and i don't mean to demonize but i think goldman sachs and wells fargo and bank of america and city corp and morgan stanley, i think they can pay for this -- citicorp and morgan stanley, i think they can pay for this. with regard to the bill we did yesterday -- you can eliminate

so much error -- but i think error outpaces me when we get into these debates. we talked about money that was going to be spent in another program, the f.h.a. refi and people talked about $8 billion. yes, $8 billion -- it won't cost $8 billion but $8 billion that was set aside if necessary from the tarp and people say that tarp money was promised to go back to the taxpayers. this is how. members may have forgotten. but in the tarp legislation we added a provision that in 2013 when the tarp is concluded the president at that time is mandated to send to the congress a bill that would recoup the funds that had not been refunded to the treasury from those large financial institutions and we added that in the mortgage reform bill.

so the tarp money that would be spent, if it is in refinancing, and the tarp money that would be spent on the ham program would not come out of the treasury. it would be reimbursed to the treasury if my colleagues go along with what we voted for from the large financial institutions. so let's be very clear. whether we're talking about the programs in the financial reform bill or the programs in the tarp, they are a package of programs to deal with the consequences of foreclosure. i must say i saw a draft of my republican colleagues' budget fuse and they said astonishingly that spending tarp money to deal with foreclosures was inappropriate because those were unrelated to the financial crisis. foreclosures unrelated to the financial crisis? that is an ill logic that i am surprised at. ideology drives you to certain ridiculous conclusions but that one goes further into that than i would have thought. so let's be very clear.

our proposals are that the large financial institutions, assets of $50 billion or more, $hedge funds of $10 billion or more, most of which would direct beneficiaries in activity dealing with the financial crisis that many of them helped cause that that's how we would fund these programs. so with regard to the hamp, with regard to the f.h.a. refinance, no, that will not come out of the treasury. that will be reimbursed ultimately. yes, the tarp money goes back and the law calls for that to be assessed and so, yes, i understand my republican colleagues, they don't want goldman sachs or citicorp or any of the large financial institutions or any of the large hedge funds to have to pay the costs. that's what what's the debate is. the large financial institutions. and, yeah, they d did succeed

-- they did succeed, i hope. they did knock out part of the bill that would help us mitigate foreclosures and help us have cities buy up property that is rotting and causing trouble. and unfortunately temp rearl that's not the case, but -- temporarily that's mott the case, but given the concern for the taxpayer they'll have a choice. do you add the cost of these programs to the deficit because they are not going to become law, the repealers? are you then going to say that it will come out of the deficit or will you join us in taking it from goldman sachs and morgan stanley and bank of america? and those are reasonable institutions that do a lot of good work. but they can afford these dollars. their bonuses alone will pay for these programs. first of all, we have people who are prepared to send money to brazilian cotton farmers. they will not limit

entitlements to agriculture individuals to $250,000 a year. they'll send billions to afghanistan and iraq that will be wasted, not for our defense, but to build up their infrastructure and their security. and then, when it does come to the relatively small amount that we will spend on some of these programs, like $840 million, and it's small compared to what they spend, elsewhere, for instance, in their wars, they would rather have it come out of the taxpayer. they would rather not spend it at all. the second choice is come out of the taxpayer and not -- not out of the large financial institutions. so let's frame the debate appropriately. the large financial institutions, because of inappropriate regulation and improper regulation during the bush years, early in the clinton years as well, but mostly the bush years, provoked a financial crisis. we began to deal with it in 2008 in the last month of the

bush administration and in a bipartisan way we did it. we provided some funding in the first instance of those financial institutions not out of love for them but because we thought they needed to stabilize. money spent under the tarp would be recouped by an assessment by a large financial institution. republicans probably want to forget that one. probably because they can't bear the thought of telling the large financial institutions who were a large part of the cause of the financial crisis that they should have to pay. and we do know that when we said this program and programs to give money to municipalities, which they very much want to buy up property that would otherwise fester because there would be nobody to make them take care of it, that they preferred that to be paid for by the taxpayer than by the large financial institutions. we'll give them a chance to correct that mistake. so i hope this bill is defeated and next week we will have legislation that i hope our

committee will be having hearings on and act on which will reinstate the provision that says all of the four programs we're dealing with this week and next week will be dealt with in one of two ways. it will be financed by the tarp and that money will be recovered when the program is over by an assessment on the large financial institutions, and the smaller amounts that will go to this program, that money will also be recouped from the large financial institutions. and those institutions, which received hundreds of billions. they have repaid it and has been useful. but they were great beneficiaries of it. they caused some of the problems in general. they will be the ones that will bear the costs. so that's the choice. we have a choice of doing nothing to alleviate the impact of foreclosures on the overall economy, on municipalities and on families or of doing something and recouping that money from the large financial institutions.

