planet safety committee. -- washington jou the house is in at 9:00 a.m. today to continue work on the appropriations bill. just a two-hour "washington journal" this morning. voting on a repeal on the ethanol tax credit. they begin their day at 10:00 a.m.. it was in a senate defense appropriations hearing yesterday that defense secretary robert

gates gave a blunt assessment of what -- about international relations. here is what he had to say. >> how long do we support governments who lied to us? when do we say enough is enough? septic -- secretary gates, we will start with you. >> first of all, i would say based on 27 years in the cia and 4 1/2 years in this jobs, most -- both -- most governments lie to each other. that is how business gets done. >> the we also address the people will help us when they say their allies? >> sometimes. and sometimes they send people to spy on us. and they are close allies. it is the real world we deal with. host: here is "the new york times" take on that hearing.

we want to get your reaction to secretary robert gates saying most countries like to each other. we will put the numbers up on the screen if you would like to participate this morning.

we want to get your reactions to what he had to say. this is just a little bit more from the article this morning.

"usa today" this morning, this is their take on the hearing. gates grilled on informants' arrest. that's from "usa today" this morning. also from "usa today" is in this

article. syria expands campaign to crush dissent. i want to get your reaction to secretary gate's stain most countries like to each other. we will start with an

independent and montana. tom, you are on the line. caller: my feeling is not only most governments like to each other, most government, including our government, on occasion like to our -- to their own people. we have had all kinds of stories about why the war in iraq started. and it goes on and on. but i think it is just something we have to learn to live with. i will hang up. host: the second part of the statement secretary gates made is that is the way business is done. you have a reaction to that? caller: well, i guess that is what our intelligence agencies are supposedly for, to determine whether they are lying to us or not. i believe that probably is the way business is done, unfortunately. host: bethesda, maryland.

democrat. caller: how are you? i say, yes, governments like to one another. i know we lied to several governments. we lied to the government of -- when we overthrew them in the 1970's, and i know israel has spied on us. i don't know how many it is really spies are in american prisons. i am not condoning what has happened in pakistan. i think it is awful. we have to do what we can to help those guys because they helped us. but that is the way the world is. host: corpus christi, texas. republican. caller: good morning from corpus christi, south texas. i wonder if we don't have more of a domestic security issue coming from our southern border and the northern state of -- with the zetas as the military officers and personnel who the

government of mexico can no longer pay and now they are siding with narco traffic and the coyotes. who cares whether the mossad in israel is here. they are near my house. host: we will move on because we are talking about what secretary gates had to say yesterday. once again, this is what secretary gates said in the defense appropriations hearing about international relations. host: -- caller: how long do we support governments who lied to us? when do we say enough is enough? secretary gates, and will start with you. >> first of all, i would say based on 27 years in the cia and for a half years in this job, most governments lie to each other. that is the way business gets done. >> do they also arrest the people will help us when they

say their allies? >> sometimes. and sometimes they send people to spy on us, and they are close allies. >> and we give aid -- >> that is the real world we deal with. host: that -- back to your calls. joyce in memphis. independent. caller: gates is refreshingly honest. the israelis and not only spied on us, they killed our men in 1965 on the uss liberty and never stood trial for its. host: washington, d.c., jenny. caller: i think it is an uncomfortable truth that government lied to each other. i understand what gates as saying. i think the real issue with his remarks is i think he is resenting the fact that congress is trying to get involved in determining whether or not we continue our relationship with

pakistan despite that government lied to us. the real issue is ultimately whether or not we are ok with congress asserting itself into, what gates as saying, the real world of international relations. depending on where you come from, i think that is where the rub is, so to speak. host: from the front page of "the washington post" this morning --

this is an issue we will be discussing with congressman dennis the senate when he comes out in 30 minutes or so. our next call comes from our friend in texas. mr. peterson. good morning to you. caller: good morning. how are you? host: just fine. how are you, sir? caller: really hot. host: saw it on the weather map. caller: it is always two degrees higher in cranberry than what it is in fort worth. if it is 102 in fort worth it is 104 degrees here. host: so, what do you think

about secretary gates as saying most countries like to each other. caller: they don't show the whole -- he thought we was gonna make him mad, but he didn't. caller: how is mr. peterson -- caller: how is misses peterson? i hope you both have a good day. thank you for calling in. a tweet -- from "the washington post" this morning. the efforts to rekindle peace talks have doomed chances of a breakthrough.

wanda is a republican in trenton, florida. what do you think about secretary gates say most countries like to each other? caller: i like senator leahy's question better. the host: why? caller: this question was how long will we support governments who lied to us. how long are we going to support our government? they don't tell us the truth, either. they don't tell anybody the truth. not other countries, and not us. host: from "the wall street journal" this morning. budget negotiators consider medicaid cutbacks.

a group of negotiators from both parties met for the eighth time at the capitol seeking agreement that -- that would pave the way for congress to raise the debt ceiling. this is an issue we will talk about with a freshman republican from kansas who is a member of the budget committee. he will be here at 8:20 or so eastern time. gaithersburg, maryland, john on our democrats' line. secretary gates says most countries like to each other. caller: i believe it is correct. i am going to challenge to come up with a framework by which the should stopent' lying to our citizens. having as believing they killed osama bin laden.

host: david on the independent line. caller: i would just like to military bill gates' background is. host: you mean robert gates? caller: what his military background is. host: why is that? caller: if he is the secretary of defense, what his qualifications are than just putting books and stuff. host: indianapolis. jeremy, republican line. caller: i don't think it is any surprise, for anyone with any common sense. our allies are our allies but we really are an independent nation. when it comes down to it, america stand alone. other countries will stand beside you when things are going well but they will turn against you just like anything else. i really don't think it is a surprise. in truth i think it is refreshing to hear someone say something honest on a political

show. usually it is just more of the stuff that gets flipped through over and over on the tv talk shows. there is not really any candor coming out of washington. it is refreshing for that. also i would like to say the nation voting more for political figures that would actually stand up and tell the truth, even when it is not pc to do so. host: this tweet -- congress every year has to report their assets. those reports have now been made public. here are a couple of articles on what members of congress are worth. this is from "the wall street journal" -- congressman rangel's property in the

dominican republic --

next call on secretary gates telling the senate defense appropriations subcommittee that most countries like to each other comes from los angeles. georgie is a democrat. please, go ahead. we are listening. caller: i believe that all

countries lie to each other and i also believe that we need to do away with the u.n. i am tired supporting other countries. when this country is in such turmoil. i mean, there are so many people out here that are out of work. i mean, people are struggling, selling their belongings just to have ends meet. i mean, it is ridiculous. i don't even understand. i understand why the u.n. was first put together but i don't feel that it is needed anymore. i really don't. i am an american, i want to remain american and i don't want to be -- i know that we have international business. but just to involved in too many countries and we need to be more involved here. host: thank you for calling in from los angeles.

the common 1 tweets in -- by the way, if you would like to send a tweet or follow us on twitter you can go to twitter.com/cspanwj. queens, new york. jack on the republican line. caller: there is no treaty of alliance with israel. treaties -- israel wanted a treaty of alliance. host: what does this have to do with our question? caller: pakistan as an ally under the south east asian treaty organization of 1954. the point is, every time an american politician says israel is an ally, they are lying. host: ballston, chris, independent line. caller: i just wanted to say that most countries do not lie to each other, all countries lie to everyone.

and our country lies to us. seem tole just don't want to hold the government accountable. host: let's go to the second half of what secretary gates had to say, and that is the way business gets done. chris? caller: there is no integrity in the process, no respect for the rule of law if there is no truthfulness in what they are doing. host: my goal in the brookhaven, mississippi, on the democrats' line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say wow because with the war on terrorism and with pakistan pretty much harboring of the terrorists, and we are not fighting against them because they are our allies?

weeally don't understand why are not at war with them. i know they are our allies, but if we could just focus in on what the real issue was, i think we would be a lot better off. thank you. host: next call, elizabethtown, north carolina, david on the independent line. caller: how are you doing, sir? host: good. caller: all of our governments lie to the people of the united states. we quit sending help to other countries and keep it here in the united states. all countries like to each other. our government lies to us all the time. the people losing their homes and stuff here. nothing for our kids when they get out of school i just think that all countries like to each other. thank you, sir.

