the dues go to democratic candidates. i am a republican. it is not fair at all. executive pay is going through their roof. people in corporations that are not unionized do not have any say in regard to pay or collective bargaining. i just want your opinion a little more on executive pay compared to what it used to be 15, 20 years ago. it seems most executives are not even within -- host: ok, we have to get a crack -- quick response. guest: corporations were losing millions and millions of dollars giving of the bonuses. i said, give me $25 million and you do not have to pay me one on vermillion dollars to do it as your current managers are -- give me $25 million and you do not have to pay me $100 million to do it as your career managers are doing. host: thank you.

we're going to go to the house. they will start working on legislation for veterans affairs and then the agriculture bill. thanks for watching. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., june 14, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable daniel webster to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: "morning drive." -- pursuant to the order of january 5, 2011, the members are recognized. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority leader and

minority leaders and the minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. today, we are starting the most important debate of 2012 in congress, the re-authorization of the farm bill. now, it's true that we are just talking about the ag appropriations bill and much of the reform agenda will be difficult or ruled out of order due to the restrictive approach of the rules, although in the past some of my republican leadership friends have had no compunction about legislating on appropriations bills. but here we will be protecting large agri business instead of

american farmers, ranchers, consumers and the environment. this debate matters. each point that is made on the floor or in the media, each vote that is accumulated against the status quo and towards change and fairness is another step towards reforming the one area that almost every independent analyst agrees is right for reform. from the far right to the far left, people agree it's time. american agricultural policy is frozen in time through the past collection of farm bills. it misalindicates scarce dollars. it spends too much on the richest farming interests who really don't need it and doesn't provide enough support for the majority of farmers and ranchers who do. it does not place a priority on the nutrition of our children, and it unleashes an assault on

the environment. there must be a better way. there is a better way. cutting back on unnecessary expenditures for the wealthy and undeserving would make it possible to give a little more to the farmers and ranchers, the majority of whom don't get anything under the current farm bill. now, most farmers and ranchers don't just want money. they would much rather have assistance to make them more competitive. they would -- there's far more that can be done providing for important research to strengthen the production of food. more can be done to market american agricultural products at home and abroad to establish farmer markets. more can be done to protect farmers and their crops from disease and pests, and we can do so in a way that is consistent with our environmental values and our budgetary constraints. farmers and ranchers as a group

are some of the most outstanding stewards of the land and the environment we have in america. but we're looking now at a farm bill that is going to dramatically cut back the money to help them with environmental compliance, even requiring breaking some existing contracts. while complying with environmental regulations and regulations is going to take some effort and in some case is going to cost money . why aren't we protecting the environmental programs and providing the technical assistance to help these agricultural interests to do what they want to do, which will not only help water quality and habitat and air quality but will put money in their pockets supporting small and medium-sized operations? then there is the issue of nutrition. by skewing the production to artificially prop up and make profitable sugar, massive subsidies for corn, putting big money behind it, instead of improving the nutrition for our

schools. for example, we are literally subsidizing a diet through our tax dollars that is making our kids sick. instead, we should be helping them both be well-fed and healthy, not just well-fed with empty calories. with fruits and vegetables that will strengthen their bodies and the prospect for long-term heament. but the people ho grow food, like fruits and vegetables, are discriminated against under existing american farm policies. farmers and ranchers grow food, protect the environment, strengthen the economy. it's a simple formula. it's hard to imagine a more pro-american agenda and one that is -- americans from all across the political spectrum agree with. it's time to listen to them, to work for them and make it happen. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, i serve as co-chairman of the congressional career and technical education caucus with my friend and colleague, jim langevin of rhode island. the career and technical education caucus is a group of members seeking to broaden awareness here on capitol hill on the importance of career and technical education. i take the floor today to offer yet another example of the critical role that career and technical education plays in helping individuals remain competitive in a constantly changing work force environment. on june 7, 2011, history was made at the central pennsylvania institute of science and technology. two young ladies, anna kreshak and trisha wright combrad waited from their automobile program at the highest possible level. these nontraditional students in the technology program earned their diploma along with state, national and world certifications in their field

of study. the most amazing part about their accomplishments with a their path to success. anna had only one year in the automotive technology program. she quickly earned the respect of her instructor, met the qualification of c.b.i.'s school to work, the program, and became employed at a local car dealership just shortly after the year began. trisha completed all her assignments and exceeded almost all other cassmates. trisha became eligible for the cooperative program and also later was employed at a local car dealership. in the process both young ladies got college credit that can be transferred to many colleges and universities in the united states. in addition, both anna and trisha completed evening certification courses geared toward enhancing their certification which ensures a successful career path. despite tough economic times, trisha and anna have found a way to make ends meet. they broadened their horizons

and found their own competitive advantage in the marketplace despite an ever-changing economy. this story serves as a reminder for my fellow members. a reminder that a career in technical education program is in every district. it reminds us how career an technical education can be utilize to have a successful work force. i want to congratulate these outstanding young ladies for their achievements. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, it's now mid june, and we're just weeks away from the july date the president promised for a drawdown of american troops from afghanistan. but so far, so far there appears to be little movement toward the kind of redeployment that the moment actually calls

for and that the american people are insisting on. in fact, mr. speaker, defense secretary gates, on his way out the door, wanted a modest drawdown, even though the president has promised something significant. this is not a moment that calls for modesty. this is a moment for boldness and true leadership. this is a moment to break out of the war default posture, the posture that we've been in for going on to 10 years now. the longer this war goes on the bloodier it becomes. we were told last year that fatalities would be unusually high in 2010 as the surge troops began penetrating the taliban strong hold. but it turns out there's no sign of casualties are tapering off and we're on pace for an equally deadly 2011.

we lost more troops in march, april and may of this year than we did during the same months of 2010. and let's not forget, because i don't think the talked about nearly enough, that it's not just uniformed members of the u.s. military being put in harm's way by this conflict. the united nations said over the weekend that there were more civilian casualties in may than in any significantle other month of this war. needless to say, killing innocent people is certainly not the way to win the hearts and minds of another country. the american people's patience is wearing thin, mr. speaker, and there are many members of this body, a fair number of republicans of the republican majority who cannot support this afghanistan policy either. i for one am tired of being told that the strategy is working and it just needs more time to succeed.

how many military families will lose a father or a mother or a son or a daughter in the time it takes for this strategy to go nowhere? how many troops will be physically and psychologically damaged beyond repair? mr. speaker, i think nearly a decade, longer than any war in american history, is more than enough time to admit that the strategy does not work. we don't need simply a token drawdown. we need a fundamental change in policy and a complete reorientation of our thinking about national security. we need to finally end this war, and we need to bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx. "fox & friends" thank you, mr. speaker. -- ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: five

minutes. ms. foxx: i want to highlight a group of high school students from with a taga high school in my district -- from watagua high school in my district. these students completed and got third place at the -- after winning first place in the carolina's pro start competition earlier this year. they are to be congratulated for this fantastic achievement and i commend everyone from the parents and students to the teachers and mentors involved in this innovative educational program. pro start is a nationwide two-year program for high school students that seeks to develop the next generation of restaurant and food service industry leaders. students participating in the program learn everything from cullnear techniques to manage -- culinary techniques to management and real-world educational opportunities by building practical professional skills, these students are investing in their future careers even while enrolled in

high school. what's particularly impressive about this program is how it combines traditional high school programs with instruction from seasoned professionals in the food service and hospitality fields. this program is a wonderful model for how private sector companies can work with schools and students to offer taylor-made educational stules -- tailor-made educational solutions that help students get help on their career. they have educated more than 700 students in 15 schools with another 13 north carolina schools set to join in the next year. again, congratulations to everyone involved in watagua high school pro start program for excelling in this national program and for making your community proud. mr. speaker, one of the joyce of serving in congress is the opportunity to be at celebrations such as the one i attended last week during our

district work period. the enthusiasm in the room at their celebration was infectious. a special congratulations goes to the four winning students, emily haas, justin byrum and eli bradford. of course these accomplishments were facilitated by the pro start teacher, leean williams, and pro start mentors, troy and sandy byrum of troy's restaurant in boone. david grunewaller, a golden c -- corral, who sponsored the team, paul m. stone, melissa barkley who ran the statewide program also deserve congratulations for supporting this successful program that is already producing talented and enthusiastic north carolina students. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the

chair recognizes the gentleman from organize job, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: today, every american who fills up their gas tank is going to pay an extra 70 cents, 70 cents per gallon as a tribute to speculators on wall street. that's right. 70 cents a gallon is due to hedge fund speculation derivatives and commodity speculation on wall street. didn't used to be this way. before enron we prohibited this sort of speculation on wall street. there was a special law passed for enron, enron bankrupt, ken, who knows where he is now, but the law still lives on. it was changed in dodd-frank to give new opportunities for the commodities future trading commission to begin to regulate speculation on wall street, but

the republicans are fighting tooth and nail against the regulation of speculation on wall street. today we'll consider a bill that would deprive the commodities future trading commission, the watchdog, of new computers. republicans say we can't afford $60 million for computers at the commodities few tear trading commission to track a $400 trillion market, to track speculators that spent $25 billion on supercommuters last year so they could drive up the price of gasoline and manipulate the markets without detection. we can't afford that. they've got your back, speculators. the republicans are with you all the way. every american who buys an airplane ticket today, who can still afford it, some, who take their family on vacation, you'll see a little surtax on fuel. that's another tribute to the speculators on wall street who unnecessarily have driven up the price of oil and gas.

there is at this point a surplus of oil and gas in the world. more than was seen for years. production's up. demand's down. stockpiles are up. and the price is up. guess what? the profits at the oil companies are up phenomenonly. and the profits on wall street are object seen. -- obscene. do the republicans want to do anything about that? no. they would like to distract you. they don't want you to look at who is profiting from your pain and from destroying our economy. they are generous friends on wall street, they are oh so generous at he election time on the republican side of the aisle. the republican frnds in big oil who are -- friends in big oil or owe so generous at election time. it's not them. the price is driven by supply and demand, if we drill more, drill here, drill now, that will solve the problem. that won't solve the problem.

