corn, etc.? guest: the big thing being debated is genetic modification. the thing that matters a lot right now for going forward with growing food is formed are you -- is farm values. host: land values? guest: land values. here is something that is a complicated problem for the world. if you look around the good farmland, places that are flat, tend to be cities. people could grow food and sustain themselves. the world is becoming more urbanized. people are moving into these urban areas. that is where the good farmland is. you can find plenty of open land in antarctica or something, but it is not where you want to have crops growing. we have a real mismatch where people want to live and where the good farmland is.

host: marilyn geewax, we have and the conversation -- end the conversation there. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

graham was a larger than life figure who led a remarkable life of service. whether it was as a soldier in world war ii soar state judge or a u.s. congressman, he served with a strength of character and a love of country that has provided an gample and -- example and inspiration for many people including me. a man of deep faith, graham possessed a again rossity of spirit that extended to all aspects of his life. he was a member of the greatest generation that saved the world from totalitarianism and then came home to build the most prosperous nation the world has ever known. but graham was also an individual who would stand out in any generation. rising from humble roots to help make history. he was born on may 5, 1919. after high school he enrolled at tacks a&m and shortly after

pearl harbor he joined the army and earned among other awards the sill var star. even after he was discharged, he continue to serve in the army reserves for a number of years. when he returned from the war, he finished his degree and baylor law school. he practiced law for a few years, and appointed to be judge at the 89th district court in texas and served from 1955 until 1962 when he resigned in order to run for congress in a special election. soifling in the house from january -- serving in the house from january of 1962 to january 1973, congressman purr cell focused pry -- purr sell focused on his work as chairman of the livestock subcommittee. he also played a key role in the congressional prayer breakfasted and served the people with integrity and distinction for 11 years. after congress, graham practiced law and help found the large law firm and served as a visiting district judge in

texas. in whatever capacity, soldier, judge, congressman, citizen graham was committed to serving others. he and his wife, nancy, just recently received an award for helping children in crisis in the wichita falls community. graham purr sell led a rich, full, remarkable life. how many others can say that they shook hands with winston churchill when serving as a soldier in italy? had vice president johnson come pick him up at the airport just after he was elected in a special election to take he and his family to the johnson home so they could stay there for a while until they had a chance to find a place of their own? or on the last night of president kennedy's life, spent more than an hour with him on the plane from houston to fort worth swapping stories back and forth and then was in the motorcade the next day when president kennedy was assassinated.

or made numerous trips back and forth to vietnam to thank our soldiers for what they were doing there, always stopping at a burn unit along the way to make sure that those severely wounded would know that their country appreciated what they were doing. or at age 92, just a few weeks ago, offer important guidance and advice to one of his successors about the importance of putting the country first ahead of party, ahead of personal considerations. although graham loved history and he certainly loved to regale family and friends with some of his amazing stories, he was also a person who was always looking forward. he was consumed by what our country would be left to his children and grandchildren, and it was this focus on the common good that dominated his life's story and really defined him as a man and as a public servant.

he and his wife have eight surviving children, 25 grand children, and five great grandchildren, all of whom benefited from his loving care and will miss him greatly. although graham had many titles and roles, he knew first and foremost he was a child of god and it was from this perspective that he lived and in this assurance that he now rests. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. this past friday the unes would have observed, celebrated would have been the wrong word, the 40th anniversary of the war on drugs. the war on drugs was initiated by president richard nixon and he said we can have a war on drugs 40 years ago and the fact is 40 years later we spent nearly a trillion dollars on the war on drugs, we have just as much drug use in this country as ever before, we have

incarcerated millions and millions of people for victimless crimes, and when we get people who sell drugs, which we need to do, all that happens is like a shark's teeth, they are replaced by the next in line, somebody else wanting to make money from a program the public endorses and supports. . a lost generation of people with no education and no prospects because those arrests haunt them for the rest of their lives. think about how many law enforcement resources have been wasted on drug arrests. nine violent drug arrests when

policemen could be spending their time working against violent crime and crimes that are dangerous to people, robberies, and murders and adults and other offenses truly important to the american public. it has been estimated that the total criminal justice cost of marijuana arrests for state and local governments is as much as $7.6 billion a year. that averages out to about $10,000 per arrest. think of all the serious criminals that could have been arrested instead. i was shocked recently to read the new york city police department arrested 50,000 people for low-level marijuana offenses last year. new york city, 50,000 arrests for low-level marijuana arrests. more than a 19-year period between 1968 and 1969 combined. marijuana use has not skyrocketed but arrests have vamped up. and they use those arrests to get particularly people of color where seven times more likely to be arrested if you are a african-american and four times if you are latino, and if

you are african-american latino, you'll spend the night in jail than caucasian as a way to take people and arrest them and deprive them of what should be their basic civil rights. our local budgets are straining like never before and yet we see more arrests. it's time that we question this policy, this war, and knowing that insanity is repeating the same thick over and over again expecting -- thing over and over again expecting a different result. this is insane. for 40 years we have had a war on drugs, war on our citizens, we have wasted money that could be used for given things and we treated a societal problem as law enforcement problem. we need to change our approach. drug courts have been a successful way to deal with this problem. we have drug courts in my community getting successful to see a different approach to life. not jail. racial disparities have been tremendous. seven times more likely for african-american, four times if you are latino.

these inequities run throughout our drug policy program and need to be corrected. we corrected a disparnecy between crack and cocaine, powdered and crack last year. it's 18-1 in quantity. still it should be equal and it results in racial disparities once again. i have introduced legislation that justice integrity act which is studying disparities and the burn accountability act which will require states to do studies on their racial disparities. the fact is law enforcement makes arrests for these crimes sometimes to justify getting burn funds and funds from the federal government for the purpose of getting money into their programs and not providing justice. they should go on to have a life of employment and successful life in america. i have introduced the fresh start act which says if you have a nop haven't federal offense and spent seven --

spent sevens years and a clean life you can get your record exsuspensioned. otherwise they can't get jobs. medical marijuana is an issue and most states who have had the opportunity to deal with it have passed it. mostly by 60%. i had a good friend who was a navy seal and one of the strongest, toughest, best friend i ever had. when o.j. was 54 he got pancreatic cancer. and it destroys a person. just whittles them away. the guy was 210 pounds, could do all those things the seals do, hand to hand and pair troops -- -- paratroops, he used medical marijuana and his mother said thank god for that. it allowed him to have a sense of humor and eat. it worked. i yield back the balance of my time. urge us to solve the war on crimes -- war on drugs by

getting out of it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. boustany, for five minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, i--over 14 years in private practice in medicine, i had the great privilege to treat many, many medicare patients. thousands of medicare patients. i did open heart surgery, complex open heart surgery, one cancer surgery, in times of great need, great difficulty for these seniors who had paid many years of their payroll taxes into the medicare program , with the hope and recognition that this program would be there for them, for their health care needs in their later years. i'll tell you, in the 1990's when i was in the midst of the -- peak of my practice, it was not unusual, in fact quite often patients would come into the emergency room with a very

difficult situation. without a primary care physician because they had not had previous health problems, and then what would happen is we would have to do emergency heart surgery on them. once they got through all this and the hospital stay, we could not find a primary care physician to take them on, to treat their everyday problems with hypertension, high blood pressure, diabetes, gout, and things of that nature. i would get on the phone time and time again and i would call family doctors and internal medicine physicians and plead with them, why can't you take this one more patient into your practice? and it's because the reimbursement situation for medicare was so bad, even back then in the 1990's, that if a physician took on too many medicare patients, they couldn't meet their costs. and that situation's gotten much worse. today, today in 2011. i can tell you that i have grave concerns about the future of the medicare program. and what's going to happen.

and i'm not speaking as a member of congress. i'm speaking as a physician. as somebody who cared for many patients who valued that doctor-patient relationship. this situation whereby families who have a loved one on medicare cannot find a primary care doctor, this is a very serious situation today and getting worse by the week. the bottom line is medicare is in trouble. i saw this as a doctor and now as a member of congress. just a couple of facts. over 10,000 baby boomers are reaching retirement age every day, leaving fewer workers to support them. we have an aging population. and this is putting tremendous cost pressure on the medicare program. according to the medicare actuaries, the trust fund that provides the money for the hospital program is going to be out of money in 2024.

more money is being paid out than without changes to the current law, something that is basically assumed that these certain cuts would occur in the law. in fact, without any changes to the law, physician reimbursements would fall from 80% of private rates to 57% of private rates in 2012. now, what does that mean? that means that the situation for physician practices will get even worse whereby they can't even meet the cost of their practice. and, therefore, they're going to continue to limit their exposure to taking on new medicare patients. that means access problems. that means medicare patients cannot get access to physicians. we need real solutions to this. we need fact-based solutions. we need answers to the problem and not political rhetoric. and so far that's all we've

seen largely coming from the other side and the white house on this. in fact, we're on a path to see the bankruptcy of this medicare program if we don't act. now, let's take a step back and look at what happened in the health care bill? this health care bill which passed without republican support cut over $500 billion from this medicare program to expand coverage into a new entitle, an extension of the medicaid program. we're digging ourselves out of a hole in order to pay for this. and now there will be cuts in current seniors, not people that will go on to medicare in the future. seniors that depend on this important program today. another thing that's in this bill is not well-known is a new bureaucratic entity that was created. there is one that really bothers me a physician. it's quality the independent payment advisory -- it's called

the independent payment advisory chord. ok. it sounds a bit innocuous. what does it do? it's a 25-person board that is arbitrarily chosen that will make life and . decisions about what things will be paid for under the medicare program. now, what is the recourse in all of this? this is an arbitrary decisionmaking body, and you cannot dispute what this body is going to do. in fact, if congress overrode it would take 3/5 of the senate to override it. it's bad for medicare patients. i can tell you, republicans have an idea about how we're going to fix this. i can't get into it now. i'll do it in the subsequent speech. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. seek permission to address the house for five minutes and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: you're recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: i thank you, mr.

speaker. members of the house, the default clock is ticking. we face a default on august 2 if we do not raise the debt ceiling. raising the debt ceiling is always a difficult vote. it is difficult because we have to do something that's necessary but not popular. now, the question of the debt ceiling is about paying obligations already incurred. it's not about giving this house of representatives permission to spend more money. but what has happened with this debt ceiling debate is that it is being used as leverage by both sides to try to get its way on a long-term budget resolution. and the reality is that this country needs both. it needs number one to have a long-term resolution on its fiscal situation but, number two, this is the immediate need. it has to pay its bills.