host: this tweet from joanna. next caller on secretary gates comes from ardmore, oklahoma. hi, bruce. republican. please, go ahead. caller: ok. i am thinking that getting support from countries is an enough. we like to other countries so they will give us support. if the government would quit lying to the citizens of this country, the citizens of this country will provide enough support so we won't have to lie to other countries to gain their support. host: all right, bruce. this tweet --

and from "the new york times" this morning.

governments and countries like to each other. janet, a democrat in chicago. what the think about that? caller: i think it was refreshing to hear mr. gates being open and honest. what was he doing the last four years when he was in charge prior to this? host: what do you think he was

doing? caller: i think he was doing a exactly what the government told him, and lying was part of it. so many people and so many professions have to take and ethical -- have to swear they are going to be ethical in their jobs. and our politicians are skeptical. host: once again, secretary gates yesterday in the senate. >> how long do we support governments who lied to us? when we say enough is enough? secretary gates, i'll start with you. >> first of all, i would say based on 27 years in the cia and for a half years in this job, most governments lie to each other. that is the way business gets done. >> do they also arrest the people who help us when they say they are allies? >> sometimes. and sometimes they send people

to spy on us. and they are close allies. >> and we give aid to them? >> that is the real world we deal with. host: this tweet -- phoenix, stephen, independent line. good morning to you. caller: good morning, c-span, how are you? i am glad i got through. i want to commend secretary gates for at least being honest. i am a bipartisan. i am not a republican or democrat. but i didn't think senator leahy was expecting the answer that he got. and i know he is getting ready to retire. so, i think that his answer was sincere. and i think that the u.s. government should start by example by getting their own backyards straightened up. host: how so? caller: being honest with the

american people first. and the world will take note of that. host: clifford is a republican in roseville, minnesota. caller: good morning, thanks for c-span. i kind of like what gates told the american people this morning. that it is why i say thank god for wikileaks. sometimes we get good answers. i remember -- and with all the social security number so you can check on what people were eating and getting their habits done and the helicopter that killed all of those innocent people, that was a vicious video clip. thank you very much. host: from the front page of "the new york times" --

back to secretary gates sang most countries like to each other. corpus christi, texas. independent line. caller: i give him credit for being honest on that, but i think he is being honest because he is at the end of his job. the country that live historically threw hundreds of years, before america was founded, countries have been dishonest and nothing has changed.

we are doing the same thing and expecting a different result. why do we think things have changed when things really haven't? we need to hold our government accountable and take action. i didn't vote for obama or bush. i voted for cynthia mckinney. host: thank you for calling in this morning. secretary gates has 14 days left in his job as a secretary of defense. dennis tweets in -- two short articles from "usa today" this morning.

by the way, henry kissinger was just on "book tv" this past weekend talking about his latest book on china and you can watch it on line at booktv.org, and book tv will be live at the annual fdr reading festival at his residence in hyde park. several offers will be talking about their books throughout the day. go to the website for more information on that event. one other life even coming up tonight and this weekend, this is from the c-span website -- 2011 republican leadership conference. the road to the white house continues the campaign coverage, this time from new orleans that the 2011 republican leadership conference. they begin their three-day event

with former house speaker newt gingrich getting the opening address. he will be joined by thousands of republicans from across the nation as they pay tribute to president reagan and compaq -- prepare for the 2012 campaign. other speakers of the next few days include candidates ron paul, jon huntsman, michelle bachmann and herman cain and it also hear from republican governors haley barbour, bobby jindal, rick. as well as marsha blackburn, congresswoman from tennessee and the rnc chair reince priebus and former governor of louisiana buddy roemer. that will all be live beginning tonight at 7:30 p.m. on c-span 3. you can watch newt gingrich -- but go to c-span.org if you want the full schedule. youngstown, ohio. daniel is a democrat. what do you think about

secretary gate's stain most countries lie to each other? caller: teams like a poker game to me. really a high stakes, high roller. we never see that kind of money. these people know what is in their hands. then we get the chest pains on the side -- other countries -- we are all in this. it is a winner take all. who allies up with whoever. in the end, that is where the allies, in. -- the lies come in. all we have in america is this layman's perspective. i am glad for c-span. host: mechanicsville, virginia. annn on the republican line. caller: i thought i will call in and let you know not only do i support mr. bill gates, all countries to lie to each other.

-- do lie to each other. been charged with being an enemy, and in texas. kind of amazing what they will do -- they will lie about you, too. host: ann, thank you. tony tweets in -- the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning. more silence raids over immigration -- silent raids over immigration.

springfield, missouri. democrat. caller: thanks for c-span. thanks, peter. the world's champion lie was goldman sachs when they live and sold top six stock all over the world and our justice department doesn't do anything about it. thank you very much. host: scottsdale, arizona. steve, republican line. good morning pretty caller: i was going to say that if a lawyer tells you he is going to lie to you, is he telling you the truth? that is my comments. host: from the associated press this morning. of dolly -- al-zawahri has succeeded osama bin laden as head of the terror network.

he had been bin laden's second- in-command. this from politico this morning -- joe biden deficit group down to the tough stuff. david rogers writes -- that's recalls on secretary

gates say most countries like to piggyback to your calls on secretary gate saying most countries like to each other. caller: i disagree with mr. gates. i believe and allies should be trusted and once they break a business policy i think we should have action against them. host: jacksonville, florida. walter on our independent line. what do you think about this? caller: one thing i am tired of hearing everybody praising mr. gates upon what he said here. i am sure he did not mean to say it. he wouldn't do anything to complicate his federal pension and his hospitalization. he didn't mean to this. the world knew this to begin with but never said anything about it. i don't think all this praise to go to him for a blunder.

although i certainly do approve of what he says. but i am sure he did not plan to say it, or he is not going to invade our next -- one of the best jehovah witnesses you have ever seen. host: this from "the hill" this morning. the senate will vote again today on a plan to strip a major ethanol industry tax break and ends the import tariff. seattle, becky, republican line. what do you think about

secretary robert gates saying most countries lie to each other? caller: the fact that countries like to each other doesn't make it right. if pakistan is going to say it is looking for osama bin laden, they can't find him, and then we find him, and then they arrest the people who helped us. they interrogate them and incarcerate them. then i say we should not give them one more red cent. i am sorry, i am nervous. that is my opinion. host: thank you for calling in this morning and welcome. politico -- google denies a special deal for barack obama.

it certainly raises red flags the obama campaign appears to have been given special access to a new on-line advertising product. the next call on countries lying

to each other, new york, ken on the independent line. good morning. caller: thank you. it would be interesting to see how mr. gates follows up when he retires, what position he takes. a lobbyist, does he write a book? does he have a great income from various sources? he opened the door a little bit. i think it would be more interesting if he had said governments routinely lied to each other and their own citizens. host: according to "the new york times" he is retiring to seattle to sit by the lake and write books. we will see if that pans out. from "the wall street journal" marketplace section. gop seeks bidders on amtrak'.