if we could double u.s. oil supply tomorrow, they would still be charging us 70 cents or more a gallon through unbridled speculation. we have an opportunity to rein that in. if we reject the republican proposal today to take away computers and staff from the regulators, to prevent the reforms from going into place, from finally begin to close the enron loophole created by republicans or republicans, and for wall street, we could almost immediately drive down the price of gasoline 70 cents a gallon. nothing they are proposing will do that. what we are proposing will benefit american families today, the economy, put people back to work, yeah, unfortunately, it will rein in some of the obscene profits at exxonmobil and some of the obscene profits at goldman sachs and others. they might have to go out and make honest loans and earn an honest living instead of gambling. it's a clear choice. who are you with? are you with the speculators or are you with the american

people? >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. a columnist wrote a piece titled afghan strategy, let's go. it appeared in the june 11 raleigh news and observer. i would like to share some of his thoughts with the house. he began his column with this. slender threads of hope are nice but do not constitute a plan. nor do they justify continuing to pour american lives and resources into the bottomless pit of afghanistan. and he closes his columns with these words, we wanted to kill or capture osama bin laden and we did. even so, we have to say in afghanistan because of the dangerous instability across the border in nuclear armed

pakistan. but does anyone believe the war in afghanistan has made pakistan more stable? mr. speaker, these are not my words again. these are the words of eugene robertson who is nationally known and respected. he's a liberal. not a conservative. but the point he's making is exactly right. how many more young men and women have to give their life for a corrupt leader? i would like to ask my colleagues on both sides to join jim mcgovern from massachusetts, i am a co-sponsor of this bill, it's h.r. 1735, the afghan exit and accountability act. it gives a parameter to the president of how we get our troops out of afghanistan before 2014 or 2015. i look at think young man's face, mr. speaker. his name is tyler jordan, his father was killed in iraq. i look at him and he represents

all the children in america who are crying because their moms or dads are coming back dead. many are coming back without arms and legs. so tyler represents children in america. who have their family loved ones over in afghanistan. it's time to bring them home, mr. speaker. and then the other poster has the flag draped coffin, they call it a transfer case, coming into dover air force base. how many more families in this country have to look at the flag-draped coffin of their loved one? mr. speaker, that's why i hope both sides will join mr. mcgovern and myself in h.r. 1735 because mr. gates has already said we will be in afghanistan until 2014 and 2015. that's what eugene robertson is saying. how many more have to die in the next three or four years for a corrupt leader named karzai that we are paying $8 billion a month

to and we are cutting programs in america for children and senior citizens. mr. speaker, again i want to make reference to tyler jordan and his pain. i want to make the flag draped coffin and think how many moms and dads happen to be at the funeral home received the flag draped coffin. in many cases cannot even looked at their loved ones because they were killed in a horrendous way. so, mr. speaker, i hope the american people will get behind 1735 and call their members of congress and ask them to join us in bringing our troops home before 2014. mr. speaker, before i close as i do all the time in my district and on the floor of the house, i will ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i will ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i will ask god in his loving arms to hold their families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq, and i'll ask god to please bless the house and senate we will do

what is right in the eyes of god for god's people here in america. will i ask god to bless mr. obama, the president, that he will have the wisdom, the courage to do what is right for the american people. i will close by asking three times, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: good morning, mr. speaker. in march of 2006 then senator obama was on the senate floor

and this is what he said. quote, the fact that we are here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means the buck stops here. instead washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. and america deserves better, end quote. but now, mr. speaker, a few short years later, president obama now takes the opposite approach. calling for an increase in the debt limit and threatening doom otherwise. president obama has failed to send to congress a budget that will realistically solve our nation's financial problems.

he calls for plans that spend too much and borrows too much and taxes too much. when congress reasonably rejected his plan and proposed a budget with responsible cuts, he turned a political rhetoric rather than meaningful discussions. so at a time when our nation must address a fiscal crisis, our president has offered no real solution and has politicized the issue. what we had today more than ever before is a sign of leadership failure. back to his original speech when he was a senator. america deserves better. so today with the debt ceiling already 5.3 trillion higher than the level president obama objected to raising five years ago, he now asks us to raise it again. for the 81st time since 1940. we all know this famous quote that defines insanity as doing

the same thing over and over again and expecting differ results. if we actually want to solve today's problem, we must depart from the insane 70-year tradition of just continuing to spend. if we do not devil into the real spending -- delve into the real spending problems today, we'll have this same debate a year later, three, five, 10 years later from now and we'll again be urged to raise the debt limit or face a financial catastrophe. the united states government already owes more than $14le trillion. -- $14 trillion. less talked about is the federal government faces another $114 trillion in unfunded liabilities for social security and medicare. an estimate by the congressional budget office reveals that by the year 2025, the government will spend 100% of every dollar in revenue on entitlements. federal debt aside, state and local governments face a combined $3 trillion coupled with their own unfunded

liabilities in the forms of pensions. forcing the government to live within its means is the only solution. just as a family household does it when it reaches its spending limits, we must begin to closely scrutinize our bills and decide where there is unnecessary waste. when families seek to decrease their utility bills, they remember to turn off lights when they leave a room. we must begin doing this as well. wasteful fraudulent programs must be turned off and long-term programs such as medicare and social security must be addressed seriously today. debt must be paid down instead of piled on. although the president, the senate leader, the u.s. secretary of the treasury believe the worst thing that could happen to all of us is we default on august 2, i believe that the worst thing that could happen for congress to do is to fail to couple the increased debt limit without meaningful spending cuts. once again the private sector has affirmed this. on june 1, 2011, 150 economists

called for immediate spending cuts to help support job growth in a letter to speaker john boehner, which i would like to request unanimous consent, mr. speaker, to have placed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stearns: the letter specifically says, quote, an increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms to address our government spending addiction will harm private sector jobs creation in america. it is critical any let limit legislation enacted by congress includes spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the accompanying increase in debt authority being granted to the president. if there's ever been a failure of leadership, it is today. we are broke. the solution lies in reform rather than rhetoric. spending cuts rather than spending increases. leadership has called for compromise in the next couple weeks. a compromise that does not involve a vote on raising the debt ceiling without these spending cuts.

we demonstrated that in may when 97-318, the house rejected this measure. no republican supported the vote then and no republican should support such a vote in august. only after we curb the trillions of dollars in debt that we continue to pile up can we consider raising the debt limit. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. >> when members return, they will finish work on the 2012 spending bill for military construction and veterans affairs. then they will take of the

agricultural department spending, which includes food stamps and child nutrition programs. and we will have live coverage of the house when they return at noon eastern here on c-span. other live coverage today, former national security adviser will deliver remarks on u.s. foreign policy live at 1:00. the event begins with gerald ford presidential foundation journalism award for distinguished reporting on the presidency and national defence live at 1:00 on c-span2. later, a senate commerce and transportation hearing on a threat to real security. this will include the head of amtrak police force, john o'connor, at 2:30 eastern. president obama is in pr. he is visiting pr. the first official presidential visit since the dawn of kennedy in 1961. he is expected to make comments

this morning, and we expect to have those later for you in the program schedule. meanwhile, president biden will be on capitol hill shortly for the first of what is expected to be three meetings looking to work on the debt and deficit. we hope to hear something later today about that. we will bring you any news if they come out of those meetings. we do know the house democratic caucus is meeting this morning on a number of issues, particularly the one that keeps bubbling up, which is whether or not anthony wiener will resign. going into the meeting this morning, carol mccarthy said hopefully we are hearing he might resign and a couple of days. we have cameras outside of the caucus room, and if members come to the cameras to speak, we will go to that later in the program schedule. the house coming back at noon eastern. until then, a look at congressional efforts to shape u.s./libyan policy. ffetz, welcome

back to "the washington journal" table. you a one of 20 house republicans that voted yes on a move to sponsor libya, sponsored by dennis kucinich, accelerating troop withdrawal from afghanistan. why? call: -- guest: it is the ght policy to bring our troops home. if we are going to use american military might and there is no clear and present danger to the united states, the president should be coming to the congress. the civil war in libya, quite frankly e should not be using military forces there the way that we are. if the president wants to make that case, he should come to the u.s. congress for that authorization. for the president to say that he

had authorization from the united nations is offensive to a lot of us. as far as afghanistan, i call myself a hawkish person but we should not be participating in this nation-ilding exercise. we need to focus on counter- terrorism. as i have argued for the last couple of years, it is time to bring the troops home. the president has failed to find victory in afghanistan. of course we wanto make sure that there is no safe haven. but 100,000 of our troops in afghanistan is too much. host: the cost? guest: $1 million per person, per year, and we will spend more than $100 billion over 12 months. we cannot sustain that. americans will take any fight to secure the homeland, but there is no clear and present danger

in afghanistan to the united states of america and we have to reexamine what we are doing. host: here is the editorial. "progress is fragile and irreversible." host: it goes on to say that " advocates are calling further

operations in afghanistan unnecessary. that the u.s. can no longer afford the expense." guest: we are already paying huge costs. the fundamental flaw is that they assume the taliban poses a clear and present danger to the united states of america and the current afghan government. contry to the national intelligence estimate. the flaw is that there is some sort of threat to our homeland where these people will somehow attack kansas, for instance. there is no doubt that that country is on a very difficult path. the problem that i have is that the current government is a corrupt government.

know that the government is fundamentall flawed, corrupt, and will not ultimately solve the problem. at some point the afghan people have to take care of the rhone. i am not saying that we do have zero troops there, but 100,000 people? we are in a nation-building exercise. i do not think that we can sustain that. nor do i think it is the proper role of the united states. host: according to "the christian science mitor" they have ben there -- guest:t the history of the united states of america. my argument is that the troops have been very succefu the troops that were there fore when we did not have very many troops, they were very successful.

in 2009 leon panetta came on a program and said that there were less than 50 al qaeda in the entire country. let's give some credit to the men and women who are there. host: are you refusing to listen to the commanders on the ground? guest: we are getting conflicting reports. the former commander general said that he believes in these hunter killer teams. we need to have counter- terrorism efforts going on not just there, but around the world, and not participate in nation building. ask the united states what we're doing in afghanistan. we are fightinterrorism? if you challenge the same people, challenge the president, what does victory look like? it is certainly not putting our tail between our legs.

host: the front page of "the washington post close " had this story about yen -- "the washington post" had this story about yemen. what do you make of that? guest: we have to have the best intelligence. it has slipped over time. when we have it, we haveo act upon it. osama bin laden is dead now, which is very satisfying. that fight is global in nature and that the same time, we are going to have to be very targeted i am what we do. host: by july 15 there is a plan to withdw slowly under

military guidance between 12 months and 18 months. is that something that you could get behind bella guest: potentially. congress should not micromanage it. that is clearly not our role. if it is moving in that trajectory, that is what we should do. it cannot be done in a matter of days, even one month. host: you are on the government oversight committee and of the subcommittee. $7 million in iraqi reconstruction money may have been stolen, as washington perseveres with attempts to track down the funds and in

several different pockets it is quite scary, this money walking out the door with no accountability. the challenge for this administration is to show and demonstrate accountability. not just for foreign aid, but in iraq and afghanistan. great pieces were written in "the new york times" about the banking situation. yet there are billions of dollars that we do not know where they are. investigations will continue. host: you are holding them? guest: gas, a lot of people are working on this right now. great work being done by the investigator general. not just with moving forward.