america is a great country. it has always paid its bills. and the debt ceiling is about that and nothing more. and incidentally, those bills are ones that have been incurred by congresses that many of us were never part of. it's not a question of whether this is a bill that you would have supported incurring the expense war, the iraq war, the afghanistan war, the medicare prescription part d, the two cuts in taxes during the brucks, all of which were on the credit card. i was -- brucks, all of which were on the credit card. i was against those. that is the obligation we have and we must pay them. the risk is enormous. every increase in the interest rate of 1% will cost the american taxpayers $160 billion. the default clock is ticking. now, two weeks ago the majority brought to the floor a clean debt ceiling bill for the purpose of defeating it. and immediately upon bringing

this bill to the floor and defeating it with unanimous republican opposition and many democrats voting no, members went back to their offices and called wall street and said, just kidding. we will raise the debt ceiling but we wanted to send a signal. we are playing with fiscal fire here. you know, it's fine to negotiate but negotiations cannot lead to default. mr. speaker, if we in this congress with the republican majority now leading the way fail to honor the nation's obligations by making good on our responsibility to pay our bills, wall street will again work its -- the bond markets will work its will and we will lose our a.a.a. credit rating and we will do enormous damage to this economy. just -- this is not about a democrat or republican speaking. let me quote chairman bernanke

and a few others who commented on the urgency of paying our bills. chairman bernanke just yesterday said that failure to raise the debt ceiling would create fundmental doubt about the credit worthiness of the united states and damage the special role that the dollar and the treasury securities have in the global markets. now, i understand the desire to use the debt limit deadline to have policy adjustments, mr. bernanke said. but the debt limit is the wrong tool for that important job. a few other people commenting on this. jpmorgan's c.e.o., jamie diamond, a default would be a moral disaster. it would dwarf lehman. every single company with treasuries. every insurance fund. every requirement that it will start snowballing, automatic if you don't pay your debt. there will be default by rating agencies, all short-term financing will disappear. that's jamie diamond of

jpmorgan. the chamber of commerce, failure to raise the debt ceiling will create uncertainty and fear and threaten the credit rating of the united states. moody's rating service on downgrading america's rating. since the risk of continuing stalemate has grown, if progress and negotiations is not evident by the middle of july, such a rating action is likely. fitch rating service. failure to raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner would imply a crisis of governance which could imperil the a.a.a. status. first, we have two problems. we have a long-term problem that has a long-term fiscal plan. and we have a long-term plan which is to protect the integrity of america's reputation for paying its bills. we have a downgrade in our rating. it's going to affect the interest rates that we pay, and that's going to hurt folks in republican districts, it's

going to hurt folks in democratic districts who have no power to do anything. i yield back. we must raise our debt ceiling -- we must pay our bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger, for five minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. speaker. last september, president obama referred to america's small businesses as the anchors of our main streets. unfortunately, economic data released on wednesday proved that the president's actions speak louder than words. the failed policies of the obama administration have left small businesses struggling. according to the national federation of independent businesses, confidence in small business has dropped into recessionary levels, and the reason, small businesses will tell you that their economic uncertainty is caused by low sales, high taxes and

burdensome government regulations. now, i hail from the state of illinois. let me tell you a little story about illinois. illinois raised its personal income tax level and raised its corporate tax level. so as a result of this, just a few days ago we saw "the wall street journal" put out an editorial which basically said, illinois has raised $300 million in revenue because of the corporate tax increase. oh, but however, because of the businesses threatening to leave illinois, they've already spent $240 million in giveaways to corporations to keep them there. this idea, this thing that we've been on over the last couple years of tax, borrow and spend our way to prosperity isn't working. i remember when the president's economic -- you know what, in my own home district,

unemployment exceeds 11% in many of the counties. people are asking me, what are you doing to create jobs? well, i'll tell them this. look, the federal government can do one thing. we can create an environment for job creation, but the federal government doesn't create jobs and that's been the problem because in the last two years we've been counting on $800 billion stimulus as a miraculous jobs bill. the president promised by this time unemployment would be 6.7%. . the president promised if we passed an $800 billion stimulus bill, unemployment would never exceed 8%. we saw it approach 10%. and now it's back on the rise again. mr. speaker, you don't solve our jobs problem by spending more money. because we spent money.

and where are the jobs? where are the jobs? what we need to do is to understand that jobs are not created by this body, but they are created by the private sector. by the folks who get up everyday and they put their minds together, they come up with an idea. they risk their capital, they risk their financial well-being, and they hire somebody in hopes that this dream that they have succeeds. in many cases it doesn't. a lot of folks with an idea to begin a small business are not successful. but then they get up and try again. but if you talk to any small business owner, you talk to any manufacture in the united states, they'll tell you the biggest impediment to job creation is government regulation and taxation. is there really anybody that believes -- i understand some people can argue we have to raise taxes to get more money to the government. fundamental disagreement, but i understand people can argue that.

is there anybody that truly believes raising taxes creates jobs? is there anybody that really believes it? what's the number one issue we have right now? we want to take people, almost 10%, the 9.1% of folks in this country that desperately want to have a job, we want to take them from a tax recipient to a taxpayer because they want to be a taxpayer, too. the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over and over and expecting different results each time. but you are going to get the same result. when this body spends money, when we spend $800 billion on a stimulus, we got nothing but a future of debt, doubt, and despair. i believe we have a future in this country that's prosperous, that never accepts second best. there is a lot of youth watching here today that you have a job when you graduate from college. a future, a country that never

accepts anything less than being a world leader. and i believe we never, ever accept second best. so when we talk about what to do in the future, we need to talk about the most important thing. we do have to rein in spending, but we have to get people back to work. and more and more spending isn't going to do that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, for five minutes. without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i rise today to talk about medicare. medicare in a fact-based universe where truth matters, with medicare people's health is at stake and their financial life is at stake as well. republicans and democrats don't agree on much these days, but most people agree that the long-term deficits of this country are driven by

ever-rising health care costs. if you solve the problem of skyrocketing health care costs, our deficit problem would largely go away. what to do is the problem. democrats feel we have an unbreakable compact with seniors. democrats think basic health needs of the elderly should be guaranteed and the elderly should never be driven into bankruptcy. republicans think there is no compact with the elderly and that bankruptcy is just natural economics. so the republicans have wanted to kill medicare ever since it was passed in 1965. as recently as 1993, speaker gingrich said we want it to wither on the vine. the craziest thing about the republican plan to kill medicare is their plan does nothing to control costs. despite all the republicans screaming about budgets and deficits, their plan does nothing to fix the single largest problem that threatens the whole of our economic

situation in this country. the republican plan is to give seniors a coupon for about half their monthly premium and then walk away. if you can't pay the other half of the premium, too bad. no health care for you. if you can pay and it bankrupts you, too bad. costs will continue to skyrocket. we democrats think that the ryan wrecking ball is the wrong way to go. democrats are responsible stewards of the medicare system. democrats want to lower costs, improve care, and keep the elderly from going bankrupt. . now, it's important to keep the debate on medicare reality based. when we passed the health care law last year the republicans went around screaming about death panels and scarring as many voters as possible. it was all politics and it was not true. the fact is that the health care reform had 165 measures in

it to improve medicare. medicare is about paying doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs. the health care law improved medicare by helping doctors focus more on taking care of patients, by keeping nurses from drowneding in paperwork and by making hospitals more efficient and by getting fairer prices for drugs. the democrats worked with hospitals to improve the payments and so save the country $157 billion for hospital payments. the republican plan did nothing to save americans money. it just shifted the cost from the government onto grandma and her kids. the democratic health care law saved $136 billion by reducing payments to insurance companies. the republican plan gave a runaway train to money to the insurance companies. the annual medicare trustee

report came out last month and it said the new health care law was a sizeable improvement to medicare. $500 billion of savings and better care for more people. those are the facts. it's what any good company would do to increase quality and lower costs. the democrats have a plan for medicare, and we passed it in the accountable care act last year. that's why the republicans want to repeal it. you got to understand what all this repeal talk is about. they want to get rid of the improvements that we made in health care. we cut money from one place that didn't make sense and improved care for prevention, for other places for seniors. we knew what we were doing, but the republicans' goal has always been to end medicare as we know it. they have been very clear from

1964 right straight through newt gingrich and through the ryan plan. they don't want to have medicare that guarantees seniors security. they want to give them a little coupon and say, now, go and find an insurance company that will go and take care of you, grandma. think about that. seniors, what they really want is certainty. when you get old, what you worry about is, how am i going to take care of myself and how am i going to help my kids and leave a little something to them? am i going to have to go to my kids and say, i can't go to the doctor because i can't pay for it? they take that senior citizen medicare card, it is their security. the republicans want to get rid of it. we have already passed a plan to save it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, for five minutes.

mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, words are inadequate. i convey my profound respect,ed a mir mation for bishop emeritus, john smith, who celebrated for his golden jubilee and an amazing 50 years as catholic priest in a mass attended by over 800 people in trenton, new jersey. the mass which had bishop davido congressional, now bishop of trenton, and several brothers, father andrew smith, was filled with joy and reflection, befitting the acknowledgment of a great servant of god. cardinal mccarrick noted that bishop smith is an an amazing, extraordinary brother, an extraordinary friend, a man filled with faith, fill with zeal, zeal for the church, zeal for the people he serves and as special way as bishop, for his

faith. model jesus christ for our people and imitate christ. mort smith, he said, does that well. the cardinal said, i'm not here to talk about bishop smith. and then said he is the greatest capissor, usually for telling long stories and happily very funny. once when i was about to give an address i turned to bishop smith, seated with my wife and me, and he gave me a joke. i, courtesy of his jokes, had them rolling in the aisles. bishop smith's uncanny ability to infuse humor and hope filled light heartedness, it's almost all things, is not only entertaining but makes presentation of the gospel to an often confused and stressed

out world more efficacious. bishop smith connects amazingly well with the youth. i witnessed it many times at schools and at the catholics men's raley. bishop smith has a way to have youth to faithfully and courageously live by the gospel. you always find yourselves filing with bishop smith and your spirits lifted. for the many years i've known him, bishop smith not only radiates the love of christ, but he works hard and smart. often i don't know where he finds the time. ordained a priest in 1961. he has really done it all. bishop smith has earned several doctors and got his doctorate from catholic university of america in the 1960's and was deployed as a pastor in the new york archdiocese. over the years he's chaired or been a director of numerous boards, including the institute for continuing theological

education, the u.s. bishop's consultation number four and the archdiocese vocation board. he's also served in leadership positions on the bishop's committee on migration and refugee services and served on the board of directors of the st. vincent depaul seminary, notre dame seminary, st. joseph college seminary, st. francis medical center, catholic relief services. i note he made five humanitarian trips to africa as part of catholic relief services mission there. as bishop his pastorial plan, led by the spirit, identified several priorities, including dealing with charity injustice, pastorial leadership, ethnic diversity, young and young adult ministry, faith formation and sunday worship. today, all 111 parishes in the diocese of trenton are developing action plans to

implement led by this spirit. bishop smith also created the institute for ecleezial ministry which has formed and commissioned approximately 100 people to date. he also updated and advanced the gospel and the culture of life and created real faith tv, an award-winning teen talk show, and he boosted the trenton diocese' online outreach to the hispanic community to protect the sanctity of human life and to reach an ever-wider audience with news and commentary published in the newspaper "the monitor." faced with decline number in diocese enrollment, which included 30 elementary schools and eight high schools, bishop smith's commitment to excellence initiative established benchmarks to make an already effective education program even better.

mr. speaker, my wife, marie and i, were those among offering thanks to bishop smith's jubilee mass. we rejoiced with his family and friends for his accomplishments that are without number. we rejoiced over his bold, consistent and compassionate commitment to defending unborn children, their mothers and the sappingtity life. we aspire anew for his life well lived. mr. speaker, we give thanks that while his extraordinary ministry has changed, he's far from done. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for five minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, a year and a half ago we were promised a new way forward in afghanistan, a way that would include a significant military drawdown. the date for the redeployment to begin was july 1, 2011. just two weeks away.

then, last year the goal posts were moved and it was decided that in fact our troops would remain in afghanistan through 2014. but apparently that wasn't enough. negotiations are now under way with the karzai government. negotiations that are happening apparently in secret and without proper accountability and transparency for the construction of military bases in afghanistan. officials are being careful, very careful. not to say that these bases would be permanent. but it's clear that our government could be hammering out the details of an agreement that would call for u.s. military presence in afghanistan for as far as the eye can see. i can't understand the logic here, mr. speaker. why can't we grasp the very idea that the longer we are

perceived to be in occupying power the more resentment we breed in afghanistan? the longer we're there the more we fuel the insurgencey, the more we leave our troops vulnerable, the more we put our own national security in jeopardy, erecting permanent bases would be the biggest favor we could do for the taliban. i salute my good friend and fellow californian, congresswoman barbara lee, for her leadership on this issue, and i would urge my colleagues to consider my legislation that would require the president to negotiate a status of forces agreement that would clearly prohibit the establishment of permanent bases. mr. speaker, the outgoing defense secretary, mr. gates, says we're seeking joint bases. whether the united states acts as a tenant as opposed to an occupying force. but i don't believe for a minute that the taliban

appreciates the subletty of that distinction. as long as there are boots on the ground and not just boots but large installations with american trappings and english language street signs and so forth the more we embolden the very radical forces we're trying to defeat. we're going exactly the wrong direction, mr. speaker. at a moment when the american people are crying out for this military occupation to end, our leaders look as if they're preparing to extend it into perpetuity. at a moment when casualties are a long-term presence -- excuse me -- at a moment when casualties are on the rise, we're preparing for a long-term presence that will further endanger, not protect, americans. we can't afford permanent war. it's unsustainable. we can't afford the cost in

blood, treasure, loss of credibility. it's time to bring our troops and contractors home and leave no military footprint behind. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. buerkle, for five minutes. ms. buerkle: thank you, mr. speaker. today i rise to tall attention to the attention of elder abuse. today is elder abuse awareness day. hundreds of thousands of americans each year are the victims of elder abuse. according to the national center on elder abuse, this number could be as high as one million to two million americans. elder abuse, mr. speaker, is a broad term for the victimization of seniors 65 years and older. there is no one picture of what elder abuse looks like. it can be physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse,

emotional abuse or exploitation. the perpetration of elder abuse also varies. spouses, partners, caregivers in nursing homes and even neighbors. our older, elder americans are especially vulnerable to abuse, particularly those who serve from dementia or other diseases. those who fought in world war ii and korea who nurtured us, who taught us, who built this society among us would be victimized in the twilight of their lives. our elderly citizens have given us so much, and they deserve our appreciation, our respect and most importantly our protection. not just for what they've contributed, mr. speaker, but for the ways they still enrich our society and enrich us as a people.