black river falls, wisconsin. ali, democrats' line. what did you feel about secretary gates say most countries like to each other? caller: i don't know what i am supposed to think about it. the terrorists being shot and killed -- previous administration, bush and chain that, they lied -- cheney

administration, they live. they covered up the line. we are very good at covering up our deadly lies. other countries, when they live -- lie, but when we lie we cover it up so well we keep doing the same business. thank you. host: thank you for calling in. finally, this headline from "the new york times." just let you see the headline -- were interested you can go to the new york times.com and read the article. a few minutes left in "the washington journal." the house will be coming in at 9:00 a.m. this morning. the senate will be working on economic development issues and

the ethanol tax credit vote will also take place today. the senate begins their work at 10:00 a.m. today and you could watch that on c-span2. we have two members of congress coming up. first we are going to be talking with dennis the senate, representative from ohio, and then tim huelskamp, republican of kansas, a freshman. that is what is coming up. congressman percentage is next. -- congressman dennis kasich is next. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, we will visit the nixon presidential library's new exhibit on watergate. also special programs including our video of nixon's first word in a speech and "washington post" publisher katharine graham on the breaking watergate story. we will join the historians at the university of richmond as

they talk about secession and the civil war. and we will hear from duke university professor john david lewis on the american defeat of japan in 1945. get a complete schedule at c- span.org/history or have it pressingo you by this c-span alert button. >> blackberry users, you can now access our programming any time with the c-span radio app, with audio streams, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history, commercial free. you can also listen to our signature interview programs. all available round-the-clock or of you are. download it free. this weekend on book tv on c- span2, live from hyde park, new york, the roosevelt reading festival with offers on fdr's presidency, it's this -- tuskegee airmen, japanese internment camp. on after words, former new york

times science writer on his latest, "the history of information." from the development of alphabets to the next information age. and thomas woods argues for a smaller federal government. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org and sign up for alerts and weekend schedules and your in box. "washington journal" continues. host: representative dennis coos image, -- kucinich of ohio, he was part of a group that filed suit against the obama administration because of the u.s. operation in libya. this is the headline from yesterday. a lawsuit filed against obama on the u.s. operation in libya. congressman kucinich, why did you follow suit in several court? guest: ne constitutional issue has to be brought to the federal court if they are -- any

constitutional issue has to be brought to the federal court if you want to get any issue resolved. in this case it is our contention that the president of the united states violated article 1, section 8 of the constitution when he proceeded to order an attack against libya absent a vote by the united states congress. furthermore, we say he violated the statute of the war powers act which requires him to come to congress within 60 days for approval once initiating possibilities. we also say that even though the president had approval of nato and of the u.n. security council, those two institutions cannot trump the united states constitution and the fact that the president has to come back and get approval. finally, peter, the issue of cost. where is this money coming from? we have not appropriated money for this war. and what the united states of being in the so much fiscal difficulty, it really becomes

imperative we raise the issue of this -- the cost of this war and others. host: how is your loss a different from john boehner's letter to the president saying in five days you will be in violation of the war powers act. guest: i am glad to play a role in bringing the bringing forward his action. i think he did do the right thing requiring the president to come forward with information, which, frankly, he should have done back in march. where we are now is this -- this lawsuit is the only way that we can reset the imbalance that has occurred constitutionally, where the founders and the beginning intended the war powers be placed in the hands of the people's representatives, the congress, and not in the hands of an executive, who, when we were under england, could wage war wantonly at the expense of the country and the people. what happened is this administration and others, frankly, decided to appropriate the war power and therefore

create a constitutional challenge. this lawsuit is really aimed at trying to reset our system of checks and balances, and attempting to restore congress's right foot wall as a coequal branch of government and to make sure we are not prosecuting wars willy-nilly around the world at a time of great turmoil and at a time of great financial distress. host: congressman kucinich, do you know what federal judge will be looking at the case? guest: i don't know. host: can help take action on its own -- on its own? can congress take any action to prohibit the u.s. from being part of the nato forces in libya? yuko yes, you can cut off funds. giglio -- guest: yes, you can cut off funds. there have been initiatives to limit the extent. no ground troops in libya, for

example. we need to know we are moving toward the place that that might be necessary. but in the meantime, this constitutional issue looms above everything because the competition is the roles we play by. and if we ignore the constitution, it is not only at peril for this moment but it sets precedents about what shall be the united states policy in yemen, sudan, in syria, any place around the world. we cannot be global cop. we have to realize there are limits to power. and will also do have some things we should start taking care of, like getting people back to work, helping people say their homes, making sure everyone has health care, protect the retirement security and making sure our children have a chance for a decent education. these are the kinds of things we need to focus on. but this constitution, which i carry with me, if we don't pay attention to this, if we don't

contemplate the wisdom of the founders in dividing the power within the government, then we are in danger of losing our country. so this is not a small matter. host: there was a support -- report about military and cia drones taking out al qaeda personnel in yemen. does that come into play in your court decision in the sense of military action against a sovereign country like that? guest: yes. if we decide that we can take that fickle finger of fate and hit the button and 8000 that the -- 8,000 miles away and in separate someone, that is an astonishing use of power to be able to do that. and one can say, well, okay, there are no troops on the ground. look, if you don't have that person pushing the button, the drone doesn't operate. if you do not have a drone and there is a person sitting in the chair, nothing happens.

we have to realize that technology has changed the rules of war. and the extension of our power still fixed within the constitutional imperative that congress makes the decisions whether or not to protect another country. we cannot continue to escalate these wars. we are in danger ring -- i believe, peter, we are endangering our country so that is why i go back to the constitution and the coalition that includes some of the more liberal and more conservative members, really are a testimony of the fact that there is a broad base of support now for taking a different direction. i think the american people by and large want us out of libya and i think the american people by and large are fed up with the escalation of war around the world. we can't afford it. and there is this question of the constitution. host: finally, congressman, before we go to calls, do you see similarities between the obama administration's actions and the bush administration's actions? guest: president bush did come

to congress for approval to attack iraq back in october of 2002. i laid out the case why it was wrong and why i felt there was no proof that iraq had any weapons of mass destruction. but he did come to congress. president obama did not feel he needed to come to congress. that is why we need to go to court. article 1 established the congress. article two establishes the executive, the president, and article 3 establishes the judiciary. in this case we are going to the judiciary and saying, look, this is a constitutional issue that needs to be resolved. it does article one, section 8, really mean only congress has the ability to declare war and can the president basically override the constitution of this? host: we are talking with congressman dennis kucinich, who led a coalition filing suit in federal court over president obama's policy in libya. members of the coalition -- roscoe bartlett of maryland, dan

burton of indiana, a democrat of massachusetts, a republican of north carolina -- got to say, that it is a coalition when you get john conyers, ron paul and denver and on the same team. guest: the american eagle spread its wings over the capitol -- it needs two wings to fly and. host: the first call comes from north carolina. don, democrats' line. caller: good morning, peter. congressman, it is an honor to speak with you. just quickly let you know where i am coming from. i am for medicare for all,

strengthening labor unions and the dream act. my seven questions are -- what do you think about the news that came out that gaddafi is running out of money and maybe we can get him, that we are close to getting him out of there? my second question is, what do 112do youchaka fatah's hr 5, a debt-free america tax plan -- what do you think of chaka debt-free american tax plan? guest: i am not familiar enough with his proposal to be able to discuss it. whether or not colonel gaddafi is running out of money it is beside the point. my question is, are we running out of respect for our constitution? host: and this tweet for you, congressman. does not our treaty obligations, and nato, factor in to the

libyan action? guest: nato's treaty obligations under nato, they did not trump the constitution of the united states. if you look at the treaty, it observes that all member states have to go back to their fundamental basis of legal transactions, their own individual constitutions. nato was not created as a vehicle by which the constitution of the united states or the constitution of any other country could be nullified. our constitution takes precedence over the nato treaty and, frankly, over the u.n. security council. host: the next call comes from palm springs, california on the republican line. hi, dennis. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. we basically all saw this coming. basically getting in and out of

libya and handing over to nato i thought was very far-fetched. we are a strong power and a force in the military -- it was not going to happen. we all saw this coming. representative, could you explain to the viewers of c-span what the lawsuit would ultimately achieve, besides more bad pr for the president and the democratic party? could you give us a reasonable time line on how you are going to pursue this, how long you are going to pursue this? host: got a point, thanks. guest: we are asking the courts to rule that the constitution requires that the president has to come to congress. so, in fact -- in effect, it would be rolling the action was illegal. the whole point of the lawsuit is to reset the balance within our government, which is now

imbalanced because our chief executive and other chief executives have determine for themselves the power to declare war, which the founders of a nation said should be in the hands of congress. so, we are trying to get the court to rule on that. as far as the public relations aspect of this, this isn't anything you do to appeal to a gallery. the constitution, which i take an oath to defend, requires that at this moment in the history of our country, we have to protect that constitute -- constitution i am not doing it for some kind of publicity stunt. host: if the federal judge rules in your favor, what happens? guest: the first thing we have to do is get standing. in 1999 i was the second on a