i do not think that there would be accountability. host: how does $7 billion disappear? guest: that is where treasury has to come forward and s -- how do these things happen? it can be very difficult situations, very volatile parts of the world, allowing money to move a in a w that is more difficult to track? they are on top of it, but did not have these controls in place when we started. there is nothing more infuriating to amerins. host: tell viewers something that would surprise that. being on the ground, what was

surprising. caller: when you get into baghdad is a cement wall. in is still not returned to a way of life that will be sustainable. the biggest for it -- the biggest transformation that will -- that we will take place , they listed the core functions of the state department that the military usually does, saying that they are only able to do seven of them tell. if rocket fire is taken, one of my committees told me thathey would not fire back. better to rely upon the iraqis to take care that. and we will still be spending a massive amount of money. i think that the number is

something like 7000 people, but it will still be there in country. host: iting to talk to you is a democrat from texas. aaron, go ahead. caller: good morning and. i have two problems. i lost one nhew in 2005 in iraq. he said that before he die, you never knew why he was there. he said the two were there because of the contracts that halliburton and all of those companies that you have over there -- he lost his job in shreveport himas relocated to afghanistan. in 30 days my niece ships off to afanistan to build schools there --

guest: thank you for your service and sacrifice. there are a lot of people just like you who sent off their loved ones into war to serve as a contractor. we sent nearly 500 troops from utah overseas. there are a lot of families making that sacrifice. people step up and answer the call to serve. i happen to believe that we should be diminishing those numbers and bringing our troops home. i think the timhas come to do that. i think the president owes it to the american people to define what success is in afghanistan. i think we are on the right

trajectory in iraq. i do not see much difference in the way he is doing. that is fine, too. we are turning the keys back over to iraq. i totally disagree with what the president is doing in libya. he should come to the united states congress and made the case to go to war. he still failed to come to the congress and provide us with the information that we need. we should vote on this. come make that case to congress. he has not done that. host: and steve in maine, an independent caller. caller: i agree with your host a lot. i ve followed foreign affairs. people like karzei -- they have

such initiative. nothing has been done in a decade. drug dealer.just a half of the country is his customers. libya is another strange one. all of these presidents seem to be stepping right in line with what makes a good enemy for the parliament to verify their large budgets. i don't know. the whole region wants to go democracy or more democracy than our dictators, yet we are constantly putting our foot in the front of their face. just keep up the good work. it just amazes me how washington can shell out so much money for these people based on absolutely no background of the preside

over there. guest: thank you and good morning. it is a stunning amount of money in a time when we are in fiscal peril. i think americans would pay any price to secure the homeland and keep ourselves safe and secure. what is the mystery is what we are participating in wars that do not make sense, that the present is not coming to the american people or the congress toake his case. i think it is wrong. i think we have somewhat been in net in the house to hold the president accountable. i do not think we have lived up to what has laid out in the constitution. it is terribly disappointing and frustrating as a member of congress because i think we should have more debate on this. host: jason chaffetz. a republican in charlotte, n.c..

caller: good morning. i have a question, a follow-up to your statement, that you are disappointed in the actions of congress. i am terribly disappointed. i wan my country back. this congress is showing me time and again how unreliable you are in opposing the constitution. here is my question. i have two questions. why isn't president obama under a bill of impeachment? he has declared war without the constitutional backing of our congress. that is wohyankehing of an impeachment bill is the president's signing statement when he rebuttal to the congress secti 2362 when the congress withdrew its funds for

these indigo and erroneous czars, and yet the congress withdrew funds, and this president overwrote congress' wishes. guest: first of all, thank you and good morning. i think the senate has also been inept. the senate has not lived up to its constitutial duty to hold the president accountable. i think the record is clearly reflected. house republicans as we started off congress -- one of my absolute favorite came in and spoke to the house republicans. one of the things he said is the challenge before the congress is at relevancy. are you going to become relevant? is it going to be the congressional record that will

move this country forward? or is it going to be the federal registry which is where the president will publish these rules? that is where i do not think we have lived up very strongly in making sure we put in check the president's power in his rulemaking authority. i think we have been slow to the game in that regard. we have done some things. it is a mixed bag. i think as it relates to the war, we have fallen short. host: from "the wal street journal," --

guest: i think the president and the democrats reserve to introduce a plan. i am on the house budget committee. i think we did the responsible ing, introducing a budget that pays off the debt. the democrats have never ever put forward a plan that balances the present's budget over time. they are going to talk about deficit and debt reduction, you have to put forward a balanced budget. i think they owe it to us to do that. nor have i seen a plan from the democrats saying let's try this formula. a lot of us believe that the financial peril we face is the single greatest threat to the quality of life that we have here in the united states of america. and a lot of us -- we had a vote on raising the debt ceiling a couple of weeks ago.

a stunning number that people have to internalize is that right now today the federal government is spending 25 cents out of every dollar that is spent in this country. you cannot sustain that. it is unsustainable. right now, 25 cents out of every dollar? c'mon. that is an unsustainable amount of money. everyone knows it. we have got to make some major changes. this is going to force the issue. host: are you open to some sort of deal that reduces spending but also looks at tax deductions that are favorable to many americans, maybe the mortgage interest deduction, etc.?

guest: i want the democrats to put forward any sort of pn. host: but you personally, from your viewpoint, is this something you can agree to? guest: i want to broaden the base and lower the rate on corporate income tax. i do not think we should have any sort of tax increase. we are already borrowing, taxing, and spending too much money. we are not taxing people too much. can we get rid of a lot of the loopholes? absolutely. we talk about that in their budget. i do not think right now is the time to raise taxes. when you look at the american business community and gas prices, democrats are saying we need to have -- that is not going to drive down the price of gasoline. we are not going to drive the economy forward and make life more palatable to people by

raising taxes on fuel. that is not going to get us where we need to go. we are $1.60 trillion upside- down in terms of our annual deficit. we have to solve that by cutting spending. host: ron in miami. go ahead. caller: the president said that you would send no trips to libya, nror plane or helicopters. second, we did not need to be in iraq. iraq was a stabilizing for in that region. they were terrible, but they stabilize it. yes, afghanistan and osama bin laden cost 9/11. third, what you said aut no corporate welfare, that is what you are doing because they pay you off with their lobbyists.

that is the truth. guest: i take exception to that last comment. good morning. as it relat to libya, it does scare me what we are doing there because i do not think the president has come to the congress to make the case to get the resources and backing of the american people. what he said when he announced he was going to join in the effort is he got authorization from the united nations. authorization comes from the united states congress. the president has still filled on this. -- failed on this. in terms of iraq, i was only elected to congress and the 111th congress. i am starting my third year. based on the information presented, i thought i would have supported that. based on what we know now, i do not think we should have gone

into iraq in the first place. host: this is an e-mail from one of our viewers -- guest: again, i think congress has not lived up to its constitutional duties and responsibilities of holding the president in check. the constitution clearly lays out that the congress is the one to declare war. you are right. for ticket, that has not happened. host: -- for decades, that does not happen. caller: i have an accounting entry that can save us or add something like $390 billion to our balance sheet. the treasry has something like 262 million ounces of gold on its books that is valued at $42

an ounce. why not market to market, which is roughly 15 or 20 an ounce right now. congress has the power to do this. secondly, i have a question regarding the feral reserve. it offends me that the federal reserve seems to have one of its primary functions to debase the dollars that i saved. is there anything we can do about it? guest: i think there is something we can do about it. i am proud of the fact that john boehner named ron pauas the chairman of the subcommittee. in fact, i told ronne of the things i would love to do is let's go see the gold. this is done in to me.

we were told that we could not do that. what do you mean? the people cannot see the actual gold? it causes a lot of eyebrows to raise it. i would like to go see it. we are going to try to push that issue. i think what ron paul has done is to have an audit of the federal reserve. i co-sponsored the bill in the last congrs. it is reasonable for the american people to have some exposure to what is happening there. all of this starts with having an audit of the federal reserve. that seems like a reasonable position to me. host: lancaster, pa., philip is on our republican line. caller: yes, i agree with the previous caller. i think ron pollack is the only candidate that is running on the republican docket that has any

common sense. these guys get off on these half-ass schemes. they're only working for themselves. ron paul is a man who if he says he is going to do something, he does it. he follows through. host: would you vote for ron paul for president cholesteric he was one of the candidates. the guest: ron pollack is a great guy -- ron pollack is a great guy. -- ron paul is a great guy. michele bachmann offers a very conservative viewpoint. i like her as well. i think they have a lot to offer to the disssion. as far as running for president -- one of my top goals is that i

would like to see somebody who cabeat barack obama. based on last night, from my vantage point, mitt romney is in the best position to do that. host: why is that? guest: his background in business and his understanding to get this country moving forward with jobs, i think he is the one who can do that. he has that sort of business background. he understands how capital formation works. if we are worried about jobs in the economy and getting strength back, i think he will actually do that. host: do you want to repeal health care? guest: yes, one of the first votes we had was to repeal obamacare. host: what about the concerns that many people have with massachusetts? guest: i think mitt romney is the first to say where the

fundamental perils are. one was done at the state level, and the other was done at the federal level. i do not think there should be a one size fits all approach to health care at the federal level. those types of things have to happen, should happen, and will be the most successful when they happen at the state level. that is the way we should operate in the united states of america, to drive it down to the local level so you can get the best results for those people. host: is mitt romney still the front runner? guest: he has been very successful and is very passionate and patriotic. he has a lot to offer to the discussion. if your number one goal is let's be barack obama, i think mitt romney -- he has a strong organization in the fact that he

has been doing this for years. i am not endorsing anybody at this point. i have a great rpect for these candidates. host: have these candidates been reaching out to you? the guest: yes, you see them coming up to capitol hill and what not. host: are they asking for your support this early? guest: in a gentle type of way. yes, you can see and feel the acceleration that is happening now. host: it sounds like you are going to back mitt romney as it stands right now. guest: i want to be barack obama. yes, i love mitt romney but i am not endorsing anyone at this point. caller: good morning. [unintelligible] -- brought up about the

presidential debate. the presidential debate is just like fox news. they have no solutions to no problems. all they talk about is barack obama. everything you bring up is about barack obama. libya has nothing to do with whether the president gets authorization. it is still about barack obama. if you ask the republican leaders about anything, it is about barack obama and the election. they have no solutions. they want to raise the debt on the backs of the poor. they want to cut everything from poor people. host: client is saying is you do not have your own ideas and -- glenn is saying you do not have

your own ideas. guest: i think if you look at the economy, the state of jobs in this country, we are failing. i would hope that would be objective as a possibly could be. when you have 80% increase in discretionary spending over the last three years when you count the stimulus, i think you have to hold somebody accountable. in this case, i think it is the president. he does not have a plan to balance the budget but i do not want to be hyper-partisan, but the president has n plan. when the president's budget and before the senate, there was not a single democratic vote for it. there is something wrong here. if the president does not have a plan, we need somebody on top of the hill that actually has one. the point is, if the president

and the democrats want to have a counter, and then offer a plan. here we are coming up on a debt ceiling situation. john boehner has turned out several different options for every dollar increase that you want to have. maybe there should be a corresponding decrease in spending. that is a very reasonable starting point. host: we will go on to chris in houston. caller: good morning. as a conservative, i would like to first say that i appreciate your efforts in trying to cut the budget and reduce spending and so on and so forth. in regards to afghanistan, since everybody is concerned about the economy these days, do you think withdrawing now would be a little bit premature considering some of the resources and the geopolitical considerations in the middle

east? economically, like the lithium deposits and other resources. even though it is the longest war we have ever had, it has been under-funded for much of the time. i think if we did what general std a crystal recommended, we would be in a much better position today. guest: i think if you are going to go to war, you go with everything you have it. -- have. if you are going to go, you do not code gingerly. you go with everything you have. at this point, i think we need to reevaluate what we are doing there. there are other resources that uld be developed. it is a very difficult situation in afghanist. these people have been at war

for decades. 80% plus of the country has no electricity 80% plus of the country has no more than a second grade education. that begs the question, what are we doing there? should we be participating in this effort? i believe we should be focusing on counter-terrorism on the global nature. host: george is watching us from brooklyn, a republican. go ahead, georgia. caller: good morning. i will like to ask about the george bush administration. what has the george bush administration been doing -- there are the ones who got us in these problems to begin with, with all of their speing and wars. those are the ones we should be looking at it. where were you people went george bush -- >> guest: i unseeded a 12-year

republican because i argd they blew it. i think they did over-spend. i agree with you. that is the argument i made with the people of utah, and they agreed with me. i think they did some very good things, but i thought it was a mixed bag. if you wanted for results, you are going to have to select different people. i want by the huge margin. -- won by a huge margin. it is important to look back, but elections and the future is all about the future and where we are going. i understand the frustration. host: will that be your campaign theme? guest: perhaps. i have thought about it. as senator hatch -- he served in

the senate close to 36 years. at the same time, 42 years in the senate seemed excessive. and i fundamentally disagree with senator hatch on many issues. my family is very supportive and they have always been supportive of what i do. i serve at the will of the people of utah. what would they like me to do? it is been a very resounding yes. please run for that. these things start so early. we are already talking about the next election. not much is going to happen before labor day. host: syou might announce after labor day? guest: yes. host: do you have a timeline for a decision?