this august, my mother, mr. speaker, will turn 90 years old. three years ago when my father died she was lost. she was particularly vulnerable. fortunately for my mother she has children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to help her and to support her, but how many other americans, elderly folks are out there who don't have that support system, mr. speaker? this is not a democratic or a republican issue. in is an american issue. our seniors, our elderly deserve our help, they deserve our protection. please, as americans, today is elder abuse awareness day. let us be particularly aware of our most vulnerable, our elderly citizens. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from alabama, ms. sewell, for five minutes. ms. sewell: today i rise in support of farmers and producers across these united states and especially in the

seventh congressional district of alabama. as we debate and discuss issues sur surrounding the agriculture -- surrounding the agriculture appropriation bill, let us remain mindful of the enormous impact the agriculture sector has had on the united states and our world economy. agriculture employs more than 21 million american workers. and accounts for 15% of the total u.s. work force. in my home state agriculture contributes nearly $5 billion to the state's economic sector every year. any agriculture appropriations bill must take into account the potential economic impact and the strengthening of agriculture sector that is needed for the 2 is -- 21st century. i understand we are making very difficult budgetary decisions, however i am concerned that the types of cuts proposed in this year's agriculture appropriations bill are ill-advised and disproportionate.

this bill reduces the funding for agricultural research programs, including the agriculture research service and the national institute of food and agriculture by over $354 million from last year's level. now, i know that is a substantial cut and very important research that must be done both nationally and within our individual states. in fact, the institute, the national institute for food and agriculture fulfills this mission by supporting research, education, and extension programs at land grant universities like those in alabama. auburn, tuss keying key gee -- tuskegee, and others. we must reserve funding for these critical investments in the future of agriculture research and food safety. under the republican appropriation bill, food and nutrition programs like snap and children nutrition are

funded at nearly $2 billion less than the president's budget. snap is an important and essential program in these challenging times for low-income individuals who cannot afford to purchase food for themselves and their families. since the program was created, snap has literally saved millions of lives and currently provides essential support to over 165,000 individuals in my district alone. the proposed funding for women, infants and children food assistance program, w.i.c. as it's known, is far below what is needed to serve all those individuals who are eligible for the benefit. w.i.c. provides essential nutrition to new mothers, babies, and small children under 5 that are nutritionally at risk. nearly 50% of the babies born in our country each year rely on w.i.c. in alabama, w.i.c. provides assistance to over 140,000

individuals and over 25,000 just in my kiss trict -- district alone. contrary to popular belief, this program is cost efficient and it serves nearly 10 million people each year costing less than $100 per person receiving benefit. the lack of proper funding in this appropriation bill is yet another example of republican attack on hardworking families and children that definitely need assistance for nutrition. i cannot stand idly by and let this occur. we must ensure that any appropriations bill provides robust and adequate funding for these essential programs both now and in the future. the republican agriculture appropriation bill reduces funding for essential rural development programs by $337 million below last year's levels. now, these reductions

disproportionately impact loan authority for 502 direct housing programs. without these loans low-income rural families could not find financing option that is would help them purchase homes and simply be able to live. this bill also seeks to reduce funding for agriculture business and rural business grants by 20 million below last year's levels. in a time of economic recovery, we must continue to make strategy invest -- strategic investments in small and rural businesses and not make reductions. it is important that we who know better do better. agriculture in our global society is of the utmost importance. as our global population increases, food security and adequate food production will be necessary for our national security. economic development, and our overall survival. it is my hope that all, all on both sides of the aisle, will

pass an agricultural approps bill that is both fiscally responsible, forward thinking, and makes economic sense. i yield back the rest of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. denham, for five minutes. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about natural resources and whether or not they can create american jobs. the answer's yes. with oil production alone, 1.2 million jobs between the three bills the republicans passed out of committee and on to the house floor. a total of two million jobs if you add in the american energy independence and price reduction act. two million american jobs. not only could we be energy independent in our great nation, but we can put americans back to work with two million jobs alone in this area. we need to have states' rights, allowing states to explore oil

exploration or natural gas or utilize all of their natural resources whether you are in alaska and you want to drill in anwr or the governor of california and you want to pass the ridge and clean up the old oil wells off the coast. states should have those rights to be able to do that and to be able to put their own people back to work in those states. the president's policies on our natural resources are just flawed. my friends across the aisle continue to talk about the bills that come off of this floor and whether they create jobs or not. this is indisputable. two million jobs. you don't have to like these jobs. but nevertheless they are american jobs and it gives us our energy independence. now, the president talked about we have 2% of the world's oil. but we utilize 25% of the world's oil with our vehicles.

i agree with you, 25%, we got a lot of cars on the road. we have a lot of good movement. but 2%? the number is flawed again. as we went through the natural resources committee, we have over 65% of the world's natural resources between natural gas, oil, and oil shale, we just have to be willing to go get it. rather than going to brazil, rather than going to the middle east and putting our troops at risk, we ought to be self-sufficient and utilize our own natural resources. and put americans back to work in the process. now, in my district we got natural resource issues as well. we have seen timber issues across the nation. in arizona we see catastrophic disasters of natural forests. in my district we have natural forests as well. these national forests we've got to manage better. we got to be able to take the fuel off of the forest floor.

we've got to be able to harvest some of the timber. we'll never catch up at this point because our timber harvesting plants are so far behind, but nevertheless we've got to put americans back to work. we've got to put californians back to work dealing with our timber industry. in the central valley, where we have the largest abundance of ag production, all of the fresh fruits, the nuts, packaged salads, we have so many different things that california produces and yet we see some of the highest unemployment in the nation. as our national unemployment continues to escalate, we are at 9.1% now, we are double that in the central valley. and it's a direct correlation to the water. one of our natural resources when you shut off the water to the valley and only give a 10% of the contracted allocation, you have 36% unemployment. and in some cities it's even higher. when you go to the food lines

and you see americans, 44% unemployment some cities. it seems un-american. to not utilize our natural resources. so we have the ability in this great nation. we have the bills that we are passing off of this floor. what we need to do is have the will to move them through both houses and encourage the president to have american jobs. not republican jobs. these aren't republican jobs. not democrat jobs. but american jobs. putting people back to work. avoiding the natural disasters that happen with forest fires and the natural disasters we have with flooding when we don't manage our water. creating clean energy in the proses is. -- process. but the most important issue, when you got 9.1% unemployment and escalating across the nation, when you've got double that in the central valley and continuing to escalate, but you have the natural resources and the ability to solve your own

problems but ignore the fact and don't do so, we have an american problem. with jobs. as republicans we are willing to fix that problem. we will continue to pass these natural resource bills, but at some point we could ask our friends across the aisle to work with us. we will not solve california's energy problems or the nation's job issue without addressing our natural resources. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: i appreciate the fact that the gentleman who preceded me in the well talked about unemployment and creating jobs and i may not have agreed with his particular words, but at least that's one republican talking about creating jobs. unfortunately, the republican majority in the last six months

of leadership in the house has brought forward no bills to put americans back to work. except they say, do more of the same. what? yes, more of the same. the last decade george bush dramatically cut taxes twice. decreased regulations. under the theory that that would create jobs. unfortunately the facts are in. we had the worst job creation post-world war ii in the last decade under george bush and doubled the deficit and debt while doing it. didn't create jobs. trickle-down economics doesn't work. didn't work in the reagan era, didn't work then. compare that to the clinton era. we raised taxes, yeah, particularly on rich people and big corporations. we balanced the budget. we paid down debt. we had 3.8% unemployment. and real incomes went up for the middle class. i would love to go back to those bad old days. no, it's the bush policies that

will work. we just got to do more of them. reduce spending even more. government can't do anything to create jobs. what about investing in the nation's infrastructure? who built the national highway system? who built the bridges, the transit systems in this country? who helped build the rail systems? who has maintained our ports and waterways? the federal government. sometimes in partnership with states or local government or the private sector. but those investments pay off. and what do the republicans want to do? in face of 150,000 bridges on the national highway system that are about to or not in the not-too-distant future have the same faith as the bridge in minneapolis, minnesota, that is collapse, they need either total replacement or repair, 150,000 bridges. 40% of the pavement on the national highway system. $60 billion backlog on our transit systems.

they want to cut federal investment in transit and they say if we give that money to rich people and corporations, who are sitting on $2 trillion worth of cash, they'll take care of the problem. really? what are you going to do? toll 150,000 bridges across the country in order to induce the private sector to come in and rebuild them? you going to toll the existing interstraight to bring it up to the decent system of good repair? and transit systems, they all lose money. some of the republicans say, we should do away with transit system. we don't need those things. come on, let's have a little bit of common sense here. you want to talk about saving fuel? invest in transit. you want to talk about creating jobs, invest in infrastructure. we have the strongest buy american requirements in transportation and infrastructure as any program of the federal government. we create more jobs per billion dollars than anything else, way more than the defense department where they want to shower all their funds, can be

created in transportation. we can put americans to work. not only construction workers who have horrible unemployment, not only steel workers for the bridges, not only people who maintain these systems, but engineers, software engineers, people who make tires, people who make railcars, make people who make streetcars. making streetcars in america for the first time in 70 years in oregon due to one of those horrible earmarks they want to ban. we were buying them overseas. now we are making them in america. is that bad? they seem to think it is. they want to decrease investment in these sorts of things that are proven job generators. i have to give the obama administration a big fat de-minus on the same issue. their so-called stimulus which i voted against, $800 billion, 40% of it was bush tax cuts. which didn't bourque for bush, didn't work for owe--- didn't work for bush, didn't work for obama. extending the payroll holiday on social security. that will put americans back to work. give me a break.

these things haven't worked. we need real investment. if you borrow money to build a bridge that lasts 100 years, at least you can look your kids and grandkids in the eye and say what did you do with that money because i'm still paying the bills 30 years from now, we built that bridge you drove over to go to work today. we rebuilt that transit system that you took to work today. . we made america more competitive in the international economy with those investments. you got to start distinguishing between investments and wasteful spending. you want to talk about cuts, let's talk about them. subsidies for people to grow things. another $15 billion to grow surplus crops. don't want to touch that one. tax loopholes that -- giveaways to the big oil companies. we can't cut taxes to the oil companies. come on, people, let's get real here. let's invest in america and put people back to work. we feed a real program and

you've offered us nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, for five minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i stand here today not just as a congressman but as a physician with nearly 30 years of experience treating and interacting with patients. wherein both of these hatses a allowed me to understand our health care system at each end of the spectrum and it allows me to say with absolute certitude that the democrats and president obama have written the wrong prescription for medicare. with 47 million americans relying on our medicare system and millions more to enter soon, it's absolutely irresponsible not to inform the public accurately of the facts about its current path if left unchanged. the truth is, mr. speaker, when the president's health care bill was signed into law, it ended medicare as we know it.