lawsuit. host: for kosovo? the court ruled that the congress has the power. if we get standing this time, i thinks we are on course to resolve one of the great constitutional issues of whether or not any president -- it's not just about this president -- i would prefer to keep this almost impersonal -- whether any president has the ability to take this country toward absent the approval of the directly- elected representatives of the people. he is not directly elected. he is chosen by electorates in the electro college. founders had been used to be able to determine that those who are directly elected, to have

faith in their hands. this involves the lives of our men and women sent to a theater where they might be put in jeopardy in one way or another. this is a very callous important moment. if the court is willing to entertain it. what we hold in this lawsuit is that this relates solely to congress. the founders were very careful in describing in article one, section 8, the whole range of responsibilities that congress has. one of them is the power to be able to take us into war.l -- -- war. we hope the court will decide to take the matter. court iny did the 1999 will get you had no standing in kosovo? guest: we are saying that

anything executive engages in with congress is a political question. this goes to the heart of something that is written in the constitution. we are trying to get a decision as to whether or not the federal courts believe that when the founders put that language into the constitution under article one, section 8, saying that the congress of the united states has the power to declare war as well as the power to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. this is quoted right from the constitution. the article says that the congress shall have power. so it empowered an institution. is this foundational document. that is what i am going by. that is what we are hoping that the court will understand this is more than a political question here this is the question of the viability of our

system of checks and balances. host: dennis kucinich is our guest. chris in rockville, new york. caller: i'm little nervous. i consider the president is our commander-in-chief and that he has information that the rest of congress does not and that if he had to go to congress to get permission, nobody can agree on anything now, how would we ever get anywhere? it seems like you are leaving or democratic party lately, mr. kucinich. thank you. guest: i am a democrat, but i am a constitutional democrat. the constitution, article one or rather section 2 of article 1 says the president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the united states and of the militias of several states if when called into the actual service of the united states. so congress determines whether

you go to war. we have to understand why the founders made the distinction. it did not want the president to be the individual who would not only say we are going to war, but to say that before you go to war and congress has to make that decision. at that point the president who has this moniker of commander- in-chief, then it really achieves its full effect. >> congressman kucinich, i was going to the second question that was asked of you, do you foresee another presidential run and what is the status of ohio redistricting and you're talking about moving to washington? guest: i am not a candidate in 2012. i hope to continue my work in the house of representatives. ohio is in the middle of redistricting. it's been reported that my

district will be substantially unchanged. i may have to look elsewhere beyond ohio and i am looking beyond ohio, not precluding running in ohio. there are other areas in the country where i have had a pretty good response for the work i have done behalf of working men and women and on behalf of peace and on the environment. i will see. i don't really know yet. i don't know where i might end up. i hope to continue to serve. i don't have the final choice on that. it will be a to whatever if constituents we have. >> what is your take on the obama administration going into its third year? guest: a little bit too close to wall street and to the pentagon. not enough focus on getting

people back to work. 14 million americans out of work. that's a national disaster. if the private-sector does not create jobs, the public sector as a moral responsibility to do so. i'm looking for that leadership from president. i hope to be in a position where i can support president obama. what i'm looking do here is what is he going to do about protecting people's jobs and retirement security and medicare and medicaid? these are fundamental issues that have to be regarded. what is he going to do about this penchant for american involvement in other nations' affairs? i want to see more about what this white house is doing. did he inherits a difficult situation? yes, but it is is now. i'm willing to support him. i need to see something done

about the jobs situation. host: dennis kucinich is our guest. chris in london a, england, on the line. caller: two comments. i find it hypocritical of the u.s. in libya not there to protect civilians appeared to dictate which group will govern the country. second, it's hypocritical that they are even in libya because when the united states went into iraq and afghanistan to removed the taliban and sadaam hussein, they killed hundreds and perhaps thousands of civilians and there was ofnato or united -- there was no nato or united nations to say anything. this idea of protecting civilians is a farce. guest: i agree. i've raised the issue about

civilian casualties in libya and afghanistan and pakistan and iraq. most people would be shocked to learn that years ago a study in the lancet said there were over 600,000 deaths in iraq over the course of the year. joseph stieglitz extrapolated on that in his book and came up with some figures, that there could be a number of deaths in excess of what that report indicated. we are at a point where we have to start thinking of the consequences of our actions. to say that there is such a thing as humanitarian war, the civilians being killed as a result of our intervention are hoping for peace as well. we have a real obligation in the use of military power. i have a great deal of respect for those serving in the

institution of the army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard. those of us in civilian authority have to be very careful before we commit those men and women into combat and be have to take care to observe there will be consequences for the people and the nation's who are being visited by our actions. host: this is an e-mail for you, congressman. yesterday it was said on cnn that the courts will likely not will in your case because they don't like to -- guest: is a very good constitutional analyst. we also have an analyst who is our attorney, also a commentator on constitutional law issues, as name is jonathan. we feel that if we get standing, that we can win, but

the court has to say at last that congress does have a position here. constitution protected from any executive who decides to appropriate for himself in the future the power to wage war? this is a very serious question that relates to whether or not our nation is going to be safe. whether or not america will continue to remain a democracy. or whether we will become something else as a result of more and more power in the hands of a single individual. host: mlk wants to know -- guest: something more than that. i propose that president bush and vice president dick cheney should be impeached for not

telling us the truth about going into iraq. i did not do that with any great enthusiasm. iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with 9/11. iraq did not have capability of attacking the united states. we have waged a $3 trillion war against iraq that we will be paying for and the people of iraq will pay for with horrible casualties, destruction of their nation. i would say, i led the effort in the house of representatives and right from the beginning in challenging the bush administration marching towards war. this is not a partisan matter. whether it is a republican president or a democratic president, this constitution has to survive and prevail. i am a democrat. i like to support my democratic

presidents. i am not going to shirk my duties to uphold the constitution if i feel that someone who happens to be a democrat is going beyond what the constitution permits for a chief executive. host: another e-mail for you, congressman kucinich. guest: it does, but it still does not trust the constitution. the un security council cannot determine for the united states when we go to war and neither can nato. this constitution has presidents over all of it. that's what this discussion is so important. these are the first principles. when the founders came together, they were not talking werenato or the un -- there were not talking about nato or the u.n.

these principles were designed to america big a to adapt in the future. here we are in 2011 deciding whether or not the founders when they drafted the constitution and said congress shall have the power to declare war, that statement that and did not mean some executive later on determines that he or she can appropriate that power and that's ok. no, it's very clear that based on their experience dealing with the king of england that they did not want to repeat that experience in having an executive or a monarchs waging war without any consent. host: lawmakers suing to end the u.s. role in libya, this is the front page of the wall stre -- of the washington times. roscoe bartlett is a republican from maryland.

dan burton, from indiana. michael capuano, of maryland. john duncan from tennessee, -- all the congressman filing suits. also, would you consider running on the united ticket with ron paul, that's in an e-mail. guest: on foreign-policy we have been closely in alignment. i am not. running not. i am not running for president. what i cansee continue to do it to continue to insist that congress' rightful

role as a directly elected representatives of the people is affirmed through our constitution. host: a tweet -- the next call comes from safety harbor, florida. mike, a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. representative kucinich, a pleasure to talk with you for the second time. first, i want to thank you for being a true american and not a partisan. your job is to serve the people and not to play partisan games. you are obviously doing so. your track record speaks for itself. it would be a sad day when you're not serving the people anymore. if you moved to florida, you would have plenty of support.

we have been betrayed by obama. i don't think he has done anything different from george bush. he does not have my vote. i see the ron paul votes in my future. i am a democrat. i voted for al gore, john kerry, obama. hopefully, it will be ron paul. i'm disappointed in obama. it's not the direction i thought our country would go. guest: it is important we look at what is happening in washington in the last few years as a lesson about where the levers our control are in our economy. i was against the bailout. i saw wall street gaining more and more momentum while people were losing their homes and their jobs and their retirement security. and wall street has extraordinary influence in our government.