guest: that is not something i am going to share with you today. you always have to work on raising money, but it is not the most important thing for me. i spend a fraction of what most races do. these are multimillion-dollar events. host: don't you think you need more money? guest: if it is about how much money you can spend, of crse he is going to win that. i think it is about who can do more with less. i have argued that how you run your campaign is very indicative of how you will run in your office. i going to be fiscally prudent par. host: if he comes out and flexes his muscles to show -- >> hguest: he has already done

that. host: is that not a factor? guest: it does not bother me. when you are talking about the debt, deficit, the money does t matter. you want to be able to get out there and communicate. if i run, it will not be based on 30-second advertisement. it will be based on town hall meetings. host: more phone calls are waiting for you. go ahead. caller: good morning. i am very confused. i do not know if i am ignorant or this congressman is ignorant or he is just deliberately misleading the people, but it seems to me that we signea treaty with nato, and nato goes to the un to ask to do something within the world, and that is

the way the treaty works. barack obama did not declare war with u.s. troops in libya. we went together with nato with the treaty that we signed. they got permission from the u.n. to send troops along with nato as a coalition. we did not declare war. part of that treaty does not say barack obama needs to go to congress. guest: we did not declare war, but i think -- it was my colleague who was questioning somebody on the panel. if another country partners or ships off the coast of new york and started firing, would we consider that an act of war? of course we would. we are participating in war. you cannot just try to get through it by some other technicality. we are at war with libya.

consequently, the present has a duty and obligation under the constitution to come to report to congrs, and he has not done that. i think that his black-and- white and an objective viewpoint. host: we will get in one last phone call. robert in florida, an independent. caller: i really applaud you for coming on television and saying stop the war. the first color -- you never really answered her question about what eisenhower called the military industrial complex. how come we can spend so much money -- it just completely blows people away that this is

happening. i would like you to answer the question, how come all the money is going to these people who are corrupt. the whole reason why obama is able to go into another country and invade it -- the congress is the one who received the power to the president in the first place. guest: i agree with the caller on that point. i think we need to get more in tune with the constitution. we spend a stunning amount of money. more people are surprised that we actually cut back defense spending. secretary gates put forward a plan, tens of billions of dollars, that he wanted to scale back over the course of time. i happen to concur with that. roughly 4% of gdp. it has been in the 4.6% range.

we have the very best military in the world. they can do anything. at the same time, we also have to hold them the house will resume work and finish up this afternoon on the appointed most spending bill for military construction and veterans affairs. then they will take of agriculture department spending including food stamps and child nutrition programs. that measure expected to take a couple of days worked on the house floor. live coverage of the house at noon. president obama left washington this morning for his first trip to pr, first official presidential trip to pr since

john f. kennedy since 1961. meanwhile, the vice-president is on capitol hill for the first of three meetings this week. the democratic caucus has been meeting today. they had come in at 9:00 eastern, talking about anthony weiner. "the wall street journal" reporting that they are considering punishment for him. they also report that helped -- the house ethics committee is deciding whether or not he brought -- improperly used house resources. while we wait for the house to come in, back to this morning's washington journal and a look at the national labor relations board. the business section of the quarter new york --

charles craver is here to walk us through it. what is the national in the labor relations board? guest: it is the government agency that regulates the national labor relations act, which provides private sector workers with the right to be in the union, to engage in collective bargaing, and also the right n to engage in such activities. they can strike, they can negotiate. they can avoid that. what the national labor relations board does, it is the administrative arm that enforces that statute. host: what do they decide? guest: they decide whether

employers have forced employees, whether the union has failed to bargain in good faith, whether the emplor has discriminated against employees in an effort to encourage, or in most cases, discourage members of been in labor union -- membership in a labor union. host: is an independent entity. who sits on the board? guest: there are five members. no more than three from the same political party. if they are appointed by the president -- they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. host: 51 regional field offices. why? because gst: they regularly -- guest: because they regularly practice from field offices. i practiced in sampras's go years ago. i think we h one in oakland -- san francisco years ago. i think we have one in oakland.

we investigative we think there has been unfair labor practice. if someone to have in the election, the majority of workers decide if they want a union representative and a local office. they conduct a secret ballot election. host: why are they called -- called a quasi-judicial body? guest: because they have an administrative law judge who hears the evidence, decides whether he or she thinks there has been a violation of the statute. that can be appealed to the full labor board here in washington c. and if they determine there has been an unfair labor practice, if they find a violati, they can petition theourt of appeals, or the losing party can appeal to the ited states court of appeals. they are truly an administrative agency. they're almost acting as a judicial body when they are deciding labor practices. host: are they assigned to deal

with the national labor board issues across the country? guest: yes, administrative law judges have the title of judge, but they are not judges in the sense of lifetime appointment as we do under the united states district judges and courts of appeal judges. they sit on the national labor relations board and they do nothing but here unfair labor practices cases, and in some cases, challenges as for agents. host: is the number for the national labor relations board for 2010. why is this a separate agency from the labor department? for guest: because the labor department enforces other laws -- guest: because the labor department enforces other laws. it regulates health laws and regulates the employment

relationship. the national labor relations hsu -- the national labor rations board only regulates a narrow field. it covers labor relations and other activities, such as strikes. so many federal laws to regulate labor law. host: this is a piece written by .im demint guest: there is no question the union activity in the private

sector has declined. 75% of the1950's, laborers were in labor organizations. by the end of 2010 it was down to 6.9%. the unions have been much less successful for various reasons. we have moved from an industrial economy to a professional economy. we have seen a number of jobs replaced with automation. and we have seen outsourcing all over the world with globalization. so many things affect the strength of the private-sector union as opposed to the government union. 36% of government workers are still in unions today. host: what is the relationship of the board and the equal employment opportunity commission? guest: the equal opportunity -- equal employment opportunity commission enforces civil rights laws. the age discrimination act, which bans discrimination and give people 40 years and older, and the americans with

disabilities act, which bans anyone with a mental or physical disability, and the civil rights act are all covered under this agency. host: why do we need two different independent agencies? we guest: do not actually need two different agencies. -- guest: we do not actually need two different agencies. in the end, they end up in the same court. if there is a discrimination case, you can go to a federal district court. if you do not get what you want from the national relations board, you can appeal. eeoc deals with individual rights involving discrimination. thnational labor relations board deals with groups of rights. host: we will take phone calls in a minute. i want to show you what the gop candidates did during the debate last night in new hampshire.

a couple of them talked about the labor board. >> one of the things that the congress should do immediately is to defund the national labor relations board. they have fundamentally eliminated the right to work. that is an immediate threat from the obama ainistration to eliminate the right to work. i think is fundamentally the wrong direction. >> if the federal govnment continues to do the type of thing that this administration has planned to do through the back door through the national labor relations board, that changes are free market system. d the free market system is what made this country great and we have to keep it strong. host: let's talk about this boeing case. what is going to happen in seattle today? what will be decided? guest: they will decide to do both things. one, the course of conduct of the boeing co. to punish employees that have struck a

number of times in the past 30 years. also, are they going to move jobs from the seattle area to the south carolina area to punish workers for being in a union? to be fair, the labor board has not heard this case at all. if all that has happened is unfair practices charges have been filed. and the council issued a complaint saying, i think there may be grounds for a violation. it should go to the lab board for an ultimate review. if the general counsel refuses to issue a complaint, his decision would be final in this case. they have to decid whether boeing said anything that would indicate it was trying to threaten its workers in seattle not to engage in strike activity in future. if so, that would be an unfair labor practice and the sole remedy would be, do not do it again. if on the her hand, they actually move jobs from seattle to south carolina for the

purpose of discriminating against the workers for having a union, that could be an unfair labor practice where they would -- they could order the jobs back to seattle. that is not wat most of the cases have been about because now, none of the jobs a being removed. they are simply creating new jobs in south carolina. my guess would be, how they made in the coercive threat that would threaten the workers not to strike in the future? host: let's take our phone call from a democrat in milwaukee, wisconsin. caller: does the governor have a right to discontinue collective bargaining? our teachers here in the state, they want to stop the collective bargaining, and for all of the public officials that currently have unions. they are trying to pass a law that they may not have it.