i hope that we will in the end decide that we were right to say that the large financial institutions can appropriately ask to bear part of that burden. i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, is recognized for two minutes. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker. i thank the gentleman. for the past several years, the conversation in washington is how much we can increase in spending. today the debate is centered on how much we can increase savings. on november 2 voters sent a message that they will not sit by as congress spends our way into national decline. it was a statement of rejection towards the buildup of debt and burdensome regulation that continues to crowd the prospects for the future. the new republican majority has

responded with a cut and grow agenda designed to help with the results. growing private sector jobs in the economy is one of those. last month we voted to cut spending down to 2008 levels. today, through our youcut program, we offer american taxpayers the opportunity to recoup roughly $300 million in wasteful spending. the savings comes from terminating a program funded in the dodd-frank regulatory bill. this mandatory spending program allegedly provides loans to homeowners potentially facing foreclosure but is estimated that the subsidy rate, meaning the amount of the loan that will not be repaid, is 98 cents out of every dollar. so we are borrowing money we don't have to give loans to certain homeowners that can't repay and that other american families will have to pay back

in higher taxes in the future. this program truly does not make sense and leaves everyone worse off. at a time, mr. speaker, we must do everything in our power to balance the federal budget. this legislation must pass and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: how much time has been used on both sides? the chair: the gentleman has 15 1/2 minutes left and the gentleman from texas has 18. mr. frank: then, i will yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. watt. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. mr. watt: thank you, mr. chairman. and i thank our ranking member for yielding time. i am here today because this is a series of actions all of wish

i oppose that's in sequence, and i think we need to put this in perspective. yesterday my colleagues were proposing to terminate the f.h.a. refinance program that helps people refinance mortgages under f.h.a. next week we'll be back on the floor out of our committee with a proposal that they have made to do away with the community stabilization program which is designed really to stabilize communities and keep people who own propts and are trying to pay their mortgages -- properties and are trying to pay their mortgages from seeing their properties go down even further. and next week they'll be

offering a proposal to do away with the mortgage refinance assistance program called hamp. of all of the four propes, -- proposals, including the one we are here debating today, this i think is the most mean-spirited and most duplicitous one, and i think the one that most vigorously deserves to be opposed by my colleagues here in the house. because this proposal is to do away with a program that assists people who were employed, got a mortgage, were paying their mortgage, then lost their jobs to the downturn in the economy and found themselves in a position where

they could no longer afford to pay their mortgage. these are not people who are out getting second homes. these are working people who had jobs, fell on bad times and lost their jobs and getting unemployment benefits. and all we're saying is give them a break for 12 months and give them the opportunity to go back into the marketplace and find a job and then they can resume paying their mortgages. . it is absolutely mean-spirited to say to somebody who has complied with all the rules and lost their job by no fault of their own, and then find them selves unable to pay -- themselves unable to pay their mortgages that we won't try to give you some measure of relief.

it's further complicated, made even more duplicitous, really, by a provision that has been inserted into this bill that the secretary of housing and urban development to conduct a study and based on that study issue a report on the best practices that could be used to implement this program, a program which they are proposing to terminate. why would you have -- why would you spend taxpayer money to have a study on the best practices to implement a program that the bill itself says is going to be terminated? a waste of taxpayer money. yet my colleagues are here representing to the members of this house and to the american public that their whole objective is to save the taxpayers money.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. additional minute, without objection. mr. watt: i don't understand the rationale of my colleagues. it would be something else if this bill was going to see the light of day in the senate. it's not going anywhere. this is a message bill, mr. chairman. that's all this is about. let's send a message to the american people that we can cut. we can cut. whether we are cutting money that's taxpayer money or cutting money that's going to be paid out of the top fund that the law requires the biggest financial institutions in america to make the taxpayers whole if at the end of the day there is a deficit in repaying this money,

it doesn't matter, let's just stand up and beat on our chests and say to the american people, and think that they will believe that we are doing something to save them tax dollars. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bachus: mr. chairman, i yield one minute -- two minutes to the gentleman from new york. the chair: gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. grimm: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the emerging homeowner relief program termination act, and i'm sitting here and i hear that we are mean-spirited. it makes me think of the last year that i had with my father before he passed away. i spent a lot of time with my dad because i was taking him to

the hospital. he had lung cancer. we had to sit and wait often more than an hour to see the doctor to get his test, to get his chemo. i asked my father knowing that his life was nearing an end, what was the toughest thing he ever had to do. my father told me the toughest thing he had to do was tell his children no. sometimes when your child -- you ask the things, whether it be new hockey skates or baseball myth or whatever -- baseball mitt or whatever it may be, and a good parent sometimes says they can't afford it. well, i don't think it's mean-spirited to step up and answer the message, not that we are sending, but the message that the american people sent us. that we cannot continue reckless spending. and this program to put it right back on point, this program is the postage child -- poster

child of waste and reckless spending. it's not anyone in this chamber that said it's going to be subsidized 98 cents on the dollar. we will lose 98 cents on the dollar. the administration said that. 98 cents on the dollar. we cannot continue to spend on programs that are failing. that is the definition of waste. and we were sent here to cut the spending to stop the waste for one reason. so that we can grow the economy. and when we grow that economy, we actually create jobs. the whole point if i understand the argument on the democratic side is that these people have lost their jobs. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grimm: 30 seconds. mr. bachus: 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grimm: for that reason the answer is not more failed programs. it's growing the economy and