that is a fact. it's because of money and the economy, and main street is not getting enough attention. the 2012 election will really determine -- determined by whether or not people on main street feel that they are getting some of the benefits of the country, that they are getting a chance for jobs and decent wages, but they're getting a chance to protect their retirement security, and getting a chance to have decent health care, getting a chance for their children to have a good education, the pair environment is being protected. all these issues will be brought to the forefront, including others. the 2012 election has not been decided yet, by any means. i do hope that the administration, which is in its third year, will have the opportunity to address some of these pressing economic issues with solid programmatic choices. it's not going to be sufficient for us to say if the republicans will not let an agenda be

passed. it is important for democrats to propose solid economic reforms and then we have to debate. we cannot just say the republicans are doing wrong by medicare. they should not be massive amount with medicare, bucks we have to say what's we stand for and come forward with proposals and then we can restart the debate. host: in new orleans, eustice, on the republican line. caller: congressman, you sound conceited and you don't sound like you really want to help our administration in the next election. the things that you are saying, a lot of people are saying, it does not really make sense. it is confusing, what you are saying about medicare and it seems like all the negative stuff the republicans are saying

about the president, you are saying the same thing. are you a true democrat? guest: i don't know if you have listened to the whole program, but i have led the effort to create a national health-care system. i work with john conyers on that. i have been a leader in trying to make a transition to a new place where we can create jobs for all, put america back to work with good paying jobs, be -- by rebuilding roads, water systems, sewer systems. i have been leading the fight against illegal wars. this has led me to become a candidate close to the democratic nomination. i am a democrat, but not a democrat in lockstep with the white house. we have to maintain in congress a certain amount of distance so that we can make our own decisions. that is what our constitution does. created by article 1 of the constitution is congress and the

executive, the president, is created by article 2. i have said nothing this morning that would be disparaging of barack obama. i take issue with his economic policies which tend to favor wall street. that is a fact. if it were a republican president, it would not be any different. but it means as a democrat i have the right to have a president with a solid job creation program. there's still time to do that. there's still time to put america back to work. that is the issue, domestically, get america back to work. help increase the level of wages, help create jobs security, do something about the trade wars that are causing jobs to be shipped out of the country, do something to temper corporate america that's like an octopus reaching into periods and destroying communities for profit. if we have to remember why we come into politics. it is not just to promote a party. i am a democrat and i have supported my party's nominee

every single time. but we also have to say when we are in advance of election what we stand for and aspire to that and root for that. host: back to the issue of libya and your lawsuits. this is a tweet. host: what authority do you see the president having if your lawsuit goes through? guest: you can find the data on the web site that they have put together. they pointed out that as of may 5 the united states 12,909 people, all countries involved in nato coalitions, involved in the libya action, 3500 came from the 90 states. of the aircraft, 309 total. 153 from the u.s.

of the aortie aircraft, 2000 of those are from the u.s. the cruise missiles, 248, and 228 from the u.s.. we have airplanes dropping bombs. if someone dropped a bomb, if another country dropped a bomb on a u.s. city, what we call that war? if another country flew into our an attack weapith plane, would that be seen as threatening? we have been the dissipating in the bombing of libya. orwell wrote about the inverted meaning in 1984 in which peace

was war and war was peace. we have to be careful we do not degrade this meaning of war and just say that it is a kinetic action. this is war. it pertains the meaning of war to mean that someone can -- if we change the meaning of war to say that we don't tablets on the ground, then how would you explain prom harbor on december 7 many years ago? was that war? of course, it was. it is a war in libya. in the federal courts we are saying the president does not have the ability to take our country into war absentee approval, express approval of the u.s. congress. host: our guest has been congressman dennis kucinich, democrat from ohio.

we always appreciate you coming over and taking calls from viewers. next, representative tim huelskamp, a freshman republican from kansas. we will talk about budget issues, congress is currently facing. from c-ews uupdate span radio. >> house democratic leaders said to me today on what to do next about congressman anthony weiner, the new york democrat has resisted calls to resign in the midst of a texting scandal. the meeting comes the day after a former actress who exchange e- mails and messages with him said that he asked her to lie about the interactions. some reports say the congressman may be stripped of his committee assignments. house meets at 9:00 a.m. eastern with live coverage on c-span. there's a report the number of u.s. homeowners behind on mortgage payments fell in the month of may to the lowest level since 2006 due to most likely the slowing housing market and delays in bank foreclosure processes.

many mortgage lenders also to act your properties in a. that is the second monthly decline in a row. an update on the hacking attack on citigroup. the company reports today that account information of more than 360,000 of citigroup u.s. credit card customers were stolen in the recent data breach. that's nearly twice the number initially thought. the company said last week the number of customer accounts affected or about 1% if or about 200,000 customers. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the thing to me that's unconscionable is treasonable action. it involves secure information and a lot of other things. what kind of people would do such a thing? >> 40 years ago this week the new york times published the first installment of the pentagon papers. today at the c-span video library you can watch perspectives from historians and the people who made history. search, watch, click, and share.

watch what you want and when you want. >> the supreme court is now available as a standard enhanced electronic book and tells the story of the courts through the eyes of the justices. 11 original c-span interviews with current and retired justices appeared this new edition include an interview with the newest supreme court justice kagan. at your expense by watching multimedia clips from all the justices. c-span's the supreme court, available now wherever electronic books are sold. washington journal continues. host: we are pleased to have joining us tim huelskamp, a freshman republican in the house from kansas. he is here to talk about some of the budget issues that congress is currently facing. he is a member of the budget committee. if we could, let's start here. this is from ben bernanke talking about the debt limit. this is the deadline.

don't tie the debt limit to cuts. what is your response to that? guest: he did not send a memo to the other party. bipartisan rejection two weeks ago. many of the democrats rejected that as well as all the republicans in the house. it's the perfect instrument to rein in spending, a great opportunity. we will be rejecting mr. ben bernanke's advice. the real question is we have been spending too much money. he has said over and over that has not impacted the economy. this is in order to get the fiscal house in order. host: in your local kansas paper

it says -- do you believe august 2 will be a drop dead date when it comes to the debt? guest: history shows generally the treasury secretary will suggest a deadline and congress, usually goes through that. the real question is not the deadline. it is a question of how we got there and how to avoid that in the future. if i don't want to raise the debt ceiling ever, much less more than one time in congress. this administration does not have any plan to bring spending under control and find a way not to raise the debt ceiling. host: have you been party to or informed of the joe biden budget talks that are going on? rdi inner loop when it comes to what's going on when it comes to those talks? e you in the loop?

guest: we are going to have to cut spending. i think we are making progress in getting the message through to the administration, what we are hearing from the american people. what i'm hearing from kansas is to cut spending now. that's what we have to do first if we are going to the address the issues surrounding the debt ceiling. host: when you were home on memorial day did you hear from your constituents with regard to paul ryan's medicare proposal? guest: they were very supportive of his proposal. they understand that medicare is in jeopardy. they understand that changes have to be made throughout the budget. they understand the status quo is no longer an option, which is the way this town operates. we do the same thing as last year with just a little tweak. we have to get right down to it. when the medicare trustees say that medicare goes bankrupt in

nine-13 years, they wanted to last longer than that. host: before we get to calls, and we have put the numbers on the screen/political affiliation if you would like to talk to tim huelskamp from kansas about some of the budget issues facing congress, you can dial. please allow 30 days between your calls. more article first appeared this is from this morning.

guest: i was not at the event, but it seems more of what i have heard throughout washington. i came here to change washington and not the other way around. the idea that we're not going to face this problem of spending too much money and borrowing, the idea of folks that want to challenge that problem are eplanning to go into this election cycle, that is not what folks from kansas want. and the joke about atm machines causing the job loss, that's not a joke when you think about 18 million americans out of work and a $14 trillion deficit. it's time to get serious about the problems at hand. host: when you're the president of the u.s. chamber of congress saying something like that, was that something you want to respond to or something you want to talk to him directly about?