do you people have anything to do with that? guest: the national labor relations act does not cover public-sector workers at all. federal workers are regulated under the civil service act and state workers, if they have bargaining rights, or pursuant to state law. there is a constitutional right under the freed of association, the first amendment, to join a union. but there is no constitutional right that says the government must negotiate with its workers. in these states is a political issue. what i think should be going on is they should be going to the bargaining table because they are arguing that the labor costs are being excessive -- becoming excessive. go to the bargaining table and bargain over wages the vast majority of states have allowed the workers to bargain anthis has been considered a very basic right. in fact, the international labor organization has a convention

saying that all civilized countries should allow their employees to engage in collective bargaining host: what is a right to work state? guest: that is a narrow exception under the national labor act. states cannot interfere with the national labor board authority. but the provision allows one exception, that is, the states can have a so-called right to work law, which says you cannot require someone t become a union member. it is also interpreted to say that you cannot require them to pay union dues. even if i have the benefit of the union and i have a collective bargaining contract, the union cannot require me to pay union dues. host: where are they in this country? guest: the last i knew is there were 22. the vast majority are in the south and in the non populous states. if you look at states like new york, pennsylvania, ohio,

california and illinois, the big states were mostf the unions are, they do not have right to work laws. host: linda, you are up next. caller: from what i understand, boeing has expanded their jobs to washington. i do not understand why they do not want the people to work in south carolina. i come from a stage where you do not have to be unionized. whatever it is called. host: right toork. caller: yes, ma'am. and you are allowed to join a union if you want to. i think it is all political and it needs to stop. we need to put people back to work. guest: i do think this is political. i think the machinists union is trying to put pressure on the boeing company. that is why they filed with the labor practice charge. the white house has nothing to do with this, congress has

nothg to do with this. the labor board is simply required to decide, do we think there may be a violation? if we had a democratic leader board or a republican labor board, they would have to decide if there was a violation. in terms of oning a new plan, boeing has the right to look for cheaper labor. they have been given tax incentives by the state of south carolina and they have every right to open a plant where they wish to. if they cannot do something that would force their own employees in seattle -- and i have heard conflicting reports both ways. if they said something that they're going to punish seattle workers for engaging in strikes in the past 30 years, that would be an unfair labor practice. the only remedy therwod be that the company would be told not to do it again in the future. host: our guest is here from george washington university to give us a one-on-one on enforcing the nation's labor laws. the headline in the paper is the

boeing case with the national labor relations board. here is from the "wall street journal" from friday. is there a legitimate concern? guest: yes, and we have to understand is that the labor board itsf has made a decision -- everyone is acting as if the

labor board itself has made a decision in the boeing case. it has simply been decided there is sufficient evidence to raise the issue. he is, in effect, the prosecutor. it is sort of like i claim someone has committed a crime. i go to the prosecutor. they may decide to issue a charge. then it goes to trial. the labor board itself has heard nothing pertaining to the boeing case. thiseek, an administrative law judge will take evidence. that person will then decide ether hor she thinks there has been an unfair practice. that will then go to washington. more donebeen nothing than to say there an impression of a violation here. congress will called the u.s. attorney in and ask, why did you or not file a criminal charge? in my many years of teaching i

worked for the labor board in between during graduate school. the labor board has been called before congress from time to time to discuss their more controversial decisions. they are used to doing it. host: willie decision be made today? guest: no, it may go on -- host will a decision they made today? guest: no, it may go on for days. what exactly was done and what was said will be looked at and whether there was anything coercive done by the company. if so, they would issue a cease and desist order saying, don't do it again. the harder issue is very compcated. is there any evidence that there will be loss of work in the seattle area to push them for prior union activity?

as of now, i have read that there iso loss of work. host: the hearing that congressman iceisah is holding n congress this -- in south carolina this reddick, will there be a decision? guest: it is irrelevant to the administrative law judge's decision. at has to be based on the hearing this week in seattle host: greenwood, indiana. democratic caller, good morning. caller: [unintelligible] host: bloomington, delaware, daniel, a republican. caller: my question is, i am not a union-redress because i am a

republican -- i am not critical of the union because i am a republican. i was in t teamsters for6 years. why is it so hard to g fired from that? it seemed like the employees could do anything they wanted. they have really port employees. and nobody could get fired. guest: you raise an interesting question. in the u.s. we have what is called eloyment at will. in the private sector, what that means is an employer can fire a worker any te for good cause, that cause, or no cause at all. some would also -- often say -- unions would say that is un- american because we are the only industrialized country in the world that can fire an employee for any reason. labor unions put in their bargaining contracts that you have to have just cause. and they have a grievance arbitration that goes before an arbitrator if they do not reach

a mutual agreement. i happen to be a labor arbitrator and many cases involve discipline. in america, an employer has to prove there was actual cause. in half the cases the discipline is reduced or even eliminated. i have cases where the discipline was clearly not warranted and i have had other cases where the employee should have been fired five years earlier. i have taught at industrial school how to do arbitrations and one of the biggest complaint i get from union representatives is, why are we protecting the people who should have been fired years ago? that is a very fair question. i think there are times when the unit should take -- say to the worker, there was just cause. why don't they say that? because they are afraid they would be sued. it is easier to take the case to arbitration. if they lose, that is the end of

the matter. host: in 2011, the national labor relations board's budget was kupka. -- was cut. the congressional research service, crs, took a look at the national labor relations board and these cuts and what it means. they've broken down, where the money was spent. ed, "here is thein breakdown. -- here is the breakdown.

john, an independent in hudson, florida. go ahead. caller: it seems that the union have -- the unions, they have all of this backing and things like that. but it seems like non-union people and should take the unions, or even gm to court. we spent billions to bail them out, but then we send jobs to mexico. can't we take a collective action? do we have to be in a union to bring an action against the company? there are a lot of people who are not union people who need representation. guest: i do not think the bailout was simply to protect union workers because the financial institutions were also bailed out and they have very few workers represeed by unions. they allow them to keep all of their huge bonus contracts and the billions of dollars paid out

in buses, but the auto required, they've general motors to go through bankruptcy reorganization where they have reduced their costs by 20% to 25%. they did not do any of that with the financial institutions. they should have told them to go through bankruptcy organization -- reorganization and you're going to reduce these contracts that cause you to go through the situation you a in now. all of these derivatives and the thieves who went through the mortgage situation where they lied about the value of the homes, etc. not one major partisan and has been indicted. host: in texas, sheila, democratic collar. did i get that right? caller: yes, my name is sheila. i live in texas and is a right

to work state. i hate that phrase because it is actually a screen. the workersctually have no rights. i am 50 years old and was heard onhe job. it took me 10 years and $50,000 to fix myself. the company tried to fire me because they had taken my husband's life insurance after taking premiums from me and refusing to pay. i did get all of that stream out -- straightened out, but with my injuries, i ended up with $22,000 and it cost me $30,000. and they can fire you for any reason. i mean, if they do not like the way your eyes look today, you are gone. guest: that is true in general, but if you had a worrs' compensation injury, you would be covered with your medical expenses, your disability payments. d two, if they retaliated against you because you filed a

worker's compensation claim, that would violate a statute either explicitly or implicitly. by your right to my years ago, there was a study of american workers -- but you are right, years ago, there was a study of american workers and many individuals said they wanted some collective voice at work because they had no bargaining power at all. about 85% said they would like some corrective voice. about half would like a traditional labor union and some would like some form of work aboard is a patient. -- some form of worker participation. i think we should have some worker participation in this country where they provide input and get to have some say what is going . ithey have it in other countrie. but managers do not like to

consult workers. host: here is another article. what does this mean? guest: the football league is having very tough collective bargaining. the owners are trying to get more revenue generated from television, etc., for themselves. there is $9 billion at stake. some of that money is coming off the job and being kept by the owners. they are trying to get more than $1 billion off the table and then divide the rest 60/40. they filed the claim of antitrust laws. when you are involved in collective bargaing, there is an exemption from the antitrust

laws. they did not have a claim there. now they are arguing that the owners are not bargaining in good faith. this is all to put pressure on the owners. the fact of the matter is, what they really need to do, and they have been doing under the leadership of the federal mediation service, go to the bargaining table, decide how much of that $9 billion they will take ofthe table and give it to the owners. maybe $400 million, maybe $800 million, maybe $1 billion. whatever it is, reach an agreement and move forward. the players do not have a great opera tour de without the owners. the owners do not have anything without the -- the players do not have great opportunity without the owners. the owners do not have anything without the players. they need to reach an agreement. it is an agency where at the end of any collective bargaining you

have to give notice of a new contract negotiation. they can send a mediator. they often do. despite the fact that we read about the football lockout and about strikes in other cases, every year, thousands of agreements are negotiated. the process works very effectively. what the mediation service does is it helps both pares when they are aan impasse. it looks for ways to come up with a mutually beneficial contract and they normally do quite successfully. host: can you quantify how many different agencies or departments deal with labor laws? i guest: am sure the answer is dozens becau -- guest: i am sure the answer is dozens because we have many levels of worker compensation laws. we have occupational safety and health. we have at the federal level. we have sought -- all sorts of provisions dealing with child labor.

many of these agencies are actually subdivisions of the department of labour. but then we have the equal employment opportunity commission that a separate. the national labor relations board is separate. we have about 160 million people in the labor force in this country and they are regulated by many federal and state laws. host: here a flow chart of the state department of labour. let's go to stephanie in greensboro, n.c.. caller: you see pictures from detroit about how awful the conditions are there for the people. then you see the pictures of the labor building, which is this glorious thing that stands out over the universe. doesn't it strike you that there is something really wrong there? guest: you could say the same thing if you looked at the general motors building or the

chrysler building or the ford motor co. building. the corporations have been very successful, and in fairness, the united auto workers union has been very successful because early on in the late 1940's, they organized almost all of the auto manufacturing workers. they have been very powerful and successful. what people have to understand, and i often say this to my labor law students, what unions are is they are lawyers for workers. most do not go out and hire a lawyer. they hire a union. the our businesses. they are not civil organizations for nonprofits. they are businesses for their business. the ig negotiates on behalf of many athletes -- the img negotiates on behalf of many athletes all over the world.

it was founded by mark mccormack many years ago. those are businesses. that is all a union is, business. host: carol, go ahead. caller: i would like to ask professor craver if the lawyers for unions represent the individual workers. they are hired by the unions, so within their loyalty to t union over the individual? be wouldn't their loyalty to the union over the individual? guest: they are hired by the union, no question. but i will tell you this, in many cases i have been arbitrating and talking to other arbitrators and most union lawyers do a very effective job on behalf of the grievance because they know that as their job. it is the same thing we see in the insurance industry. so often you have an insurance

policy and who are sued because you are in an auto accident or you have committed a negligent act. you are represented by a lawyer that is being paid by the insurance company, but under the rules for ethics for lawyers, my ethical duty is to my client and my client is the individual i am representing, not a party paying my sally reed. even though i am paid by the union or the insurance company, have a duty to the person i'm representing. host: that is the griffin act? guest: yes, and that is their right -- and that is where you have the right to n for union office and other rights of individuals in the union, like elective office ever so many years. -- every so many years. host: that's go to jim in minnesota, a democratic collar. caller: good morning to you.

my comment is that on monday at the republican deal, they made it very clear that they want mrp. i feel that is an attack not just on union workers, but all american workers. the unions, we really do represent all workers, not just those who pay union dues and membership. guest: unions have actually had a very significant impact on regular workers in this country. when you go back to the end of the great depression and after world war ii, in large part because of the national license act, the industrial unions autumn -- organize the auto industry and other industries. we created the their class and

blue collar worker. -- the middle class and the blue-collar worker. since that time we have seen a change. in 1960, a compensation packages for the co's of major corporations were about 40 times what the average worker earned per year. it peaked at over 500 times and now it is somewhere in the 450* range. -- the 450 times range. we are a very individualistic culture. weudge a company not necessarily by how they do collectively, but by how well we have done. everybody wants to be a billionaire. throughout the 90's, in silicon valley we saw a high tech industry and everyone was getting rich because of the industry. everybody wants to be a billionaire and they do not want to share in the bottom. if a company is going to be

successful, it has to have capital and have a good investors and good workers. but the workers have been left behind. inflation has gone up over the last 30 years and ceo compensation has gone up dramatically. host: this is a post from the last nig's gop debate in new hampshire. there are a few themes. one of them is an unfair attack on president obama. what is carjack legislation? guest: it is the employee free choice act. normally, if you want to be certified for union come you have to win secret ballot

national labor relations board election. for many years, before the national labor relations act, and evenfter, between 1935 and 1947, the labor board itself could certify a union without ving an election. you would sign a card saying i want this union to be my exclusive bargaining agent. in 1947, congress changed the law to require a secret ballot election to be certified. you could still get voluntary recognition, where the union goes to an employer and says, we represent a majority and the employer will bargain with you. what is controversial is a lot of times people will sign these cards because of social pressure or something else. i think instead of a 51% majority maybe they should require a two-thirds majority beuse that would alleviate that. because we really believe in

democracy, i say, how many of you allow your compensation packages be subject to a secret ballot of the shareholders, and right away they say we do not believe in that much democracy. host: good morning to the next caller. caller: two things. kudos to you and the other rows for being able to listen to the callers. some of them are really off base a order. anyhow, the unions and robot it seems in the last four years robots have replaced workers. i wonder if that is due to the back -- in the last 40 years, robots have replaced workers. i wonder if that is due to the fact that the unions have caused so many problems for employers. guest: as labor across the what

it is cheaper to replace the individual with a machine. -- as labor costs go up, it is cheaper to replace the individual with a machine. i was teaching at the university of california davis were they invented the so-called davis to meadow, which is an extremely thick skins tomato that can be -- davis tomato, which is an extremely thick skin to a tomato that can be picked by a machine. that was a real dilemma because years ago, henry ford was walking through and out of plant with the head of the uaw. andenry ford said, walter, some day this will all be machines and their travel must be no workers. and walter said, and who will buy -- and there will almost be no workers. and walter said, and who will buy your automobiles?