according to the nonpartisan medicare actuary, medicare will run out of money in 2024. that's, what, 13 years from now. the congressional budget office says it will be as soon as 2020, nine years from now. house republicans have chosen to face the facts and responsibly propose a comprehensive plan for medicare. the republican budget saves medicare by maintaining benefits as they are for those 55 years and older while also strengthening it by bringing true choice and competition to maintain and save medicare for our children and for our grandchildren. mr. speaker, the democrats' plan for medicare reform is included in the 2,400 pages of, you guessed it, obamacare, which is bad for american seniors and bad for the country. their plan empowers a panel of unelected bureaucrats to ration

senior health care. this panel will focus its time on the critically ill. they use the most health care services. health care rationing has never, mr. speaker, has never been the american way. but it certainly appears to be the democrats' way. as a doctor, i know that the last thing patients need are bureaucrats who are unanswerable to the public, indeed to the congress, making health choices for them. the democrats' plan also allows for a $500 billion raid of medicare to fund programs in obamacare, a fact that they have conveniently ignored while they are consistently criticizing republicans for so-called cutting care. the plan put forth by president obama and the democrats is a plan that cuts medicare for

seniors today and it leaves medicare bankrupt for our future generations, our children and our grandchildren. mr. speaker, my diagnosis is that american seniors should be worried only if we sit back and do nothing about medicare or accept the democrats' plan to gut it from sick and disabled seniors. we cannot allow it to continue on its current path to insolvency as the democrat and president obama would have it. we need to support medicare reform now so that we will have medicare tomorrow, and that includes eliminating this rationing board as soon as possible. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: i rise today in strong opposition to the secure communities program. i am for the stated goals of the secured communities

program. anyone who is undocumented in this country and who has been convicted of a serious violent offense should be removed from this country, period. but i can't support the program because of the significant evidence that secure communities is failing to achieve this goal. when you look at the numbers, nearly half of the undocumented individuals from my home county of los angeles who have been taken into custody through this program have not been committed or been convict of a serious violent offense and that is the problem. take the story of a 20-year-old who suffered three turbulent years of abuse and beatings at the hand of her boyfriend. in february, she finally found the courage to call 911 for help. earlier that day her boyfriend, ricardo, had thrown her and her daughter out of their apartment. when she came back to the house and got her things, ricardo

showed up and started throwing things at her. when she tried to protect herself and her child she accidentally scratched her neck. after the 911 call the police showed up and put her boyfriend in cuffs. after they saw the scratches they took them off of him and put them on isara. shocked at what was happening she fainted. at the hospital doctors found bruises covering her body from the weeks and years of abuse. despite being identified by a doctor as a victim of domestic violence she had been arrested as the abuser. after the arrest, isara landed in the l.a. county jail which was participating in the secure communities program. but because of this program she was fingerprinted and found to be here in an undocumented way. it was too late. before she knew it she was sent to an immigration detention center in santa anna. its stories like isara which is

causing d.h.s. inspector general to investigate the secure communities program. washington state, pennsylvania and washington, d.c., refuse to join secure communities, and new york, illinois and massachusetts are suspending their participation in this program, and california is discussing this as well. but that's only the first step. the concerns about secure communities must be properly and permanently addressed. this is first and foremost about public safety. the people on the front lines of this program are police officers that have expressed serious concerns about its implementation. lapd chief said that it's causing a breach of trust between the lapd and our immigrant communities, hindering our officers' duty to protect and serve all of our residents. and the numerous reports of domestic violence victims being detained through this program are simply unacceptable. if a program is causing a

victim of violence to fear reaching out for help, then that program is causing more harm than good. secure communities has undermined our police department's mission of protecting the public. it has weakened protections against racial profiling and it will have a chilling effect on immigrants' willingness to report crimes or provide useful information to the police. we must take a long, hard look at the affects of secure communities. we must allow state to opt out of the program. we must protect the safety and welfare of all our residents and truly ensure that we will have safer, more secure communities. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday afternoon, bloomberg news released an analysis district by district around america of

the highest concentration of 45 to 54-year-olds. and the reason they did this analysis was to see and focus on where the impact of the republican medicare plan would land the hardest. in fact, the top 10 districts, which they identified, the headline of this article which obviously is bloomberg news, a nonpartisan news service, is medicare cuts would hit republican lawmakers. nine out of the top 10 district in america with that highest 45 to 54 concentration are republican districts. the 10th is the second congressional district, which i have the honor of representing, in northern connecticut. now some say, why was bloomberg looking at the population of 45 to 54-year-olds. well, the ryan medicare plan radcally alters the medicare program -- radically alters the medicare program starting in 2022 for people 55 years old and younger. starting with that age group, medicare will no longer be a guaranteed benefit but a

voucher program which they will be given a $8,000 payment to say, good luck. go find insurance. the congressional budget office has already analyzed what that means for age 54 today in terms of out-of-pocket costs. in fact, it would double the out-of-pocket costs for 54 and below in year one who enroll in the medicare program. and over time we have an analysis which shows what the true out-of-pocket cost would be for a 55-year-old with normal american life expectancy. it would raise their out-of-pocket cost -- these are additional costs by $8 ,000. so for anybody that's out there today who's in that age group, you better start saving up because you're going to need a lot more retirement assets to keep level with withstand an american turns 65 today gets under the medicare program. now, we heard a lot and one of the speakers a few minutes ago was just making the comments about medicare going broke and that people 65 and up are going

to be protected in terms of their medicare. wrong. the ryan republican plan would immediately can sell new benefits for seniors today that they started to enjoy starting in january, annual checkups, cancer screenings, smoking cessation. i had a town hall back in norwich, connecticut, where i had a young primary care doctor which was talking about the fact that the annual checkup has allowed her that extra time to spend with patients and she's detected three cancers because of the fact she now has the tools to do her job smartly and efficiently. and the ryan republican plan would can sell that annual checkup coverage which the affordable care act kicked in january, along with cancer screenings and along with smoking cessation, all smart, preventive wellness-oriented care which will save the medicare program money. so for people 55 and less, and this chart shows the

out-of-pocket cost grows exponentially. so i see some young folks up in the audience. if you're 15 years old, your out-of-pocket costs will be $711,000 higher than a 65-year-old today entering the medicare program. what this really amounts to the ryan plan, is just simply a cost shift to patients and families. it does nothing to make a more efficient health care system, and that is not a solution for the problem. now, we also heard, well, medicare is going broke, it's going to be bankrupt in 2024. if you read the trustee's report you'll see in fact that is a totally misleading comment. what the trustees reported is there is sufficient funding in the program to cover 90% of the cost in medicare starting in 2024 for at least another decade and a half. now, that shortfall is a problem. we should not have a 10% shortfall starting in 2024, but that is a manageable problem. we can make smart, intelligent changes to the medicare

program, just like we have had -- just like we have done going back to 1965 when it was first enacted. again, we have had in fact solvency reports and warnings from the trustees that were much more dire in the 1970's, in the 1980's, in the 1990's than the report we saw three weeks ago. there was no reason to scare people and panic people into butchering the medicare's guaranteed benefit in the name of fiscal solvency for the medicare program. we can make smart choices. we can make smart changes. but shifting cost to people 55 and less, that's not a solution to medicare's program. it ends medicare. now, within families, some who are over 55 and some who are under 55, this will create a two-tiered coverage. i can report to you the courtney family, i'm 58 years old, so purportedly i would get the old-fashioned benefit under the ryan plan. but my wife, audrey, who is a nurse practitioner, she is 51, she gets the loser benefit so

she has to start dishing out $2,000 in additional costs for her retirement under this plan. you have two-tiered coverage even within families under the proposal that we have with the ryan plan. we can do better as a great nation to guarantee coverage that is a reasonable package that is smart and efficient to solve medicare's program. we don't need the ryan plan which will shift costs to patients and families in an unfair fashion. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. just to our members, the members should not refer to those in the gallery. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, misspeier, for five minutes. ms. speier: i rise today to draw our attention to the edmonton .epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military. first i want to mention the disturbing government accounting office report released last week which showed that patients and staff have

been raped and sexually assaulted in the v.a., 284 reports of sex -- sexual assault occurred. 67 classified as rape, 185 as inappropriate touching, 13 as forced oral sex, eight as forceful medical examinations, and 11 others. while this is not as widespread as rape and sexual assault in the military, it is another example where government has lacked in protecting the men and women who serve our nation in uniform. one assault is one too many. v.a. facilities should be the place for aid and comfort not for abuse. the house veterans' affairs committee has held a hearing on this issue just monday. congress must make it a priority and hold the v.a. accountable and ensure that this does not happen again. as i said during my last speech

on this issue, i set up an email account so survivors of rape and sexual assault in the military can tell their stories. the address is stopmilitaryrape at mail.house.gov. today you want to share the story of private jessica kenyan. i must warn my colleagues that some of the language is wrong. -- is raw. she concerned the army from august of 2005 until august of 2006. her allegation is as follows, during training at fort use tiss, private kenyan's teaching art gantt began to harass her. he made sexual jokes and comments to her. she did not believe it would be effective to report the teaching sergeant because her unit commander was openly massagenies. he was known to say that, quote, this unit never had any problems until females came into it, unquote. in december, 2005, while

private kenyan was home for the holidays, she was raped by a member of the army national guard. at that point she reported both the sexual harassment by the drill instructor and the rape to an army sexual assault response coordinator. the army official advised her to put the rape, quote, on the back burner, unquote. and focus on the sexual harassment. private kenyan then discussed the rape with command who advised that it would be used against her in promotional review it is she chose to pursue prosecution. after she reported the harassment and rape, she was ostracized and retaliated against by her fellow soldiers. this retaliation followed her to her next assignment at camp humphreys in korea. when she arrived, the sergeant advised that he had received calls warning him about her. he then made a unitwide

announcement cautioning much that they, quote, should be careful who you talk to because they might report you, unquote. the sergeant and others engaged in ongoing sexual harassment of private kenyan. in the spring of 2006, one soldier, a specialist and squad leader, sexually assaulted private kenyan. he put his hand under her skirt and under her shirt and on her breast and tried to make her touch his penis. she fought him off. private kenyan reported the assault to command. the assailant denied the sexual assault and failed a lie detector test as a result. he then recanted his testimony and admitted to the harassment. he was charged with lying on a sworn statement and given only a nonjudicial punishment. he was demote -- demoted two ranks but remained on active duty. the assailant got to keep his job.

private kenyan got posttraumatic stress disorder. for 16 years the congress as been talking about this issue. and there have been 18 hearings and reports. and yet, the department of defense still testifies that there are 19,000 rapes that occur in the military every year. and we have done nothing about it. i urge survivors to tell their stories by writing to stop military rape at mail.house.gov. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick, for five minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. the recent release of the may unemployment rate at 9.1% was a harsh reminder that a jobless recovery is not a recovery at all. i believe that in order for our economy to grow and small

businesses to create jobs, the first step must be to restore fiscal order to the federal government. this year our government is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar that it spends. in addition to burdening our children and grandchildren with an enormous debt, such reckless spending crowds out private investment and competes with small business for access to capital. while reducing our deficit spending is an important first step to economic recovery, we can and we must do more. since taking office, president obama has dramatically increased the regulatory burden on small businesses. in 2010 alone, the administration has handed down 43 major new regulations, the highest single year increase on record. the president has also used the regulatory process to block development of vast domestic energy sources. this has led to costly burdens that prevent small business

growth as well as higher prices at the pump. while regulations can help protect our environment, they should be based on common sense and not stifle growth. recently i helped the small manufacturer cut through months of costly federal red tape that played expansion in hiring at his facility in bucks county, pennsylvania. we must work to make sure that unnecessary and duplicative regulations do not stand in the way of job creation in our region and across our great nation. finally, we must proactively encourage private sector job creation. i have been working, mr. chairman, on two pieces of legislation in this area. the higher just one act would provide a one-time tax credit to small businesses that hire full-time permanent employees this year. i have also introduced the fairness to veterans act, which would extend federal contracting preferences to veteran-owned small businesses. this bill is designed to honor the service of our nation's men

and women in uniform, as well as address the staggering 21% unemployment rate among veterans returning from iraq and afghanistan. i'm committed to working to fix our economy and making sure the federal government is a partner in job creation not an obstacle to it. together we can grow our economy and create private sector jobs and opportunities. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 12:00 noon toda >> live now to capitol hill for

a senate appropriations hearing on the 2012 defense department budget. testifying, outgoing defense department chief, robert gates, on your screen and joint chiefs of staff chair -- staff chair, admiral mike mullen. live coverage here on c-span. >> the first category is more cuts in overhead. the second category is looking for marginal missions and marginal capabilities that can be eliminated. this would be in situations where perhaps two services have comparable capabilities and we can get by by having that capability in just one service, or there may be mission that is we can setaside. the third category is the hardest and it's the one that admiral mullen and i both talked about in our remarks and that is