guest: i did not hear the comment, it was reflected back to other outlets. we have 87 republican freshmen that have committed to making changes in washington. as a member of that class i want to make certain that the message is here that we are here to make changes. we have to focus on challenges in washington inside the beltway. we need solutions if want to get a job creation going again. no more stimulus. that's where there's issues on folks from many different -- with folks on many different fronts. host: he was just elected to the u.s. congress in 2010 for the first time. is a member of the house the party caucus and republican standing committee. research and agriculture, budget, and foreign affairs committee. first question from tom in arlington, virginia, a democrat. caller: i have one question for

the congressman. are you going to attack the farm subsidies? i will take your answer offline. guest: i appreciate that. great question, from a rural district in western kansas and that is what i'm telling my constituents, that everything is on the table, including agriculture programs. there are ways to reduce those. some of those programs will go away. most farmers and ranchers say the same thing. cut everybody if you are going cut us. everybody needs to come to the table with solutions. there are no sacred trufs any more -- turfs any more. making our children pay these debts is no longer an option. host: there is a map yesterday showing your district, the 1st district of kansas receiving $369 million in crop subsidies, one of the highest in the nation.

what kind of cuts do you think will occur during the agriculture appropriations debate that is going on right now? and what kind of cuts are acceptable to you? guest: significant cuts already in the appropriations bill for agriculture. my concern is the need to make those cuts and the ones in there that we can stand, but there are proposals canada cut agriculture more than anything else and that is where my constituents say, wait a minute, if you are going to cut agriculture subsidies, what about everybody else as well? people are stepping up to the plate. the first district is one of the largest in the country, heavily dependent on agriculture. what is important to agriculture is free trade agreement. we'll president obama will submit the free trade agreement to make sure we can sell things to panama and colombia and

korea. he promised to do that in december. that is where we will make most of our income, selling its overseas. host: the next call comes from florida, chris on our republican line. caller: hello, everybody. thank you, c-span. i listened to what you said, but i want to go back to representative kucinich when he said one of the problems he has with the obama administration is its coziness with wall street. that means the investment banking crowd. we have a major problem in this country that is largely being ignored and kept under the rug. it has to do with the creation of crowded titles on millions and millions of mortgages. this has nothing to do -- it has millions andiskwith

millions of good standing mortgages and people do not know -- probably 90% of people in this country have no clue that if they have done any refinancing if they bought a home in the last 10 years, due to the implementation of mortgage electronic recording services by the big banks, that basically 200 years of property law being usurped. i would like the congressman to address that we have a major problem coming up with that. and are going to bail out the banks again? host: congressman, any thoughts? guest: i heard a little about the problem. i'm not an expert on that and have not heard from any kansas residents concerned about this. i have friends in the community, the banking community, and there's some talk about that

nationally. host: what is the fiscal health of the banks in the first district in western kansas? guest: fairly positive, generally. what they're most word about is new regulations. they do a lot of mortgages. they do on homes and real-estate and other allies. they find new regulations out of washington are making their jobs harder and more difficult and impossible at times. we are about ready to create another credit crisis across rural america because of the dodd-frank bill and its implementation. it's becoming difficult for the bankers and folks going to renew their farm loans and home loans. host: what about dodd-frank makes it more difficult to get loans? guest: new requirements for reporting, new requirements, just basic regulations in terms of reporting and what they have to maintain.

loans that are good for 30 years, a farmer goes into renew his agriculture loan that he's been reviewing its 30 years and it goes in now and the person says it looks great, but you have defined credit elsewhere. -- have to find credit elsewhere. it's going to impact rural america. host: alabama, independent line, -- don. caller: i want to bring up the farm subsidies that you guys get. i think they should be cut to zero. if a farmer cannot make it on his own, why should i as a taxpayer supporting emperor? you will -- why should i as a taxpayer support him?

and sending jobs overseas, taxpayers are paying for corporations to send jobs overseas. guest: i share many of those concerns, particularly the loss of jobs since the stimulus package, we've lost 1.9 million jobs. 1.9 million americans not working today that were working two years ago. it's time for recovery. we need real tax reforms that provide the proper incentives for investment. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. we have proposed tappan trade appraisal that will raise taxes -- we have proposed cap and trade appraisal that will raise taxes. jobs are going overseas and we need to change that. republicans have a great proposal that would allow

innovators to create more jobs. we cannot wait another year to make that happen. we need to do that very soon. 13 million americans out of work is not an option. host: your family has a whe at farm. how could you cut all subsidies? just be a business without government assistance or hindrance, is that possible? guest: most farmers recognize this. we have to hold on to this. we have seen a decrease in subsidies for many years with other proposals. if we are able to access and sell to korea, we have people in korea that want to buy our products particularly from kansas, but our government will not allow them to buy that without tariffs. epa is driving up our costs every day in many facets of

agriculture. reduce the regulations and the subsidies can go away. it's going to happen. we are wanting have them allow us what we do and that is farming. host: now this question -- guest: we're still waiting on him to do what he promised in december last year and that is to propose an agreement on columbia and an agreement on panama and an agreement on korea. i hope we have that. it would be great politics for the president to submit that. he is dealing with labor folks that are more worried about 50 years of labor laws in other countries versus moving forward and providing real jobs for americans right now with more sales overseas. host: reggie is a democrat in springfield,. caller: good morning. guest: good morning.

caller: i have a comment and question. based on history, we have wanted the country to support every war that we have fought historically. the bush tax cuts have been extended. president obama -- the country has not seen an increase in jobs from the corporations from the tax cuts. how are we to support torahs when we don't tax the people -- support wars? guest: republicans and democrats have said we will pay for things later. that does not work in real lives or in business. we need to pay for things as we go along. that's why i support a balanced budget amendment to get our fiscal house in order. both parties have demonstrated

an ability to balance the budget did the second thing is creating jobs. the regulatory uncertainty, the idea that maybe we are going to raise taxes tomorrow or there's a new law, regulation coming down the pipeline is the issue. it is the uncertainty. we want to invest in americans. we want to invest here. business folks say why would i take that risk when washington will wake up tomorrow and start a new regulation on me? that is what i'm hearing now. host: fuel americans applied for unemployment benefits last week --

what's your unemployment rate in the first district of kansas? guest: it's fairly low. in the rural areas there's not a -- excessccess folks folks. agriculture has strong things going on. but with the drought and flooding, there are some difficulties ahead. host: did you get affected by the spring floods in your district? guest: there have been some drought areas sansom's flood areas because it is almost two thirds of the state of kansas. a huge drought has been going on in some places for over one year.

10 inches in other areas can and floods in particular parts of the district. host: this tweet -- guest: the $1.10 trillion obama stimulus should have boosted our economy if that was the connection to the economy. that is what mr. bernanke and tim diner promised us two years ago. unemployment is 9.1% today. htner promisedgei us. we have to quit spending money. we have to quit regulating too much and allow entrepreneurs to create more jobs. that's the way to get out of recession. host: republican minds.

line. good-- caller: we are sending billions of dollars over there for the war, so i don't know how we will quick spending. $550 million were taken out of medicare for obamacare. they keep hitting the social security trust fund all the time and taking money out of that. the money is there. there is no deficit. they keep taking from the trust funds. if there needs to be a law passed that you cannot take money from the trust fund to pay force or debts. that is our money. they keep taking money from expert. -- they keep taking money from it. guest: as of today we are

spending more money on medicare benefits than we are taking in. the same thing on social security. 9-13 years from now, medicare is in trouble, a little longer than social security. the idea in washington that we will not do anything, we have 10,000 retirees every day and there's no plan in washington to take care of them. obamacare cuts $500 million out of medicare and it's going to do that through board of 16 people who will make those cuts in a non-transparent matter. we want to make serious reforms that will improve the system and alleged medicare survive for people 55 and under. if we do not think, medicare last more than a decade. we are barings' 42 cents out of every dollar.