in the last few years, there are fewer people buying cars. used cars are being bought more than new cars. and with the price of gas, people are not traveling as much. we do not have a blue-collar middle class. we no longer have a demand for products and goods that we used to have when we had a much greater of middle-class. host: mike in illinois. if caller: i believe in unions -- caller: i believe in unions. if you do not like it, your employer -- otherwise, if you do not like it, your employer who hires you and hire someone else. -- your employer fires you and hires someone else. with the unions, you have vengeance, most of them have 41

k's, and health care -- you have pensions, most of them have 401 k's, and health care. guest: there are some good unions and the audience. i believe in checks and balances. i happen to beastern european. my mother came from eastern europe. and i hated communism because you have no democracy, no checks and balances. the one of the happiest days in my life was when the wall ce down and that was the end of the totalitarian regime. if one side has all the power, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as was said to years ago. the president offsets congress, congress offsets the president. the same thing is true with unions. if unis have all the power, they will abuse it. that i why labor costs have

gotten so high. in the private sector today, the employers have all the power and they are using it. i think we do need checks and balances. if unions were to disappear from ied we would see a tremendous abuse of individual workers, or we uld -- eager we would see a tremendous abuse of individual workers, we would see a new form. the optimistic view is that many unions would leave the blue- collar pessimistic negotiating tactics behind. host: evelyn on the republican line in south carolina. what have you been hearing about the boeing situation? caller: i think the unions have caused problems.

that is a lot of the reason that american businesses have moved out. it is for the very reason that they have overtaken it. these unions get money, and the poor men and women today cannot even get the same -- and the poor men -- and women can auditing at the same salary as the men. that is wrong. -- women cannot even get the same salary as the man. that is wrong. if guest: what is interesting is, corporations, no matter where they are the world's -- where they are in the world, they want cheap labor. in some countries they use ildren. even before the free triggermen once extended to mexico, mexico

had a high -- even before the free-trade agreement was extended to mexico, mexico had high labor employment. china is starting to lose jobs to other countries with lower labor costs. if you have a union, the labor costs may be higher, but many law firms have almost no unions. they are hing lawyers for $15 or $20 per hour to do discovery work. they do not want to be than the usual starter, no fringe benefits. -- they do not want tpay them the usual salary, no fringe benefits. or if they do try to offset costs, they give even bigger bonuses to the people at the p.

ohio christian university, circleville, ohio. the chaplain: dear heavenly father, it is with praise and thanksgiving that we celebrate this day. as psalms 118:24 reminds us, this is the day the lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it. as we prepare for this sthofingse people's house, may the wisdom of the almighty flow to the hearts and minds of all those entrusted with the preservation of our great democracy. may the spirit of god cause our leaders to detest evil practices and embrace truth and righteousness.

and may each government official be blessed with your protection and grace. and may the warmth and smile of the loving god find its place in each person's heart here today. we also ask for the protection of the great men and women serving around the world who defend our freedom. we pray these things in the sacred name of our holy god, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the proceedings of the last day -- the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof and pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: 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 15 one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i am honored to represent indiana's third congressional district, home to one of the united states' armed forces finest members, army national guard specialist terence mckinney. after a two-day competition between soldiers from april 18 through 19, national guard specialist terence mckinney earned the title of indiana army's -- indiana army national guard's soldier of the year. mr. stutzman: he's now joined with 54 others as the best national guards soldiers in the country. he was recognized for his exceptional achievement friday, maye 20, in indianapolis and

moves on to compete at the reeg that will level. he's a member dofetatchment 18 recruiting and retention command out of muncie, indiana. i congratulate terence mckinney for his achievements and i'm proud of indiana's 14,700 members of the indiana army and air national guard. we owe endless gratitude to these men and women in uniform who devoted their lives to our security and brought justice to the leader of al qaeda and continue to bring justice to those who oppose us. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: all over the country, farmers are making a living the way our forefathers did, raising food and selling

it close to home. there are programs like know your farmer, know your food that are critically important. later today, we take up a bill accompanied by a report that will cripple these efforts by prohibiting research on local and regional food systems. that's right, the committee report urges usda to stop doing research on the benefits of local and regional food systems. mr. speaker, more and more american families want to know where their food is coming from and want to buy it locally. thousand is not the time to make it harder for small farmers to give con -- to make it harder for small consume -- small farmers to give consumers what they want. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i rise to celebrate the newly crowned nba

champions, the dallas mavericks. they came together, persevered, played exceptionally well as a team. the m.v.p. of the series, dirk nowitzki, will go down in history as a tireless worker and humble team player who shines both on and off the court. i'm proud of the mavs' first ever nba championship title and hope there are many more to come. it was on flag day and i think it's note worthy that this team is emblematic of the american spirit. as individuals, they are good, but when they come together, they are great. god bless texas, god bless the mavs, i salute you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i rise to honor

the united states challenge cup junior challenge, which provides opportunities for young golfers throughout new england. the challenge cup was founded thanks to the vision, passion, and dedication of dave in 1980 and continues under his son. the cup allowed thousands of young men and women to grow up in the game of golf, allowing many to go on to compete at the college level and as professionals. multiple challenge cup alumni are part of the field, including one of the original competitors, the founder's son, brasmed i wish brad the best of luck as he battles con fwregsal country club this week in hopes of capturing our national golf

title. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to talk about something most americans don't know much about, derivatives. they're big bets that amongst other things a.i.g. used to destroy itself, requiring the bush administration to put together a bailout package that was so controversial that we got to pay for it. mr. himes: they're also used in energy markets. they say the $20 to $30 of the price of a barrel of oil today is associated with the energy markets. you'd think we might regulate derivatives, which we haven't done before, and you'd be right, except for the bill we are talking about today would gut money for the cftc, which

will be the regulator on the derivatives markets. the majority can't say we shouldn't regulate them, but instead they're say, let's gut the regulators' ability to look after these contracts. sounds crazy, it is. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the yom from hawaii rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> during these difficult times , we define ourselveses by how we treat those who are less fortunate and dependent. and how we keep our proms. this is why it's so important we keep our promises to our seniors. i'm speaking about medicare and the republican plan to do away with medicare as we know of it

today. ms. hanabusa: we owe it to our seniors to be honest and up front to them as to exactly what this plan will do. you hear it will not affect those who are on medicare now. that's not true. seniors who are on medicare now will see that doughnut hole reappear. in other words, they're going to pay for prescription drugs again. you will see figures like $3 -- like 3.9 million of them paying $2.2 billion next year alone for that doughnut hole. we will also see that it will cost them a total of about $111 million next year because they'll have to co-pay for their wellness visits. this is not the way we keep our promises to the elderly. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

we must save medicare and medicaid. the proposal to end medicare would result in seepors on a fixed income going bankrupt. the proposal to gut medicaid would end up throwing our loved ones out of nursing homes into the streets. mr. clarke: i'll tell you how congress can best balance the budget, do these three things, help create more jobs, stop foreclosures, help keep people healthy by providing health care to everyone. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized.

mr. cohen: the agenda of the house should be jobs, jobs, jobs, yet here we are in june and the republican leadership has not put forth one single jobs bill and the american people want that. the democrats have proposed a make it in america program. a make it in america agenda that will close tax loopholes that encourage u.s. jobs to go overseas to provide hometown tax credits to help small businesses sell products overseas, to boost incentives to create clean energy jobs, so we don't have to spend so much with our military and lives protecting oil imports from the middle east. it requires contractors to use american goods and services. me democrats are supporting a jobs agenda, i ask the other side to come forth and help us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the

house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: if i mention the commodities future trading commission there would be a lot of glazed over eyes, but if i mention high gas gasoline prices and food prices going through the roof, the american people understand that. our republican friends who want a sea of deregulation are attacking the body that regulates the speculation of gasoline prices and food. what does that mean? it means that every time you go to the grocery store as a working middle class family, all you can see is the price of food going up, up, up. yes we've had storms and we've had droughts but the reason is the speculators are gambling on food prices. they're gambling on gasoline prices, and for the hardworking americans that are working, are getting the short end of the stick. can you imagine? here we go with republicans again, defeating the consumer. democrats are ready to fight

for jobs, we're ready to get rid of those speculators and fund the commodities trade commission that deals with the fact of protecting consumers. is there no shame? is there no shame? protect the consumers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to call to attention a 90th birthday for an entrepreneur restaurant that while it was in kansas in 1921, it came to ohio, came to cincinnati, it's that little square hamburger, white castle. mrs. schmidt: when you look at that family and what they they did across the nation with the little square hamburger, there

are now 400 stores in 11 states. this is a family company and it employees thousands of people. the craze mr. england created in 1921 has grown. it's been reported that wheist castle was the first fast food restaurant to advertise in newspapers. it developed cardboard cartons for hamburgers, frerge fries, drinks, even invented its own type of semipermanent restaurant building. white castle is certainly a fitting name for this ohio institution. join me in congratulating them on the 90th birthday of white castle but to remind ourselveses of the importance of jobs and entrepreneurship in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. edwards clonl mr. speaker -- ms. edwards: i call it like it is, here are the fact about the republican medicare ending plan. seniors will pay approximately $6,000 more in out-of-pocket expense, double today. they'll lose benefits. they'll be forced to negotiate, or seniors will be forced to negotiate with the big insurance companies under the republican medicare ending plan. under their plan, republicans -- the republican plan, seniors will immediately reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole that we closed. and so, mr. speaker, this is not a mischaracterization, it's just speaking the truth to the power of the republican medicare ending plan to our seniors and to those who are approaching the age of 65. so i rise today, mr. speaker, to say that democrats are going to stand on the side of jobs, working people, and on those who