the comprehensive review to look at what are the options that are available in terms of making reductions in force structure and what is the impact of that on the capabilities of our forces and our ability to carry out our strategies and how do we adjust our strategies and how do we evaluate added risk by reduced investment in defense? one example of this just to give you the flavor of what we are talking about, for many years we have had a strategy of being able to wage two fairly major regional conflicts simultaneously. if you tell yourself you are willing to accept the risk, that won't happen, that two conflicts of that magnitude would not take place at the same time but might be sequential, if had you to take on two others, then that has real impact on force structure. i would just note in terms of

assessing risk between 2007 and 2009 we in fact had two major regional conflicts going on simultaneously. so this is not a far-fetched in terms of risk. the fourth category, then, is are the issues that frankly are politically challenging. they have been very difficult for us and for the congress to take on. working age retiree health care, i want to make clear none of us are faulking about any imfact -- talking about any impact on health care for the active force. this is about working age retirees. compensation and particularly i would say in that respect retirement. and whether the time has come to look at retirement. i think we have two challenges on the retirement side. one is, about 70%, 80% of our force does not stay in the

service long enough to retire. but they leave with nothing. so if you serve five years or 10 years or a dozen years, you walk out the door with nothing. that doesn't make any sense. the private sector's well ahead of us in that respect. the second problem is, we get a lieutenant colonel or sergeant first class with 20 years of service, they are at their peak, we are at -- they are at their prime, and we make it financially silly for them not to retire in 20 years. how do you incentivize them to give us another five years of service? i don't pretend to have the answers to these questions, but they are issues that i think we need to address both in terms of what's good for the force, but also in areas where we could save some money. those four areas, mr. chairman, are the areas that we are looking at in terms of how we can find this $400 billion. >> thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, could i just make two brief comments. first of all not unlike the

government itself where the defense department has roughly half of the discretionary spending inside our budget, a little less than -- little more than half is discretionary. so while we look at reductions in the future and where we would take the funds, there are obligations that we have that we just fundamentally have to fund as we transition to whatever this new budget environment is going to be for us. secondly f. we don't come to grips with some of the most difficult issues, it is as clear as anything to me that the only as is we are going to get a lot smaller with a chance we could go hollow. we would give up force structure to sustain these benefits, do all those things, and that i think is very dangerous in the world we are living in to meet the growing national security requirements i see. >> thank you very much.

>> mr. chairman, mr. secretary, let me ask in view of the situation in libya, are we learning something about the ability of our allies who volunteer to try to take up the slack in situations where we are not moving forward and trying to dominate and run a military operation, what we are learning from their capabilities or inadequacies that give you the most concern? >> i addressed this last week in brussels in my usual subtle form. the reality is that as they put their defense budgets, and have been -- have not been investing in their defense capabilities for a number of years, by default the additional burden falls on the united states. so i think that there is a genuine worry that our allies

have looked to us to pick up the slack as they cut their defense budgets and the message that i had for them in europe last week was that a -- because of our financial problems, and frankly a growing number of members of congress who -- for whom the cold war and our connection to europe and to nato are not in their genes as they are for me, are going to be unwilling to pick up 75% of the defense burden of the nato alliance. so i think this is a serious problem. it's been a problem for some years. but i think our own financial difficulties and what we are now going to face in looking at the american defense budget, brings this issue to center stage in a way that it really has not been in the past. >> admiral mullen, on the same

subject, what effect does that specifically have on our ability to project power to other regions of the world, the far east, for example, areas where we have been involved in actual combat operations, vietnam era, and what that brought in terms of expense of operations and training of our forces? can you give us an assessment of the direct impact on the u.s. navy and your budget request? >> i share that secretary's concerns and views with respect to the investment or the dramatically decreased investment in our nato partners, or by our nato partners. one of the effects it has had certainly they don't have the depth, resources in some cases to do what their political leadership has directed them to do. although i also would say that

both in afghanistan and in libya, nato is more together than i have seen in terms of commitment over the course of the last 10 to 15 years. while they do get criticized, they also stood the operation up incredibly quick fashion. we have -- we had an air operation like this in a long time, and from my perspective they have executed that well. the resources to do it is something we are watching very carefully. they are in some ways dependent on us. the other thing is for countries who recently did their own strategic review, they found themselves getting rid of capabilities that now that they are in a combat environment that they are giving second thought to that. combat has a way of bringing that kind of reality to them. which just argues for me that we and others have to be very careful in our review given the world we are living in about what capabilities we decide to

either get rid of or trim back. where we are right now and in particular i mean as you talk about the western pacific, senator cochran, we are -- we've got tremendous relationships with the japanese, with the republic of korean military. we have had with our australian friends, as well as growing relationships with the lathveian countries. i'm comfort with where we are right now. we have overseas homeport forces as you know, both marines and navy, in fairly significant numbers in that part of the world. that makes a lot of difference in terms of stability. the pressure over time, though, gets back to what i said, if we get into this force structure part of us in terms of defense review, and have to reduce our force structure, there will be pressure there which in the long run i think will start to undermine stability in a place like that. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary and admiral mullen, thank you for your service. mr. chairman, it' like for my opening statement to be made -- i'd like for my opening statement to be made a part of the record. >> without objection. >> mr. secretary, last year you transferred about $6 billion of your budget authority to the department of energy to pay for nuclear weapons modernization programs because, as i understood, are you concerned about the neglect that had befallen u.s. nuclear deter rens . how -- deterrence. how concerned are you now that the house is considering appropriations legislation that we would cut the program by almost 10% from what the president requested and what you have already paid for out of your own very tight budget? and what are the implications to failing to fund the modernization program here? >> i'm very concerned. as i recall the actions taken by

the house, cut about $1 billion from this modernization program. this modernization program was very carefully worked out between ourselves and the department of energy and frankly where we came out on that also i think played a fairly significant role in the willingness of the senate to ratify the new start agreement. so the risks are to our own program in terms of being able to extend the life of our weapons systems, to modernize them not in the sense of capability but in terms of security and reliability. and this requires new construction. we have a lot of buildings at los alamos that date from the manhattan project. so this modernization project is, in my view, both from a security and political standpoint, really important.

>> mr. secretary, in my short time, missile defense. i understand that the defense science board has compiled a report on the concept of what we call early intercept missile defense and the report's unclassified conclusion is that m.d.a.'s plans to achieve abearly intercept capability as part of the phase adaptive approach are simply not credible. this is disturbing to some of us since the m.d.a.'s promise to develop by 2020 an early intercept capability by the sm-3 block 2-b was the central justification, as i understood it, to cancel the third site in europe and kill the k.e.i. boost phase defense program. now it looks like the nation may be left without an in-- with an inadequate defense in europe and no boost phase intercept capability.

is the department re-examining the phase adaptive approach in light of the defense science board? and should the department be looking at ways to use funding currently programmed by the sm-3 block 2-b to improve the g.m.d. system? what's your thoughts on that? >> we have resources in the 2012 budget to do both. the adaptive approach and strengthen the intercepter program. the 2012 budget buys 52 g.b.i.'s both for employment and for test purposes. it makes investments in upgrades to long rage radars in greenland and the u.s. and canada. we also have money for developmental work in terms of other kinds of interception of ballistic missiles that i believe that the balance between

the ground-based interceptor system and money we are investing in that, plus the money that we are investing in the phase adaptive approach, first of all the latter will give us a missile defense capability several years earlier than would have been the case with the third site in europe. and let's be blunt. the third site in europe was not going to happen because the czech government wouldn't approve the radar. so it was going to happen at all, it would have taken years longer and we still hadn't negotiated the required agreements with the polls in terms of the -- poles in terms of the interceptor. i think the balanced approach between the g.b.i.'s and the developmental work we have under way, plus the additional half billion dollars we have added to the budget for f.y. 2012 puts us in a good place on missile defense. >> admiral mullen. >> very quickly, while i am not exceptionally close to it in this job, i have been around missile defense for the last 15

years. and the whole issue of boost bays intercept is an extraordinarily difficult, technical challenge. at least if someone's broken through on that, i haven't seen that. doesn't mean we shouldn't seek it, but i have seen an awful lot of efforts go after that. i was very supportive of the program adjustments that we made, particularly with respect to that, because my view was, i thought we were throwing good money after bad. secondly, i haven't southeastern this report, i'll take -- seen this report, i'll take a look at it. the only thing i could say is, the task through the standard missile is the most well developed, robust, reliable path over time with respect to developing missile defense. we are still almost a decade away and i have confidence that we can continue to pursue that path. it's an incredibly well tested system. the missile you are talking about i know doesn't exist yet, but it's a path --

>> it could exist. >> yes, sir. i think we can get there in that time frame based on my understanding. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator leahy. >> i want to join the others to thank you for the extraordinary service you both have shown to this country. you came to your role at a very challenging time. admiral mullen, i appreciate although the personal relationship and your trip to vermont you and mrs. mullen when you joined myself up there to meet with our troops when they are deploying, secretary gates, i have told you i'll say publicly, i enjoyed our friendship of about 30 years now. and i said there is one issue we do not agree on. that's the war in afghanistan. most americans, certainly most vermonters i talk with, increasing number of members of

congress, i think we have to greatly accelerate our withdrawal from that country. i supported going into afghanistan for the purpose of getting osama bin laden. after 9/11. the subcommittee and all of us here on the appropriations committee have been strongly supportive of that. i did not support the invasion of iraq, which distracted us from that goal. iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. we are paying for this cause for years to come. we have borrowed the money to go into that war. an extraordinary thing in a war to borrow the money. continue to borrow the money. statement, tame give a tax cut to anybody who makes as much as a member of congress. we'll let our children and grandchildren pay for these wars. i don't think we can continue to sacrifice the many lives and spending billions of dollars a week in a war with no end. i think we have to identify achievable goals in afghanistan. i think we have to reduce our military footprint there. then we look at pakistan. this morning we received war

that they arrested five people under the suspicion they helped the united states to get osama bin laden after publicly saying they want us to get osama bin laden, they arrest the people who helped us get him. we can overlook the problems in pakistan, afghan government isn't better, but we have president karzai who can't seem to make up his mind if he's on our side or the taliban. we say we got to privatize medicare, eviscerate education funding, trim social safety net here in this country, stop all the money we might have to make our industries more competitive. it's not -- i visited there. they are performing extraordinarily well under very difficult things. but how long do we support government who lies to us? when do we say enough is enough? secretary gates, i'll start with you. >> well, first of all i would

say based on 27 years in c.i.a. and 4 1/2 years in this job, most governments lie to each other. that's the way business gets done. >> do they also arrest the people that help us? when they say they are allies? >> sometimes. and sometimes they send people to spy on us. they are close a.o.l. lies. -- close allies. it's the real world we deal with. first of all this is not a world without end. the lisbon summit has made clear that the transfer to afghan security responsibility and leadership will be complete, not later than the end of 2014, troops will be coming down during that period. the costs of these wars is coming down dramatically. the cost of these wars will drop between f.y. 2011 and 2012 by

40d billion, and between $2012 and 2013, by several billions of dollars more. first of all i think the prospects of having a more stable afghanistan in terms of a country that can defend itself, not talking about a vermont democracy here, but a country that can defend itself -- >> neither am i, mr. secretary. you know that. >> i know. but what i'm talking about is we are not in the business of nation building. what we are trying to do is build an afghan national security forces to the point where they have the ability to defend that country and so that the taliban and al qaeda cannot reconstitute themselves in that country. i think we are making considerable headway in that respect. so i think that -- i know people are frustrated. the country's been at war for 10 years. i know people are tired. people also have to think in terms of stability and in terms of the potential for reconstitution, what -- what's the cost of failure? >> you want to add to that?