that is not sustainable. they are spending too much money. it is a talent that both parties have engaged in -- it is 8 challenge that both parties have been engaged in. host: this is a comment. guest: i personally have no issue with elizabeth warren. people are scared to death of someone who does not understand what it's like to be a in a small town and making regulations from on high. small-town community bankers want to service the customers. for the bankers that don't service the customers and don't do, good job, there's competition to take care of them. but the idea that a new

appointee in washington will somehow out improved job creation in rural areas or anywhere else, that seems to be more focused on regulation and not letting bankers do their jobs. host: jamie on our independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have three issues with your budget. we promised to go back to the 2008 levels. cutting means getting rid of cowboy poetry festivals and building more military departments, or buildings. every budget you guys have put out this year have come from more construction building, more buildings. giving the defense department more money to build. giving the homeland security more money to build. we have buildings. you have empty buildings that you are renting.

why are spending money to build more buildings? have plenty of buildings around town. you are correct. hundreds of buildings that are not needed. times are tough. it's time to get rid of those assets and things we don't need. we have proposals in capital 0-- -- on capitol hill. many folks have said they have to do something about it and we have to cut the budget. we have to cut year to year. that's our goal. we got close to doing it this year. i was disappointed. we could have gone farther. we have to go much farther than that. host: we have 10 minutes left with our guest before the house of representatives comes into session. betty, a democrat line.

caller: thanks for taking my call. three questions. did you sign a promise to grover norquist not to raise taxes? how can you, if a family is in destitute need of money to pay off their bills, how can they pay off bills if they don't have money? you promised never to raise taxes on the rich. third, the $500 billion that was taken from medicare was not taken out of medicare because it has gone on to obamacare. it was taken out because the insurance companies were overcharging the government to handle the medicare program. that's how there was abuse. guest: the medicare cuts that are indicated, that is part of obamacare. 5 and $2 billion in cuts over the next 10 years. that is the way they work their magic to say somehow that

obamacare would save government money. obamacare will cost 2.5 trillion dollars pair that's why we're working to repeal it so we can save that money. constituents of the first district of kansas and i believe washington needs to spend their money better and not to raise taxes. what helps grow the economy is certainty. and less regulation. we need to get this economy growing again. 13 million americans unemployed. 45 million americans on food stamps. that is unacceptable. the idea of another trillion dollars stimulus and spending more money is not warranted. we need to get this country back to work again. host: congressman huelscamp, how do you think secretary tom bills fact is doing at the agriculture department? -- tom vilsack.

guest: i have heard no complaints from my colleagues about him. as to what we say coming out of the agriculture department is not nearly as burdensome if that is coming out of the epa, the regulations. whether it's in banking or agriculture or any other industry. we have some concerns about some of the rural programs and the red tape and regulations that are limiting our ability to create jobs. host: i want to ask about an issue that is a little off topic. congressman kucinich spoke about his lawsuits against the obama administration with regard to this action in libya. do you feel the obama administration is in danger of violating the war powers act? guest: i believe they have. i was one of three republicans that debated with dennis

kucinich on this issue. the constitution is clear in the u.s. house of representatives and the senate are the ones that declare war. we expect this administration to follow the constitution. i think most everybody feels the president should get authorization. the republicans are pro-war for afghanistan. host: do you think the u.s. has national security interest in libya? guest: we are waiting to see. if the president's responsibility to identify national security interests. i have seen nothing identified in national security interest. the letter from president obama, he noted that the united nations

told us to go in there. our nationalot security interest. the are waiting for the president to follow that action. i appreciate the letter from the speaker to see what our interests are in libya. money in thatng 1 war and we are still waiting to see what the president has to say on why we are there. host: the senate is voting on whether or not to get rid of an ethanol tax credit. guest: i think that will go away as well. it depends on where you are in the industry. most folks recognize we have been subsidizing ethanol quite a few years and it's time for them to move on into the marketplace. most folks in the industry say that we are producing a product that is cheaper than gasoline, in many cases. host: chicago, jane, independent

line. -- james. caller: if the government would stop penalizing government- funded organization for saving money, that would save millions of dollars in a year. the reason we don't tax to pay is there would be more greater outcry to end them from the american citizens. would you support a bill that would limit the amount of money politicians can raise and spend during the campaign cycle? this would free you up to do your job in congress rather than spending 60% of your time fund- -- and itand its- would be a tool to fix the imbalance between the haves and have-nots. guest: i would not support a bill to restrict fund-raising.

our courts have been clear and the constitution is clear that it's part of our ability to impact the political process, fund-raising. i don't spend 60% of my time fund-raising. i'm sure others might do that. we need folks from outside washington, we need real opinions from real americans. like many other members of congress i have done a bunch of town hall meetings. you go and listen to folks and bring those messages back to washington. we restrict what washington is doing, whether it is taking over the health care system with obamacare or many other places, that is the way we make sure if washington is more responsive to america. host: bradford, frank on the republican line. caller: i am disappointed republican.

i am a capitalist. we need an industrial policy. how can business grow? the jobs are overseas. american companies are not going to pay the health care. we must get health scare off the back of industry. i don't care if you turn it over to charity. we need jobs in this country. republicans do not have an industrial policy. host: when you referred to an industrial policy, what's are you referring to? caller: i am referring to the fact -- i can remember when the veterans administration employed 200,000 people in this country. those jobs left. they're not coming back. if they brought 20,000 jobs back, the cost of health care would bankrupt them. this has to change. maybe obamacare is not bad. it has to be public. guest: the republicans do have a policy. if we're going to get the economy going again, if we are

going to let innovators and entrepreneurs outside washington make the decisions and clean them up with less regulation and lower taxes and lower requirements out of washington. that's how to grow the economy. it's not done in washington. when we see china moving towards more freedom, we seem to be moving in the other direction. our administration is focused on micromanaging the economy and our republican approach is a free-market approach. host: thank you very much. the house is in session. calle chaplain conroy: let us pray. eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we thank you once again that we, your creatures, can come before you and ask guidance for the men and women of the

people's house. send your spirit of wisdom as they face this day with difficult decisions to be made, work to be done, burdens to be carried. might they work together with charity and join their efforts to accomplish what our nation needs, to live into a prosperous and secure future. we pray, especially this day, for one of the house's home whom you've called beyond this life. i give you thanks for the life and service to this nation and this house of mr. john patrick murtha. may he and those who served in our military may all rest in peace. please keep all the members of this congress and all who worked for the people's house in good health that they might faithfully fulfill the great responsibility given them by the people of this great nation. bless us this day and every day. may all that is done here this day be for your greater honor and glory.

amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. mr. walz: please rise and honor our country with the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, president obama has unilaterally brought america into its third war, the war in libya. the strution provides that congress, not -- the constitution provides that congress, not the executive, should give the nation the power to go to war. the resolution says there must have been an attack on the united states or the war is in the national security interest of the united states, says the war powers resolution. also, the war powers resolution has a cease after 60 days unless there is congress approval. congress has not approved this war. the president's new innovative argument on this war is that the united states is not

engaged in hostility in libya. therefore, we are not at war. i assume war is in the eyes of the beholder. in history, people have justified war because, well, they want to go to war. the constitution and the law have been trampled on by this march to war, but we cannot let the constitution get in the way of a good war, can we? and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. walz: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor a brave fallen hero from my district who was killed in iraq last week, specialist campo, a remarkable man from minnesota, gave his life for this nation. he joined the national guard while he was still in high school and his classmates remember him as a kind, fun-loving young man who had aspirations of going to college and going into the medical field. he served this country bravely as an army medic. when he would come home he

would shrug them off, explain he was doing his job. earlier in the week, in the 2009 graduation section, emilioa favorite quote was, live as if you die today. tomorrow, his family, his friends and his community will gather together to honor his memory and celebrate his life. we will remember his sacrifice to this nation and how he died and gave the ultimate sacrifice. but we will also remember the kind of person he was, full of life, kind-hearted, a good friend and a good son. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jenkins: americans are struggling. they need relief. they need certainty. they need jobs. house republicans have passed

legislation aimed at removing barriers to job creation, including bills to rein in wasteful spending and unnecessary regulation, decrease uncertainty and ensure the survival of medicare, medicaid and social security. one of the many pieces of legislation passed to spur job growth was our budget. my colleagues across the aisle can critique our plans, but it's unacceptable to demagogue it without having a plan of their own. law requires that congress pass a budget yet democrats shirked that responsibility last year and they have yet to propose an alternative this year. we've heard a few speeches but no honest plan that can be read, scored, compared and negotiated. the american people need jobs rather -- need jobs. rather than demagoguing, i ask my democratic friends to bring a budget to the floor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise in celebration of june as pride month. participating and supporting the legislation beean, gay, transgender community is a fundamental belief upon which this country is founded, equality. the first pride parade took place in 1970 to commemorate the stone wall riots in new york. mr. quigley: 40 years later, the parade is a month-long celebration. what was once a moment is now a movement. bringing people together to fight for the rights and benefits granted to them by the constitution. rights we should all fully support and fight for every day in washington. we got a few victories under our belt. hate crimes legislation and the repeal of don't ask, don't tell have passed these chambers but there remains much to be done. i look forward to celebrating equality all this weekend at the chicago parade and festival

and i am embolden as ever to continue this important work in congress. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to reporting some distressing economic news to our scrict, to add to our country's rising unemployment, steep drop in retail sales last month, allen family foods filed for bankruptcy last week. a well-known name in the putry -- poultry business, this closing could cost thousands of jobs. the reason for the collapse, soaring grain prices, overbearing government regulations, especially from the e.p.a. mr. hare is: it sent potentialal job creators a message that the government is not doing a very good job.