want to protect medicare for future generations. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from alabama rise? mrs. roby: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. miss suewell: i rise today to recognize the passing of a great american. katherine tucker windham was a steward of the community and one of alabama's most beloved authors and story tellers. she was a master storyteller, author of 24 books, a playwright, accomplished photographer, popular public television and radio personality, and female reporter in a time when there were so few. her spellbinding stories of life in alabama and the true southern culture have captivated people across this world. on a personal note, growing up in selma, alabama, where she lived and did most of her writing, i heard katherine her tell her ghost stories which captivated my imagination and

encouraged me to read and write. her stories were an integral part of my childhood and for that i'll be forever grateful. over the years she built a well deserved reputation as a respected writer and reporter. she was a true treasure and her stories were a gift to all of the people of the seventh congressional district and state of alabama. her writing will serve as an outstanding legacy for not only her talent but also for her boundless passion for the wife of alabamans. therefore i, terry suewell, the representive of the district, do hereby recognize mrs. tucker for her numerous contributions to the life of those in the seventh congressional district and state of alabama and our nation. i ask those present to join me in honoring her and commending her for her many achievements throughout this nation. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the the

gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i first again want to congratulate those dallas mavericks for winning the nba championship and also to rise in opposition to the republican plan to end medicare. ms. johnson: the republican budget replaces medicare with an underfunded voucher system that eliminates the guaranteed medicare benefit for everyone under the age of 55. in dallas and north texas region, the republican plan would increase the out-of-pocket costs of health care coverage by over $6,000 per year for 630,000 individuals under 55. the republican plan would immediately cut benefits and would require seniors in my congressional district to pay an extra $47 million for prescription drugs over the next decade. i urge my colleagues to protect our seniors and defend them

against these reckless attacks to their hakuba and economic security. and also their -- to their health care and economic security. and also their peace of mind. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: the american middle class wants washington to create jobs and put unemployed people out of work back to work. here we go again. the republicans show they aren't listening and don't care about protecting the middle class. today republicans are going to spend their time in washington helping speculators, speculators inflorida state gas prices and food prices making sure that oil companies keep getting unnecessary tax breaks. the agricultural appropriations bill to be considered today by the house is just another part of the republican agenda to reward millionaires while

leaving everybody else behind. tucked away in the end of the appropriations bill we'll consider today is a provision that would cut money for the commodity futures trading commission. what is the commodity futures trading commission? it's a cop on the beat. it's a cop on the beat whose job it is to make sure that the speculators don't drive up the price of commodities like gasoline, like food, like wheat, things like that. and at a time when the middle class is being squeezed by high gas price, this is the wrong time to side with the billionaires millionaires and against the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the 90th anniversary of white castle, 25 cent hamburger, came in that little cardboard box you

could buy four of them for $1. the price has gone up now, but i got a feeling that this congress continues to do business like it has, we will be eating about two of those little small hamburgers for dinner every single day. what they want to do, ladies and gentlemen, on the republican side, is to cut medicare and cut medicaid and do everything they can to take care of their wealthy patrons with another round of tax cuts. it's like a drunken binge that they have been on with these tax cuts, trickle-down economics, ladies and gentlemen, does not work. it has not trickled down. in fact it has closed off to where all of the money stays up top. it never trickles down to the bottom. we got to change that. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 14, 2011. at 10:38 a.m. appointments, mexico-united states interparliamentary group. with best wishes i am, signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states. section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless prior to the anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the

congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this provision, i have sent to the federal register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency and related measures blocking the property of certain purses undermining democratic processes or institutions in belarus are continue in effect beyond june 16, 2011. the flawed december 2010 presidential election in belarus and its aftermath, the harsh violence against peaceful demonstrators, the continuing attention, prosecution, and imprisonment of opposition, presidential candidates, and others, and the continuing repression of independent media and civil society activists all show that the government of belarus has taken steps backward in the development of democratic governance and respect for human rights. the actions and policies of the government of belarus and other persons to undermine belarus democratic processes or institutions to commit human

rights abuses related to political repression, and to engage in public corruption pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the united states. for this reason i i have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared to deal with this threat and related measures blocking the property of certain purses. signed, bravepl, the white house. -- signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 22 u.s.c. 276, and the order of the house on january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house to the mexico-united states interparliamentary group. the clerk: mr. mack of florida. mr. nunes of california. mr. bilbray of california. mr. canseco of texas.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings during the former members program be printed in the congressional record and that all members and former members who spoke during the recess have the privilege of readvising and extending their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: the committee on rules may meet the week of june 20 to grant a rule that could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of h.r. 2021, the jobs and energy permitting act of 2011. any member wishing to offer an amendment must submit an electronic copy of the amendment and description via the committee's website. members must also submit 30 hard copies of the amendment, one

copy of a brief explanation of the amendment, and an amendment log-in form to the rules committee in room h-312 of the capitol by 5:00 p.m. on monday, june 20, 2011. both electronic and hard copies must be received by the date and time specified. members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as ordered reported by the committee on energy and commerce which is available on the rules committee website. members should use the office of legislative counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. members should also check with the office of the parliamentarian, the committee on the budget, and the congressional budget office to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the house and the congressional budget act. if anyone has questions, they are asked to please contact the committee on rules. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina

rise? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 300 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 45, house resolution 300. resolved, that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 2112. making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food, and drug administration, and related agencies programs, for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived except for section 740, 741, 743, and 744. during consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority and recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose. in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with the recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina,

ms. foxx, is recognized for one hour. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: house resolution 300 provides for an open rule pr providing for consideration of h.r. 2112, a bill which makes appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. mr. speaker, republicans have offered yet another open rule

on this legislation, something we did not see when democrats were in the majority for four years. house republicans are keeping their promise to the american people by submitting a bill that contains no earmarks. house republicans are keeping their promise to reduce spending and rein in the federal deficit which threatens our very existence as a free country this bill addresses many of the glaring inefficiencies of washington by reducing wasteful and redundant programs. mr. speaker, this is a bill that under the control of the liberal democrats kept growing and growing. in fiscal year 2008 this same bill had a price tag of $90.8 billion. a year later, fiscal year, 2009, the liberal democrats increased spending by 14% to $103.3 billion. and for fiscal year 2010, yet another liberal hike in the cost of appropriations to the

taxpayer to the tune of $125 billion. representing a whopping 1% increase in spending. the liberals claim that any cuts in spending for any program covered by this bill drives more people into hunger. strange that they did not say that last year when the very same liberal democrats cut $562 million from w.i.c. so they could spend it in unrelated matters. there's only one example of the lack of leadership, courtesy of our friends across the aisle. lest we forget, it was their failed policies that ruined the economy when they were in charge of the power of the purse. their habitual and unending spending increases have not helped the economy as they have promise bud rather saddled our children and grandchildren with outrageous debts to pay off. with better fiscal stewardship, our economy would be stronger and our country's job creators

would be able to provide the jobs that our nation's work force is hungry for. according to the bureau of labor statistics in january of 2007, the month the democrats took over congress, unemployment was at 4.6%. mr. speaker, let me repeat that. according to the bureau of labor statistics, in january of 2007, the month the democrats took over congress, with a republican president, unemployment was at 4.6%. that number has nearly doubled under the eyes of the liberal democrats and the obama administration. last year, the democrats failed to pass a budget or any appropriations bill. there has been a complete lack of leadership on their side of the aisle and at the white house. while it got very little publicity from the lame stream media, the senate overwhelmingly rejected

president obama's budget proposal on a unanimous vote of 97-0. unanimous opposition to the president's budget and nothing said about it in the press? the republican house budget that we sent to the senate fared much better than the president's budget. again, mr. speaker, we've seen nothing but a lack of leadership from the administration and the liberal democrats in congress. the bottom line is that if we do not make sound and responsible fiscal decisions that focus on reducing spending and making the government leaner and more efficient, we risk forfeiting control of our own purse to debtor nations. we are current libor roing 43 cents for every dollar spent at the federal level. to have foreign nations provide funds for so much of what our country spends is neg lidgent and -- is negligent and

irresponsible. taxpayers will be paying around $600 billion in interest on the national debt by 2012. to put that figure in perspective, mr. speaker, the fiscal year 2011 defense budget is $685 billion. in order to grow the economy and provide an environment which americans can prosper, we need to end expensive and ineffective government programs and remove the barriers of uncertainty that prevent employers from hiring. many liberal elites are calling for higher tacks, higher taxes, mr. speaker, on hardworking americans in order to pay for their irresponsible spending and fiscal decisions. the democrat plan is to continue to borrow, spend, and tax, taking money out of the pockets of hardworking americans. a clear difference between liberal democrats and republicans is that republicans do not claim ownership of the

salaries of hardworking americans and businesses that create jobs. elite democrats believe that they are entitled to take money from americans and small businesses in order to carry out their liberal agenda and job creators are left with whatever the liberal elites deem necessary for them. you cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator with higher taxes a and more government red tape. mr. speaker, american businesses need a clear perspective of what the future holds in order to create american jobs and strengthen our economy. the uncertainty and mixed messages of the obama administration provides is completely counterproduct toiv achieving any kind of economic prosperity. poth because ma's economic policies have consisted of bullying businesses to help union allies, such is the case in south carolina where the nlrb is telling a private company where to do business for the benefit of big labor bosses at the expense of 1,000

jobs in south carolina. when americans needed a jobs agenda, president obama and the elite democrat controlled congress gave them a spending agenda. from the president's first day in office in january of 2009, through april 30, 2011, the economy has lost 2.5 million jobs, an average of 3,044 jobs lost every day. according to the bureau of labor statistics, 150,000 new jobs are needed to be created each month to keep up with population growth. the economy is not growing fast enough or strong enough to employ the 13.7 million americans looking for work. but the liberal elite seem content sitting back and watching agencies expand the bureaucracy by coming out with an unending string of job-killing regulations. this in no way helps create confidence in american business, jobs, or economic prosperity.

the democrat elites have made history. the result of their liberal ayen da has been historic trillion dollar deficit, historic debt and historic unemployment. we must empower america's job creators, small businesses, families and entrepreneurs to lead us to real job growth. more wasteful washington spend snth the solution. that's why republicans propose saving americans over $800 billion of tax increases by repealing obamacare and continuing the appropriations bills we are proposing now. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman from north carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: before i get into my statement, i would like to

point out for the record to the gentlelady that in response to her very political and partisan remarks, i want to remind her that george bush came into office in 2000, republicans were in charge of both the house and senate until 2006, and so if you want to point fingers at why this economy is in the ditch, i would suggest that my republican friends look in the mirror. mr. speaker, budgets are moral documents. budgets lay out our priorities. document what we think is important for our country to succeed and our citizens to thrive. a few months ago this republican controlled house made a statement by passing the ryan budget. with that vote, house republicans showed that they want to end medicare as we know it, but their budget did more than just undermine medicare. it set the stage for the appropriations process. so here we are today, to begin

consideration of the f.y. 2012 agriculture appropriations bill. this bill, while not as high profile as some others, is one i believe to be of critical importance to our nation and to the world. it funds many of the programs that keep our nation and many parts of the world from going hungry. it deals with the most helpless people, the most vulnerable people in our country and in the world. it protects the food supply so our children and families dent have to worry about contaminated food and provides fund for rural america including funds for broadband internet access and other programs. mr. speaker, this bill is important in many, many ways. but like the ryan budget, the f.y. 2012 agriculture appropriations bill, as written by the republicans, is just plain wrong. this allocation is unworkable. so quite frankly, i don't care

if you have an open rule or super duper open rule or quadruple by pass rule, it doesn't make -- bypass rule, it doesn't make a difference because this bill as written is unfixable. the only way to help programs that they cut, that feed hungry people, is to cut from other programs that feed hungry people. so there is no way to make this bill better. and the bill, as written, mr. speaker, in my opinion, is morally indefensible. instead of making investments in our nation's agriculture and anti-hunger programs, this bill slashes funds for w.i.c., csfp, and the food safety programs. those aren't just meaningless acronyms. c.i.c. is the women, infant and children's program. funds from w.i.c. provide food and nutrition education to pregnant women, newborn children and kids up to 5 years of age.