>> what i want to talk about, and you and talked about this many times, is pakistan. we are in the midst and have been of trying to in the middle of this war with threats that they have in their territory, trying to build a relationship that was badly broken when we left the last time. when we terminated our relationship with them. in the late 1980's and early 1990's. we are back of the it's my belief that if we were to do that again, it may not be five years or 10 years, but we'll be back in a much more difficult situation. so seeking to support stability in that part of the world to the degree that these--- these two countries can evolve is i think, a goal that we must continue to pursue. or the danger associated with a country that's got a nuclear

arsenal, that is -- lives next to a country that they view as an exy tension threat, it's a matter of time before we are back. i don't push back on the challenge associated with it. some of the criticism is more than warranted. nobody's worked that harder than me very frankly with the leadership. it's a conscious decision. i think that we have to make and if we walk away from it, it's my view it will be a much more dangerous place a decade from now and we'll be back. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't speak for other states but i can speak for the people of indiana. who are grateful for your lifetime of service not only commitment to public service but execution brilliantly in your jobs. you have been a poddle for us. i thank you and i know the people of indiana thank you. secondly i would like to i guess

reaffirm that secretary gates, your statements about one of the greatest if not the greatest threat to our future security, is a run away debt and trillion dollars of deficit on an annual basis. and that if it's not addressed even the difficulty and scaleback of -- ability to respond to challenges around the world that won't go away. are potentially reduced. that's nothing in comparison to the stresses and strains that will be placed on our ability to do that in the future if we can't get ahold of this run away debt and deficit. that ever shrinking part of the pie that goes to discretionary defense spending will keep shrinking if we don't deal with mandatory spending. i appreciate you speaking out on that basis. question i have goes to where possibly we can get some savings.

i note that the house appropriations, defense subcommittee, passed out a bill which includes research on a number of health issues. $223 million cancer research. $125 million for traumatic brain injury. $30 million for orthopedic research. $15 for restoration of health research. i'm just wondering are there savings, $3 the 3 million -- $393 million, that's a long way from $400 billion a. good chunk of money, are there savings possible in that category where there is duplicative research paid for by government or conducted by the private industry which addresses the very same issues? in the past defense has been a go-to place for health research that in many cases duplicated

elsewhere. for instance, orthopedic research. our state is the leader in the world in orthopedic research. some of the -- all the leading technology and so forth comes out of the private sector for that. i don't know exactly what the military does in addition to that, but i guess the question is, are there places like that we can get -- i know it's the holy grail not to touch anything having to do with health to service members. i'm not suggesting that. i'm simply saying there may be duplications there we ought to look at. >> i think any of these things are worth looking into in detail. i can't speak to the cancer piece, but i will say this, i think that we have funded some of the leading research being done in the country on traumatic brain injury. and probably also on prosthetics. almost certainly on posttraumatic stress. congress has given us quite a

bit of money in those areas in particular. i would argue in terms of the practical applications of those things as opposed to pure research, that those funds i think there would be a strong bias of keeping those in the defense budget because we have a very direct interest in making sure that there is progress and particularly those three areas because those are the areas in which our service members are suffering the most in these wars. >> i'll accept that. i have four seconds left. quick yes or no. is a hollowed out nato worse than a no nato? the reality that nato just is not stepping up to its responsibilities we are going to have to do it all anyway? >> i would say that a nato that has reduced capabilities is still better than no nato at all. i would just add one point to the chairman's comment, admiral

mullen's comment earlier, one of the things that has happened to our allies is that they really have stepped up in afghanistan, but the result of that has been that the costs of their participation in afghanistan has brought further pressure on the modernization budgets of those european countries. so it's contributed to their overall narrowing of military capability, but partly it's because of the contribution that they have made in afghanistan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator mikulski. >> mr. chairman, secretary gates, admiral mullen. again like all of my colleagues thank you for your service. i think the enormous turnout of members and also the fact that we are actually staying, longer than you, is a tribute really to the high regard that we regard

your service and your service, admiral mullen. we want to thank you for it from the incredible job that you have done in keeping america safe and your strong support for the military, your many trips to actually get out of washington and listen to the troops and talk to our allies. for me one of the special things was the way you always, always will be the way you responded ounflinchingly with the walter reed scandal and wait you took ownership, the way you ensured accountability and responsibility and corrective action. i want to just thank you for that. i just watched you with the troops, not only in uniform and so on, but in things like the army-navy game where you mingled with them and the wounded warriors. had such access to you. and the way that they felt that they could approach you and talk to you and the warmth and regard you have.

i think that's what a real inspirational leader is which is the difference in management. let me tell you, your farewell trips and speeches you have given have been eyebrow raising, jaw dropping, and for me a much due lift. from the eisenhower speech in which you called for major fiscal reform to the most recent one at nato. you have dropped more bombs in some of these than the air force. let me get to my questions. i'd like to really follow up on really the questions raised about nato. many of this will have to be done with your successor. what is nato? what are we going to require of nato members? what action should nato undertake? when we ask for a coalition of the willing, we are going to need a coalition of the capable. are we ever going to ask that again?

let me go to something very specific. those are big policy questions to be sorted out. i wonder what your thoughts are when an overseas base is closing. is this the time where we look out the major policy and make sure we don't have a hollowed out nato, is it time to have an overseas base closing where we bring a lot of assets home, close assets, and so on. what would be your thought on that? i think we spend about -- the president's commission on deficit reduction said we could save about $9 billion in that area. >> first of all any overseas base reductions will necessarily first of all just a practical thing, overseas based reductions would require milcon here in the united states so there would be at least at the beginning it would be more expensive to bring them home than to leave them where they are, because they have facilities already built. and we do get support from the germans, japanese, and the south

koreans. and supporting those facilities. >> i'm not advocating closing all bases. that kind of scrub we do here. >> we have just been through that. in the department of defense and it's now working its way through the interagency in terms of an assessment of our global posture. and our presence in a lot of these different places. secretary clinton and i will meet with the japanese the first of next week in our periodic two plus two meetings to talk about ok gnaw with a and guam and -- okinawa and guam and the force there is. i think that the biggest policy question that i think has to be asked is, what kind of a signal do you want to send the rest of the world in terms of america's role in the world. and if we at the same time we are cutting our defense budget and we cut our state department

budget, and state has fewer assets to deploy abroad, we have fewer assets to deploy abroad, and then we begin to close one or another foreign bays, are we basically sending the message to the rest of the world, and i would say to china, to iran, to north korea, to a variety of other places, the u.s. is closing up shop and going home and we are headed toward fortress america again. i think this as i leave, this is a huge question for the country to consider and for you to consider is what kind of a role do you want for the united states in the world? and frankly i believe, for example, our presence in europe, if one of the benefits it has brought in addition to the financial benefit of having troops be able to rotate from germany into iraq and afghanistan, at actually less cost than from here, but one of the things that it has brought is if anything it has slowed, i think, this deterioration of the

nato military capabilities. >> because we are there. >> because we are there. we train with them and work with them and they have to have capabilities that match us when we are doing that. >> mr. chairman, admiral mullen. >> very briefly, maybe it's just because of my roots and i'm a navy guy, there's just nothing like being there. and you can be there a couple ways. you can live there or rotate there. and what i have found in our relationships, i just came back from egypt, we have had a long relationship with egypt, but the relationship we have with egypt is one we have with japan. we live with japan. we interact with the families. we know the japanese people in ways that we just don't in other countries. the same is true in germany, the same is true in the republic of korea. extraordinarily strong relationships when we are in a crisis, we can use those relationships, i think, to prevent a crisis.

or prevent escalation. so i don't know that -- i certainly wouldn't say it is worth a scrub. i just think the president's peace of this is so powerful in so many ways and it's enduring and prevents conflicts in ways that sometimes we don't think about in the short term when we are looking for savings. our investment is significant. i understand that. and worth a scrub. i just think we need to be careful. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i just wonder if i could, if i could submit questions for the record both in terms of military health care and quite frankly in the follow-up in the undersecretary of acquisition technology and logistics, that's $400 billion, the house is driving the beat. they have reinvented earmarks, i would like to have maybe three to five items out of that area where you think we should definitely stay the course in reducing our expenditures.

i hope somewhere we get a chance to ask his opinion on the house and earmarks. >> we will discuss that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary gates and secretary mullen. we thank you for being here today and we congratulate both of you on a job well done. your leadership has been critical to the progress that we have made in afghanistan. iraq and in the global war on terror, most recently the death of osama bin laden. in light of this progress many americans are hoping our force can soon come home from afghanistan after a decade of war. i share this desire to begin withdrawing our forces from afghanistan, beginning with the sizable and sustained reduction in forces this summer. i'd like to ask both of you about the government of afghanistan and president karzai. president karzai seems increasingly hostile to the american presence in afghanistan and his government, as we know, is plagued by corruption.

my first question is whether you see president karzai playing a positive or neglect ty role in afghanistan -- negative role in afghanistan. but i'd also like to hear from both of you about what comes after karzai. resumeably you'll not be president forever, what kind -- presumably he'll not be president forever, what kind of relationships are we building with other political parties and ethnic groups both in power and the opposition? >> first of all, i have spent a lot of time with president karzai over -- >> we'll leave this defense department spending hearing at this point. can you see it later on the c-span networks on online any time at c-span.org. the u.s. house is returning for further work on amendments for agriculture appropriations this afternoon. votes are expected around 3:30 eastern and after votes we expected house to recess for congressional picnic and return later tonight for more debate. and now live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] the speaker: the house will be in session. the prayer will be offered

today by our guest chaplain, reverend phil hoskins, from the higher ground baptist church, kinsport, tennessee. the chaplain: may we pray. heavenly father, we thank you for the gifts of life and freedom, thank you for the blessing of citizenship in the united states of america. today i pray for our president and members of the house and senate. lord, grant wisdom to our governing officials. -- officials as they lead us during these chamminging times throughout the world. many have forgotten you and many also have forsaken you, but today we turn to you and acknowledge that you and you alone are the source of our strength and security.

have mercy upon us, i pray. now i claim the promise in your word as written in second chronicles, chapter 7, verse 14 , if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will i hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. in jesus' name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts. mr. pitts: i ask our guests in

the gallery to join us in sing the pledge. 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 on each side. without objection, the gentleman from tennessee -- >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. >> our guest chaplain is reverend hoskins. he served as a full-time southern baptist evangelist and has conducted over 400 revivals and crusades in 28 states and canada. he's now pastor of higher

ground baptist church in kingsport, tennessee. mr. roe: he's helped his congregation to grow from under 200 to well over 1,000 members. least here with his wife, brenda, and his two beautiful daughters, mackenzie paige and madison jane. it is an honor to serve with reverend hoskins, and i'd like to yield to my friend from north carolina, mr. shuler. mr. shuler: it is indeed an honor that you have asked one of my dear friends, phil hoskins to come and preside over the house this morning and lead us in prayer. a gentleman who baptized my wife, who administered the ceremony that married my brother and his wife, and so phil has meant an absolute everything to me and my family and i love him unconditionally,

he has been a man of great character, someone i can lean on and i'm the je louse you have him in your district. i yield back. mr. roe: i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair will -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expire the chair will entertain up to 15 further one-minute requests. mr. poe: i ask to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: last week, we met with prime minister mall key and it was suggested to him that iraq assume some cost for the war of liberation. the war has cost billions an thousands of american lives. since we are rebuilding iraq and given them a free democracy, it seems only right that iraq at least consider paying for part of the -- part of the costs with future oil revenues. i was surprised that prime minister mall key reacted with an emfat -- maliki reacted with

an emphatic, no way. even -- later we learned the prime minister ordered the members of congress out of iraq. looks like our questions to him were a political i.e.d. as the date for our military looms ever closer for departure, there are reports he wants our military to stay longer and americans to pay for it. iraq should help pay for the nation americans rebuilt and liberated and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: i rise to honor dylan neil of harbor high school and saul. they have shown themselves to be some of the nation's most distinguished graduating high school students.