creating a job. we need to give them hope not false hope. with that i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama reserves. mr. bachus: mr. chairman, could i inquire as to the time remaining on each side? the chair: you have 15 1/2 minutes. and the gentleman from massachusetts has 10 1/2 minutes. mr. frank: i would prefer to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. two years ago the president told us that we will all -- were all to blame for the housing bubble and the financial crisis that followed. well, no we're not. those families who passed up the get rich quick real estate

seminars and who turned down the loans they couldn't afford, or who settled for a smaller home or who rented because that's all they could afford, they are not to blame. and they shouldn't be left holding the bag. 91% of americans are making their mortgage payments, not only because it's the right thing to do, but because they know that the sooner the market corrects itself, the sooner their homes will begin to appreciate once again. by dropping up bad loans and by undermining responsible homeowners, our government's extending the agony and postponing the day when the markets stablizes and home buyers can safely re-enter the housing market. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? mr. bachus: i -- mr. frank: there's still disparate. mr. bachus: at this time, mr. chairman, i recognize the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito, for one minute.

the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capito: thank you. i have been listening to the discussion. i certainly over the last several years have been in the committee where we have seen program after program being introduced to try to alleviate the problem that we know exists with the foreclosure issue. this is about making choices today. this is about making choices about programs that are working. programs that are not working. programs that are costing too much. and programs that we need to reshape and reform. i believe this program is one that we can in good measure eliminate. it hasn't really gotten started. it's $1 billion program. in some sense we already know and we have heard from many in the discussion that 98 cents out of every dollar that's set forth as a loan in this program will actually be a forgiven loan. we are talking about fairness and mean-spiritedness. if it's fair to the rest of the folks who are working, scraping, paying their mortgages every

single day, to know that 98 cents of every dollar that goes out the door in helping some other folks is never going to come back in when the original a agreement is a loan, this is a good sense cut that will lead to more jobs and better sense government. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield myself 15 seconds. i'm not surprised because there are people on the other side who think it's unfair to pay anything, like unemployment compensation. i don't think it's unfair to say to people unemployed in this economy they'll get economic help. that's what this is about. i yield 3:45 to the gentleman from new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes and 45 seconds. mrs. maloney: i rise in opposition to h.r. 836, this is one of four anti-foreclosure programs that the majority is voting to terminate. and this particular program they want to terminate today is

designed to assist homeowners who have experienced a significant reduction in income or at risk of foreclosure due to loss of a job, involuntary unemployment, underemployment, or medical condition. and this is a group that needs our help. there are $1.2 million households with a mortgage where head of household or spouse is unemployed. and in my home state of new york, mr. grimm, i wish i had the opportunity to ask him, was he aware that 142,000 households in our home state have a mortgage with a person who is the head of the household or spouse is unemployed. this program particularly could have helped those people. and the majority leader who spoke earlier, his home state, the great state of virginia, there are over 59,000 households who have a mortgage and with

someone in the family who is underemployed or unemployed. and in the great state of texas, the largest number of households with the mortgage and head of spouse or head of household who is unemployed, there are over 172,000 families in this terrible situation. families across the country would benefit from the program. but instead they are cutting it and i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record the census data that gives these numbers across our great country the number of people in this situation who could be helped by this program. the chair: the gentlelady's request has already been covered. mrs. maloney: the program fulfills an important gap because it addresses a temporary loss of income and helps homeowners when they are most vulnerable. it has been successful in pennsylvania which has its own state-run program. over 45,000 homeowners have been

assisted with an average loan of $11,000, and 85% of these recipients have been able to stay in their homes as a result. if we continue this program, we would be able to help families across the country. so i oppose terminating the program. and i oppose tossing hardworking americans out in the street. and i oppose this mean-spirited effort to terminate help for unemployed americans. now, to put this in perspective, this program is one of four that the majority is putting forward to terminate programs that would help the people stay in their homes. yesterday they terminated the f.h.a. refinance program. next week they are going to attempt to terminate hamp and the neighborhood stabilization program. yet economist after economist tell us that in order to

strengthen our economy we have to stabilize the housing market. so these cuts are wrong. they are wrong in the first place and they are certainly wrong at this time when we are working to dig our way out of this whole and to get people back to work. this program is like the others is narrowly tailored to help a specific class of homeowners because of this economy and because of the high level of unemployment. during the financial crisis we lost seven million jobs in this country. and we are slowly gaining jobs again, but we are not even at the point -- the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: my time is expired and i urge a no vote on this bill. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i have no further speakers, mr. chair, on my side. so i would like -- other than myself. i would like to reserve my remaining time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: mr. green, the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. green: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, there's a more basic and fundamental question that we are confronting today. that question is, can we continue to go out of our way to help major corporations? as a matter of fact $700 billion, can we go out of our way to help them and make sure that the programs work for them and then turn our backs on the taxpayers that helped those very same major corporations? that's the basic question that we have to contend with. are the banks and the major corporations too big to fail and corporations too big to fail and are the