csfp is the commodities supplemental food program. it helps put food on the tables of america's senior citizens. there's the emergency food assistance program, providing assistance to food banks dealing with decreased donations and increased demands? these difficult times. pl-480 prvidse american grown food to hungry and impoverished people around the world. it's known as food for peace. and the food safety programs protect our citizens from food borne bacteria like e. coli and salmonella. taken together, cuts in domestic antibiotic hunger programs total more than half a billion dollars. add in the cuts to pl-480 and the mcgovern-dole school feeding program and the cuts are -- the cuts add up to well over $1 billion.

to provide food to hung repeople here at home and around the world. as written, this is a pro-hunger bill. there's no other way to say it. no matter what anyone says this bill will increase hunger here at home and around the world. a vote for this bill is a vote to willfully allow people in america and around the world to go without food. a vote for this bill is to take food from children and seniors to allow food banks to open with half-full and empty shelves. these aren't just freezes in current spending. a freeze in current spending would be bad enough. with the continued rising demand and rising food prices people are facing here at home and around the world, that would be bad enough. no, these are real cuts that will do real damage to real people. the only thing crueler than ignoring a hungry person is

giving a hungry person food and then taking it away. no one would condone that, mr. speaker, yet that's what this bill does. we're not just talking about the tired old stereotype of the welfare queen gaming the system. no, mr. speaker, the bill we're talking about is people who played by the rule bus are struggling to make ends meet tpwhifes difficult economy. we see more middle income family whors turning to food banks and food pantries. in times of need, we're supposed to help our brothers and sisters in need. -- families who are turning to food banks and food pantries. in times of need, we're supposed to help our brothers and sisters in need. yet this bill does not do that. it cruelly targets those who are hurting through no fault of their own. yes, we are facing tough, difficult economic times. yes, we need to adress the budget deficit. but what kind of nation are we if we choose to balance our deficit on the backs of the poor and hungry?

what kind of congress are we if we choose to cut the programs that protect our seniors and our children and favor protecting gas, oil, and farm subsidies? i want my colleagues to understand that those subsidies to -- those examples of corporate welfare are all protected. they've been protected by this new majority since they took office. what kind of people are we if we stand idly by and allow our children to go hungry? nations go to war over food riots. we all watch with great interest what unfoldled -- unfolded in egypt with the protests demanding democracy and freedom, but they were also demanding food. . they were complaining about the lack of food people have in egypt. mr. speaker, this would be -- this is especially tragic because it kind of demonstrates

where the new majority's priorities are. one of the first things that they insisted on was that we protect the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. donald trump got his tax cut protected. and we didn't have to offset that. even though it's costing a great deal to our deficit and our debt. we didn't offset it. they just wanted to protect it. all the corporate welfare, all protected. so now we -- they bring a bill to the floor and they say we have to make tough choices. we have to make tough decisions. and the tough decisions and tough choices they make are they cut the w.i.c. program, 300,000 people will be thrown off of w.i.c. that's not tough on anybody here in the united states house of representatives. we are all fine. but it's tough on a lot of low-income pregnant mothers and their children around this country. we can do better than that and congress needs to do better than that and this nation should be better than that.

this bill falls under the grand tradition of the ryan budget. like the ryan budget it does great damage to the american people. like the ryan budget, it breaks our nation's great promise to protect our nation's citizens. and like the ryan budget, in my opinion, this is morally indefensible. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. i urge my republican colleagues, don't do this. don't do this. don't try to balance the budget on the backs of the most helpless people in our country and around the world. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm always having to help balance out the comments that my good colleague from

massachusetts is making. he criticizes republicans for keeping tax cuts. well, i have to explain to him his president, a democrat, supported that. most democrats here supported that last year. we didn't keep tax cuts, we stopped tax increases. even the president and his people have a little sense about economics that if you raise taxes in the middle of a terrible economic situation, you create problems. i'd also like to point out to my friend from massachusetts they were in charge for four years. it was during those four years that we got into the mess that we got into. they controlled both houses of congress and they controlled the presidency for two years of that. and yet they didn't stop any of these things that they talked

about. i will when i've completed my comments. i appreciate that. he refers to this legislation as the pro-hunger bill. this tired claim that republicans are intent on starving children by our liberal friends really goes beyond cliches now. putting that aside, my friend from massachusetts needs to understand, if he really cares about funding for federal food programs, he should vote for the underlying bill. why? because it provides $6 billion for the w.i.c. program. let me point out again that last year my colleague from across the aisle voted to cut the w.i.c. program for totally unrelated program of over $500 million. $68.2 billion for food stamps.

$180 million for the mcgotsche-dole food program. -- mcgovern-dole food program. perhaps these are not the funding levels he likes to see, but i think my colleague knows that legislating is the art of compromise and there are plenty of members who would like to see deeper cuts to further enhance efficiencies in this program. the bottom line is that by voting against this bill using his logic mr. mcgovern is actually voting to starve the children and to create more hunger by denying over $93 billion in overall federal food assistance to the hungry people that he claims to support. in contrast, by voting for the underlying bill, he's voting to provide the funding he argues these programs so desperately need. let me do a recap of what's in this bill, mr. speaker.

77% of the bill is snap, that's food stamps. child nutrition, and w.i.c. child nutrition programs will receive $18.8 billion in mandatory funding this year. that's funding that's on autopilot. this covers 68% of all school lunches and 85.5% of all school breakfasts, either free or at a reduced rate. the snap or food stamp program, 6 .2 billion providing support to 45 million people. mr. speaker, it's unconscionable that we have 45 million people in this country getting food stamps. that's a result of the policies of our democratic friends across the aisle. again w.i.c. $6 billion, snap $136 million. the mcgovern-dole international food education and child nutrition grants, $180 million.

there's a lot that the liberals can be grateful for in this program. i would yield to a question from mr. mcgovern if he has a question to ask me. mr. mcgovern: i would simply say to the gentlelady that i would reiterate my view that this bill is morally indefensible the way it is written. the gentlelady talks about w.i.c. under the cuts in this bill, i say conservatively, between 200,000 and 350,000 low-income and -- low-income women and children will be thrown off of w.i.c. the moneys you cut in the mcgovern-dole program, mean we would serve -- ms. foxx: reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reclaims her time. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: the gentlewoman will have plenty of time under his time to make the comments that he wants to make. i was more than willing to answer a question. but he will have time to make those comments when it's his turn. i'd now like to yield three

minutes to my colleague from indiana, mr. stutzman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. stutzman: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i find it very interesting in listening to the discussion here today about the -- whose responsibility it is to feed those who are hungry. i don't think anybody on this floor would say that we don't want to help those, someone who is in need of food or basic essential services. i think what this is is a discussion about the difference in philosophy in washington about the role of government in washington. there's plenty of blame to go around for all of the spending that's come out of washington over the last decade, last 30 years, actually. what we are doing is we are sinking our nation and our children, the children that we are talking about, and who we want to help and feed, we are actually giving them over

$40,000 of debt. each child that is born in this country is saddled with $40,000 of debt because of government spending that continues to grow more and more every year. i can tell you as an american farmer in indiana that myself and many other americans, farmers and individuals, are much better suited to help those who are in most need in helping in the community, donating food, being a part of a food pantry. we are a generous nation. and what has become of our ability to help is that we have a federal government that continues to saddle us with more and more debt. more and more taxes and regulation, making it much more difficult to make the profit that we could then turn around and help our communities with food, with the basic services that our churches, our charities, and many other organizations in our local

communities provide. instead of us always looking to the government for that assistance, let's back off of the american people and let them help themselves when they are capable and when they are willing to do it rather than continuing to put them further and further into debt which -- the democrat party talks about where are the jobs? well, government doesn't provide jobs. the private sector, people in our communities, entrepreneurs, people that want to expand their businesses, to provide a job for that family that needs to provide for their children. they need the jobs. and there's not going to be enough government jobs to give them that opportunity. instead, every time we take dollars away from the private sector, that individual who is out working hard, doing -- working 50 hours to 60 hours a week just trying to make ends

meet, we are putting them in a very difficult position where they are not able to pay the bills and -- because we continue to make it much more difficult for businesses to be successful here, small businesses are the backbone of this country, and until washington, d.c., backs off the american economy will continue to struggle and families will continue to struggle. i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i believe that this is a responsible bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. stutzman: that will instead help the american economy to grow and help americans. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: let me i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcgovern: let me remind the gentleman that churches and faith-based organizations across this country are doing their share. they are doing more than their share. many of them representing every

faith in this country are up on the hill saying we need you, those of you in congress to do our part. this is not just a problem for charity to deal with. we all have to be involved in dealing with this issue of poverty and dealing with the issue of hunger in america. and around the world. let me say to my colleague from north carolina. i'll put my -- match my anti-hunger credentials against hers seven days a week, but in this bill that has been brought before us, the cuts in w.i.c. would end food assistance for 200,000 to 350,000 low-income women and children. that's a conservative estimate. she mentioned food for peace. how grateful we should be that they are thrown some scraps at the problem of international hunger. in this bill there is a 39% decrease in food for peace, title 2 funding. it will put millions of lives at risk and undermine the ability of usaid to prevent famine.

food aid provided by usaid is a lifesaving measure for millions of vulnerable people overseas. according to usaid, these brutal cuts will mean up to 16 million people, mainly women and children, will not receive the lifesaving food aid. the gentlelady mentions the mcgovern-dole program, near and dear to my heart. that program serves about five million people -- five million children, children, in 28 countries. the $20 million cut to mcgovern-dole will end school meals for over 400,000 children in the world's poorest countries. we are literally, literally taking food out of the mouths of these children. imagine how that would make you feel if it were your child. so i say to the gentlelady and to the gentleman who just spoke, this is -- this is not a jobs

bill we are bringing to the floor here today. unfortunately my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to bring a jobs bill to the floor. they are too busy trying to undermine or underfund funding for national public radio. to deal -- instead of dealing with more important issues. but this bill deals with the reality and i don't care who you want to blame for it, that there are tens of millions of our own citizens who are hungry in the united states of america. the richest country on the face of this earth. we have a choice to either trying to help them out during this difficult time or to turn our backs. and the way this bill is funded, we turn our backs on millions of our fellow citizens. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, reserves, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i'm always reluctant to talk about personal experiences on the floor, but i