they are two students selected as presidential scholars of more than 3,000 ap lip cants. it recognizes graduating high school senior for academic excellence, artistic endeavors and civic contributions. i also want to recognize jennifer stewart and kristen barry, who were selected by dylan and saul as their most inspiring and talented teachers. i'm pleased to join the white house commission on presidential scholars and the united states department of education in recognizing dylan neil and saul tobin. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: we heard that israel

seeks peace with his neighbors, unfortunately its neighbors don't feel the same way. the charter of hamas states that peaceful solutions are contrary to their beliefs. as a party, they stand for the destruction of israel, a glorify -- they glorify the murders of women and children and mourn the death of osama bin laden. despite these positions, hamas was we cently welcomed back into the palestinian government. and egypt has opened the border to the gaza strip. by no means should u.s. taxpayer money go to support these murders. we cannot support a palestinian government that has no intention to live peacefully with its free and democratic neighbor. we must stop sending hundreds of millions of dollars in annual aid until all parties in the palestinian government recognize that israel has a right to exist. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> mr. speaker, shockingly, individuals on the federal terrorist watch list are not excluded from purchasing firearms in the united states. quite simply this means you can be on a terrorist watch list and be prohibited from boarding a plane because we think you're a terrorist but buy a semiautomatic weapon. last week, adam gadain urged terrorist group followers to exploit this terror gap in our gun laws. our enemies, intent on destroying americans and our way of life, have made a calculated decision that congress cares more about protecting the gun lobby an the safe i have to its citizens. mr. quigley: they are convinced we lack the fortitude to close fwaping loopholes and their consistent campaign to strike again on our soil has new promise. i would like to -- i would love to stavend here and say our enemy has grossly underestimated us, but i am not certain i can. my colleagues in congress are faced with a critical

opportunity to do the right thing an pass the most common sense of common sense policies by clozzing the terror gap. al qaeda will be watching our response. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana. >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i'd like to honor a native member of indiana's national guard today, staff member andre carbonaw was awarded air national guard for 2010. it's designed to recognize member whors hard working, involved in the community and continue to advance themselves through education. they compete at the state level to become airman of the year. he received his award friday, maye 20, at victory field in indianapolis. mr. stutzman: he's from warsaw, indiana, and a mechanic for the 127th fighter wing in fort wayne, indiana. he's also a full-time student at indiana state university

where he's majoring in aviation. i congratulate him for his achievements and aisle proud of indiana's 14,700 members of the indiana army and air national guard. our nation owes endless gratitude to these men and women in uniform who voted -- devoted their lives to our security and preservation of our unity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california. >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: i rise in opposition to the misguided attack on medicare and medicaid. no matter what the other side says, their plan for medicare and medicaid will end them, leaving them nothing but a shell. this is a we of priorities. which is the best choice? either closing the doughnut hole so seniors, including 7,000 in my district, don't have to choose between their medications and paying the rent, or giving huge subsidies to oil companies. or this choice, telling people,

including 100,000 in my congressional district in their 40's and 50's to hurry up and save another $200,000 each before they retire so they can pay for health care since medicare's guarantee is gone or continuing tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. the republican budget is not a plan for our future, it's a recipe for disaster. it ends medicare and medicaid, puts our seniors at risk. stand up for our current and future seniors. they is a -- say no to the republican attack on medicare and medicaid. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, we found out last week -- mr. hensarling: we found out last week that new business creation is at a 17-year low and the people are asking, where are the jobs. unemployment has languished at the highest level since the

great depression and americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs. one in seven families are now on food stamps and americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs? the bureau of labor statistics released that the time it takes to get a new job is at an all-time high and americans are asking, mr. president, where are the jobs? house republicans have a plan for america's job creators to put the nation on a fiscally sustainable path to restore confidence to make our tax code repetitive and -- competitive and take the burden of regulation off our creators to american workers can get the paychecks they need and deserve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> the more we learn about the true impact of the majority's plan to end medicare, the more

there is to dislike. seniors will pay $6,000 more in annual out of pocket costs for medications. mr. sires: there will be a spike in preventive care because free annual wellness visits will be eliminated. individuals who are 54 years of age and younger, including 540,000 people in my district will be denied access to medicare's guaranteed benefits. in addition, it slashes medicaid funding by $800 million and nearly 60 million americans will be in jeopardy of losing their health care. for my district in particular, their plan will impair the health care of 22,000 eligible seniors who rely on medicaid to supplement medicare coverage and 82,000 children who receive coverage under medicaid. now is not the time to be cutting value usual services to

our most vulnerable citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from pennsylvania. . mr. murphy: there are massive deficiencies in medicare causing it to go bankrupt. one is the intravenous medication. but it requires specialized equipment and supervision and off lasts several hours a day over a period of several weeks. it's very expensive for patients to go this care in the hospital. although private plans have been covering the therapy for decades, medicare still forces people to go to a hospital where they have increased risk for infection by going there and it costs thousands of dollars for delivery as opposed to hundreds of dollars at home. that's why today representative eliot engel and i are reintroducing the medicare infusion home therapy act so the patients can receive the treatment in their home at a lower cost. our bill saves taxpayers money, about $6 billion over 10 years. mr. speaker, our proof is that

this is one more way we can find significant savings in medicare than simply waiting for the program to go bankrupt. i urge my colleagues to support our bill to give patients better quality and care at lower costs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. without objection. mr. back yo: mr. speaker, america's seniors have given a lifetime of service to our nation. it is our responsibility to demonstrate the same commitment to them by providing a safety net like medicare and medicaid. sadly the republican budget will have the devastating impact on our seniors. forcing many of them to sell their homes and rely on their children just to get by because they can't afford health coverage. in my district alone, the republican budget plan would throw ute -- out, $3,200

medicare beneficiaries in the prescribed doughnut hole. eliminate preventive care benefits for 56,000 seniors. deny 630,000 individuals age 54 and younger guaranteed medicare coverage. jeopardize nursing home care for 1,100 seniors whose expenses are paid by medicare. yes, we must lower the deficit with intelligent spending cuts. but it is wrong to balance the budget by cutting vital service to the american seniors. let's preserve medicare, medicaid. let's work together, republicans and democrats, and find a solution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana. without objection. so ordered. >> mr. speaker, we are at a great turning point in history when it comes to the survival

of medicare. mr. fleming: the c.m.s. actuary just informed us that medicare will become insolvent in just 12 years. that means that if you are on medicare or expect to be on medicare in the next 12 years, you need to think about how you will finance your health care after that period. what is the president's plan or the democrat congressional plan? sorry, there is no plan. when asked mr. president why no plan when the law requires you to have one? he said, and i paraphrase, that he would rather republicans take the lead so he can demagogue ours. never mind that obamacare takes one half trillion dollars from medicare to subsidize its crazy schemes. in the ryan budget plan that was passed here in this chamber has the only credible plan to save medicare. it ensures traditional medicare coverage indefinitely if you are over 54 years of age.

it provides for a choice among many private plans based on financial need for those who are under. it is time congressional democrats and the president step up on this vital issue. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. ms. schakowsky: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. schakowsky: mr. speaker, the more people know about the republican plan for medicare, the less they like it. so it's no wonder that the republicans are trying to prevent house members from telling our constituents about the plan to end medicare by actually sensoring our mailings to our own districts. the democrats aren't alone in saying the republican plan ends medicare. tom scully, former bush administration head of medicare, says the republican plan, quote, gets rid of the current medicare program, unquote, and that is it is, quote, a fundamental structural change in the program, unquote. it's so fundamental the

beginning in 2022 the out-of-pocket costs for enrollees would double and they would be forced to pick a private insurance plan without guaranteed benefits. republicans can call their plan whatever they want. sort of care, maybe care. we don't care. but they can't call it medicare. they can try all they want but they can't keep seniors from learning the truth. this program that they introduced ends medicare. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, this administration has failed to lead. mr. brawn: they have failed a budget -- mr. brown: they have failed a budget and now they have -- mr.

broun: they have failed a budget. in 13 short years medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will run completely out of money. bankrupting this program will leave many of our nation's seniors high and dry. and our future generations without a health care program to depend upon. guess what? the obama administration doesn't care. instead of making medicare reform a top priority, the administration is passing it off to a panel of unqualified bureaucrats like it was busy work that they couldn't be bothered with. mr. speaker, medicare's going broke. that's a reality this administration has to face. the program is already driving up the larger than life debt and it will only get worse from here. i urge the administration to at least present us with one option for fixing medicare's present money problem, and if they can't the house g.o.p.

doctors have plenty of suggestions where to begin. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. yarmuth: mr. speaker, before i came to congress i was a newspaper editor in louisville, kentucky, and as an editor my job was to make sure our stories revealed the truth and make sure things are easier to understand for the readers. right now the republican majority in congress is trying to hide the facts from the american people. ever since the republican candidate in new york lost the special election in a heavily republican district, because she supported that reckless g.o.p. plan to end medicare, the majority in this body has been petrified about what it might mean for their political careers if the american people actually found out the truth and they are doing everything they can to hide the truth. the republican controlled francing commission, which controls contents from congressional offices, is dictating any reference to the end of medicare be cut out from correspondent. whenever the word end is used they have to say we use the word change.

they won't let the truth be told. but the truth is, if you eliminated something, you haven't changed it, you can't change something that has been killed. that's what the american people need to know. that's what the republican majority is trying to hide. but they will not deceive the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: yesterday marked the birthday of the united states army. 236 years ago the united states army was established to defend our families. the army began june 14, 1775, as the continental army. the continental congress established the army to coordinate military efforts among the 13 independent colonies. with victory in the cold war, more people and more countries today live in democracy, freedom, and peace than in the history of the world. due to the success of america's military. promoting the values of loyalty, duty, respect,

self-less service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. today's soldiers represent the best of our nation. as the grateful son of an army air corps flying tiger, as the 31-year veteran of the army reserves and army national guard, i know firsthand the confidence and patriotism that service members, especially my wife and i are grateful to have three sons currently serving in the army national guard. my youngest son, second lieutenant hunter taylor wilson, was commissioned last month an engineer through the clemson university rotc. in conclusion, god bless our troops, we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. without objection, so ordered. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to object to the franking commission the majority, exercise in blatant and transparent censorship on a medicare mailing and i other colleagues of mine wish to send to our constituents.

i'm not allowed to call it the ryan budget even though the republicans called it the ryeant budget, because it's become unpopular. i'm not allowed to refer to changing medicare to a voucher system even though mr. ryan himself referred to it as a voucher system. i must now call it a premium support system. these changes among many others are censorship at its worse when we don't like something, when it's not going well for us on the majority side, we suppress it. this censorship would make former soviet censors blush at the breathtaking nature and sweeping scope of the suppression of free expression, free ideas here in the nation's capital. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana. without objection, so ordered. >> i rise today to talk about jobs. last week during the district work period i met with local business leaders, toured businesses throughout my district, and listened to their concerns. it should not come as a surprise to anyone the main

topic of conversation was where are the jobs? and what is the state of the economy? over and over the small business leaders told me that government regulations and uncertainty are negatively affecting their ability to grow and create jobs. businesses are afraid to invest in the future due to the uncertainty of our tax code, increased costs and regulations stemming from the affordable care act which they can't afford, and increase burdens of out-of-control regulatory process that has stifled job creation. just yesterday the national federation of independent business released the report showing a decline in optimism of small businesses for a third consecutive month. it's been 28 months since the ill-conceived stimulus passed and a year since the recovery summer was declared. yet 1.9 million fewer americans have jobs. this is why we need to get our fiscal house in order, cut spending, repeal the affordable care act. . mr. bucshon: the republican majority gets the message and everything we are doing is create a climate where we can

expand and create jobs in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida. ms. brown: i would like to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. miss base runner: i listened -- ms. brown: i listened with great interest last night on the debate pertaining to cutting funds for children and women with the agriculture urel department. i'm greatly disturbed by the assertion that we should do that and cut programs for senior citizens and the disabled because of the budgetary problems that we are having here in washington. yes, we are having problems. but those problems did not start 18 months ago. and those problems have been going on for a very long time. and we are making decisions. when we voted, not i, in december, to give billionaires and billionaires $780 billion

and then in june and april you say you don't have money for pension checks and you don't have money for senior citizens and you don't have money for children and babies, it's a mispriority. and for people to get on this floor and constantly talk about the recovery and the number of jobs, well, i want to submit for the record the number of jobs that were saved in florida and georgia and other places because of the recovery act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. -- the gentleman from illinois. without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's no coincidence that illinois and the corporate tax rate being the fourth highest in the nation, yet ranks 48th in economic performance. businesses big and small can no longer afford to keep their doors opened and hire more workers when they face a 45% tax increase. if we are serious about

creating jobs, then we must stop allowing the government from picking winners and losers in today's economy. in order to create economic certainty, we must have a level playing field and clearly defined rules that don't change halfway through the game. mr. dold: we need to encourage businesses to invest and expand here at home. one way that we can do that is through corporate tax reform, eliminating tax loopholes that currently exist in the system. one thing is clear, increases in taxes without spending reform cannot work. . it's time to start empowering businesses to get the economy moving again. illinois has lost 7,000 jobs over the last decade. now we have to focus on job creation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. >> request permission to

address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> earlier this week, president obama made a joke about his stimulus package. remember the shovel-ready projects? they were a big selling point. the president said some weren't as shovel-ready as we thought. some got a chuckle out of that line but there's nothing funny about this failure. mr. quayle: in many states, the unemployment rate is higher than the national average. we have a housing market that's collapsed. mr. speaker, we'll never get our economy growing again unless we see drastic improvements in unemployment in the housing sector. our country is at its best when we unleash the ingenuity of the american people.

the republican conference has a real and actionable jobs plan that will put america back to work. that will give our entrepreneurs and innovators freedom from the regulatory burdens and high taxes holding them back. we must take action to get this economy going again and that's what our plan does. president obama's speeches, policies and council meetings are not enough. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois. >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recall a promise that we heard many times from this president and his administration that under his health care law, if you like your insurance, you can keep it. unfortunately, it seems that that promise was an empty one and it will affect millions of americans. a recent -- recent study found that 30% and perhaps as many as half employers say they will probably or definitely stop offering health care coverage

to their employees after 2014. these are astounding statistics and they reveal the fallacy we heard so frequently that if you like your plan, you can keep it. with every passing day, we find out more and more what's in the president's health care law and we find out what's -- that it hurts middle class families and small business owners holding back our economy and killing job creation. this study is just one more reason for the house to redouble its efforts to repeal this law. and replace it with legislation that will control the cost of health care while preserving individual freedoms. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i rise today to honor jim sackett is who is retiring --

who is retiring from kvpt. i interned under him at channel 5. i learned a lot that semester watching jim, whose commitment to balanced news reporting set a high standard for other news casters. mr. rooney: his dedication to quality news coverage has earned him a telly and an emmy he served his country honorably for five years in the united states army. he continues to serve our community where he's active in several organizations, including big brothers and big sisters. he's widely recognized for his thursday's child feature which for 30 years profiled children to help them find forever adoptive parents. thank you for your service and contributions to our community. you're a truly -- you're truly a pillar of the treasure coast and palm beach county. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expir

president obama's approval rating. 47% of prove right now, 46% disapproveallup poll showing president oma's approval rating. 47% of prove right now, 46% disapprove. those are the latest numbers. what do you think president obama needs to do to win in 2012? "national journal" has this piece in their publication.

the economy is the dominant issue. several states could flip to the republican nominee. this reporter interviewed 10th veteran democratic and republican strategist to get their sense of which states would be toughest for obama to hold onto. here is the list of five states that are likely to vote republican. indiana, north carolina, florida and, with 29 electoral votes. another factor playing into the gop advantage is marco rubio. he has kept a low profile since being elected to the senate. he looks like a leading contender to emerge as the presidential nominee's running mate. if he would be selected, you'd be the first hispanic candidate on a nationaticket.

the other two states, ohio and nevada. we're talking with democrats only this morning. what does president obama need to do to win in 2012? here are some comments about his trip to pr. while they cannot vote for the president, those who live on the mainland can. they applaud president obama for visiting their homeland. that is the "new york daily news." also, the "baltimore sun."

orlando florida has the most, followed by philadelphia, chicago, tam, austin, miami, fort lauderdale, washington, d.c., and then los angeles. orlando topping this with the most porter ricans in that area. we will go to pennsylvania. what do you think? caller: president obama needs to focus on new technology, it using high-tech robotics and manufacturing, and a new energy policy that will make america more fiscally responsible. host: it is the economy. caller: it is the economy that matters. focusing on supercomputing and job creation. host: here is the "new york times." it was written by benjamin

applebaum. no democratic president since franklin delano roosevelt -- let's go to tampa, florida. alex, what do you think? caller: the economy is the first priority for everyone right now. not only here in the u.s., but around the world. present obama will have a huge problem next year with a latino vote because he only got one reform, dealing with immigration.

i did -- i do not know how he is going to deal with that next year. you already have 12 states that want to do their own immigration laws. from my point of view, it will be a powerful issue for both parties. host: are you going to stay home? caller: i am disappointed. they are taking advantage of the minorities that cannodefend themselves. instead of fixing the problem, they are making it worse every single month. host: might from wisconsin. caller: we need to put tariffs ck in place to create fair trade. then we need to go back to pre- reagan tax rates. then you have to eliminate corporate tax altogether, since

67% of corporations do not pay taxes right now. and then reduce the defense budget by 50% over three years. if he makes that is platform, he will put people back to work, balance the budget, and the economy will come back. host: why the defense budget for 50%? caller: right now we spend almost 50% of the entire world's budget on arms and military. it seems to me that that is completely disproportionate, wh russia only spends 3.4% of the world's entire spending on defense. it is outrageous. the other thing we have to do is eliminate the five ws, going on six, that we are participating in right now. absolutely no strategy, not approved, congress has not approved these wars, and it goes

on. it has to end. we can no longer afford to be doing this adventurism all over the world. host: president obama and the demoats are setting a $60 million fund raiser gold for june. this is for the president's reelection campaign and the dnc. two people familiar with the goals that it was part of your presentation in chicago to top democratic fund-raisers. a bomb or raise $750 million in 2008 and his advisers have privately told donors that they hope to match the amount or exceeded. the 2012 reelection campaign could pull in $1 billion. michelle obama is doing fundraisers as well. mississippi, go ahead. caller: he is doing real good

right now. i think he needs to keep a steady course. he has a good mind, and he is trying to do the best that he can. what he needs his help from the republicans. host: you sound like you are a strong supporter of the president. should he compromise at all with publicans? caller: he has compromised enough. it is on their hand. he cannot correct the mess that they made all by himself. they need to try and make this country a better country instead of trying to make it of republican nation. host: we heard from alex from four of -- florida earlier. here is the headline, "slugger reach out to hispanic voters." and this morning, the "baltimore

sun", barack obama says that it is the last time that voters will see his name on the ballot. corpus christi, texas, guthrie. caller: obama has done a good job. he is dealing with what he has to dl with, and he should keep on doing what he is doing. i am for him 100%, and the hispanic collar that just called a while ago, the republicans will use them like they normally do to get their votes. they do not care anything about the issues. they are the ones that are doing

the immigration refor, and texas is getting ready, and rick perry will be behind it. i did not support rick perry and texas politics and definitely if they get him to run on the national scene as president. host: t you think that he is going to run? caller: yes, he definitely is. i will not vote for an. host: my in kentucky. caller: president obama shoul do just what he is doing. he is in a bad situation right now. we must all recognize that. i am unemployed right now, but i have worked all of my life. there are some narrow minded people [unintelligible]

if he stays kcalms, heaps walked into that situation and turned around. i will continue to vote for him. host: will you campaign for him? caller: yes, i will. host: did you donate money last nintime? caller: yes, i will. and i will donate again because he is the one that should be there in 2012. he is saying calm individual. host: there is the "financial times" with some economic news. we covered this event with the federal reserve chairman made those remarks. if you want to watch it, go to our website, c-span.org, and in the upper right-hand corner, you

will find the video library. punch in ben bernanke's name and you can watch that. paul ryan also spoke at that event. you can watch that as well. as good a tucson, arizona. robert, what should president obama due to win in 2012? caller: he will set up the tone and the rhetoric to have people understand the situation. it deals with the economic dna, let's say, from this round in 1981, when mr. reagan set up a deal forhe world while the entire thing, and heeeds to use the term -- is a, i am an economic and genius, and i made political activists and a political genius. and i follow this year. my dad told me when i was a

little kid what caused the great depression. it was the same thing. you look at the dna and is all over the place. you also look at a model, ok? if you look athe model, it was the same thing as what caused the great depression. and i would not call this year of recession. i would call it a depression, ok? so that these people that bad uthed mr. obama, they are terrible. host: here is a tweet. a listener in virginia. caller: president obama has already done a good job. he helped the economy which was all screwed up when he came in. he also caught bin laden. this man is great for this country. people should be satisfied of

the job that he is doing. caller: we will go to florida, a shot. -- chuck. caller: i think president obama is doing great. he should challenge the house more. they could raise allf this stuff that no one is going to takeeriously. but being from florida, miami, that was to get the miami vote. they want those two extra seats from florida the president should just hang in there. host: on the debt talks that we talked about yesterday, the bipartisan group led by joe biden met yesterday and they are meeting on trsday. here is the "wall street journal." president obama is considering how hard to push for a new tax -- -- payroll tax cut.

that is the "wall street journal." the front came -- page of the "new york times." agencyn's top military has it arrested some informants who fed information to the central intelligence agency and the months leading up to the raid that led to the death of osama bin laden.

the front page of the of the " washington times" on the situation in libya. john boehner sent a letter to president obama on the simmering constitutional conflict. unless he gets authorization from congress, he will be in violation of the wapowers resolution. it says that mr. obama must provide a sense of justification by friday for committing troops to libya.

bryan, ohio, dolores joins us. what does president obama need to do to win in 2012? caller: i am very pleased to be able to talk to you. i have listened for over 30 years. i am a 69-year-old democrat who was campaigning for president obama. i was so joyous when he became president. i am losing faith, however, in our system. i believe we no longer have a democracy of the people. the people no longer have a voice in electing our president. right now money elect our presidents. i was chagrined, not the strong this word, when i saw our

present standing the side wall street executives appealing to them for their support. right now in congres there is legislation pending called barry elections now. -- fair elections now. if we the people do not demand that our representatives passed legislation to make elections again by the people of this country, then i fear greatly for our future. caller: karen in illinois. host: i suggest they in the tax breaks for businesse that move jobs overseas, give them to businesses that stay in the u.s., in the lopsided export/import tax. when we try to send products to

china, the charges 25%. host: windy -- wendy in new hampshire. caller: obama needs to make sure that every decisions he makes and every vote he cast is in accordance with the sermon on the mount, the beatitudes. i thinkhat every senator and representative needs to do the same thing. he needs to make sure to stop compromising with republicans over such thing as medicare, medicaid, social security, the epa, -- i do not know what the agency is called that is overseas, the banking regulations -- and that he should call people on the hypocrisy othose who proclaim that they are devoutly religious and confront them with the fact that the votes at they are casting in the

decisions they are making are in complete contradiction to the sermon on the mount, the beatitude. the need to cut out the gross waste, fraud, and abuse for the full oil and gas subsidies, but far and subsidies, -- foreign subsidies, paying farmers to not grow food, i think that he should cut out -- indicted osama bin laden for crime against humanity instead of going to war. we need to help the people of libya. but not fight their because we cannot avoid it. call the republicans on their hypocrisy.

host: that is a long list. if the president cannot accomplish all of those things, will you vote for him? caller: i would never vote for the republicans. i have to cancel out of both people who would take assistance away from the most neey. i will not help them and putting people who are disabled, elderly, poor, children out on the street. host: will you campaign for him in done in money? caller: i would donate money only to those democrats who have not turned against anthony weiner. i'm a great supporter of him. i am ashamed of my own party for dumping on him. i am very proud of chuck schumer and kirsten gillibrand. i live in nova scotia for five months out of the year. host: we will leave it for

their. more democrats have come out calling for anthony weiner to resign. we will talk with members of congress, beginning with dana rohrabacher this is on the foreign affairs committee. and then senator ben cardin of maryland. he is a budget committee member as well. we will pull off talking about deficit talk and foreign affairs with both of them. caller: i think he should bring back the majority of soldiers in afghanistan, and for the ones that stay there, we should have a war tax. he should let the taxes go back to where clinton -- when clinton was presidt. he should get jobs by working on infrastructure. i think that anyone who would vote for rublicans who would

cut food four little babies should never be elected. the republicans are cutting so many things that help poor people, and anyone who is poor or anyone that would vote for a republican now is crazy. host: jack in philadelphia, what does president obama need to do to win in 2012? caller: he has done a reasonably good job. he did not create the financial diress that we are under right now. host: he did not create it to you -- has he done enough to turn it around? caller: he has done as much as hean. it is a difficult is -- situation. look at who is responsible for it, republicans and this business -- big businesses

sending the jobs over the seas. people who voted for the republicans would be committing suicide. host: let's stay with the president. what are your priorities for the economy and has he met those? caller: i like to see him get out of the war is that he are in. we should get the rich jews to y for the wars, they are the ones that got us into them. host: we're following mitt romney, one of the republican contenders for the gop nomination. social offered this is not keeping mitt romney down. romney is confident and competent.