we tried to create jobs their way and it has not worked. overtaxing, overregulating cannot and will not create jobs. it's time to head in a new direction. it's time for a new economic policy. if we stop the spending spree in washington, businesses will once again create jobs in america. it's up to us to restore confidence and certainty and send a signal to the private sector that the united states is once again open for business. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tonko: thank you, madam speaker. the republican majority seems to be using any route possible to hide the truth about its road to ruin budget and its plans to end medicare. "the washington post," "the new york times," the washington journal" and others said a mass letter had been heavily edited by majority leadership if they

address the leadership plan to end medicare. but americans know the truth, madam speaker. every day i hear from many of my constituents in the capital region of upstate new york who tell me how much they rely on medicare and how worried they are of the majority's plan to end the program. a voucher will not even come close to covering their rising prescription drug costs and doctors' visits. our senior community is tremendously wise. they know that the risks associated with the republican plan shifts the -- that the risk is shifted from our government to their pockets. no matter how it's spun, americans are opposed to ending medicare. let's instead work together to strengthen the plan and ensure it remains on strong financial footing. thank you, madam speaker. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: madam speaker, tomorrow the house committee on oversight and government reform, led by chairman darrell issa, will conduct a field

hearing at the boeing company's 1.1 million square foot manufacturing plant in north charleston, south carolina. this will expose an outrage of big government killing jobs. as "the seattle times" correctly editorialized monday, quote, the nlrb is attempting to reverse a u.s. investment by the nation's number one exporter. 17 months after the company decided to make it. after the money's been spent. after the equipment has been set up. after 1,000 workers had been hired. for the government to demand now the company move to another state shows no sense of practical reality. end of quote. south carolina recruited this new second line of 787 dream liners through a package which includes a trained world class work force, right to work laws and pro-business local government of republican and

democratic bipartisanship. the boeing company's decision was based on economics and sound business policy. the obama administration should stop its attack on american jobs and american workers. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, a close examination shows the changes that our republican colleagues are proposing to medicare would actually make things much worse, not better. to begin with, the republicans' proposal would add to the program's cost. privatizing medicare would cost 11% more than it would for providing exactly the same services under the current medicare plan. and the additional cost for going private would just widen over time. and according to the

nonpartisan politicalfact.org, under the republican plan those just becoming eligible for medicare, those 55 years old and under, 10 years from now would pay a whooping $6,400 more per year than they would under the current plan. this kind of foreseeable increase in costs actually works just like a tax aimed squarely at our retiring seniors. the republican plan would be a disaster for our seniors and our economy. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, today we will vote on a bill to deprive impoverished mothers and children of their nutritional assistance, at a time when record number of americans are unfortunately relying on these programs. there is no better indication of the majority's misplaced priorities than when they

examine their cuts for meals for low-income seniors and the cuts to our nation's emergency food banks. mr. deutch: my republican colleagues would love to say these painful cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit. don't believe it for a second. if we repeal the bush tax cuts for millionaires for one day, just for one day, we could preserve every penny of the $100 million in cuts to senior food, aid senior hungry and its soup kitchens. we're recovering from the worst economic disaster since the great depression. poverty is on the rise across america. during these tough times, we could ask millionaires to go without their special tax cuts for one day. instead, republicans are asking some of america's poorest, most vulnerable seniors to go hungry for one day and more. madam speaker, our nation deserves better than that. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2112. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 300 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2112. will the gentleman from michigan -- will the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. miller, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on

the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2112 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for agriculture, rural defment, food and drug administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2012, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request for recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 80, line two. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38, printed in congressional record, offered by mr. holden of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. holden: madam chair, what my amendment would do is restore the $1 billion in cuts from mandatory conservation programs in the underlining bill.

almost half of the total cuts in this piece of legislation comes from mandatory conservation programs. that's the largest cut in history. madam chair, specifically in this bill there are $210 million in cuts in the conservation steward program, $350 million in cuts in the environmental qual incentives -- quality incentives program, $50 million in farm lapd protection program, 90,000 acres in the grassland program. and $35 million on reductions in wildlife habitat incentives program. to make this budget neutral scored by the c.b.o., it is paid for with a $5.88 across-the-board cut in discretionary spending in the bill, including the $102 million in already reduced an discretionary conservation programs in the bill. madam speaker, this is shared sacrifice as opposed to not shared sacrifice in the overwhelming significant reduction of $1 billion in mandatory discretionary

programs. madam chair, in the farm bill we work very hard in a bipartisan manner to get the investment in conservation that our producers need across the country. they need it now more than ever. they are under significant danger and peril from regulatory agencies. particularly the e.p.a. they need these conservation programs so they can stay in compliance and they can do the job that they could so well in producing our agriculture across the country. this is a bipartisan bill. i am honored to be the ranking member on the conservation subcommittee and to be joined by the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. thompson, from pennsylvania. i urge adoption of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: madam speaker, as chairman of the house agriculture committee, subcommittee on conservation energy and forestry, i rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend from pennsylvania, ranking member on the subcommittee, mr. holden. the chair: without objection,

the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. this amendment will restore limited mandatory funding for the conservation programs as defined under the current farm bill. i believe it's important to note that this amendment does not have any additional cost. we are still within the frame of the appropriations committee allocation for the bill. this amendment simply preserves critical conservation programs which remain important for many farms, ranches, and agricultural lands across the nation in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas. the programs offer voluntary incentives for farmers and ranchers to enroll land into conservation areas. my district, these programs are vital for water quality improvement on our local farms and throughout the region. it's the same for many other states. in my area of pennsylvania, this is vital to be able to deal with the mandates levied upon us by the agencies such as the e.p.a. the programs are cost-effective and provide excellent returns on investment. while utilizing local, state,

and private funding so everyone involved has skin in the game. the amendment again does not increase the bill's cost by even one penny, fully offset by reducing the bill's discretionary funding by 5.88%. i commend the appropriations subcommittee chair for his efforts to produce an overall bill that is fiscally responsible and reduces funding in total by 13% in comparison to previous fiscal years. as the chairman of subcommittee with jurisdiction over these programs, i can say very frankly to my good friend of georgia, i look forward to my next farm bill where the authorizing committee can further explore making these programs even more efficient and cost-effective. more so than they already are. however, changes to programs as defined under the current farm bill, especially when it comes to the mandatory spending in this amendment, i believe should be handled by the agriculture committee not the appropriations process. i fully support this amendment and request my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yeelingds back his

time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. kingston: i rise in opposition and ask to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: i thank the chairwoman, i want to first of all thank my good friend from pennsylvania for talking to me about this amendment earlier this week. i expressed my concerns at that time which i still have with them. want to make a number of points. number one, we are not 100% sure what this scores out in terms of budget authority. so there is question. number two, i want to say that while conservation funding is down, farmers still have access to $5.8 billion in conservation funding. and that's for private landowners, $5.8 billion. actually $5.68 billion to be exact. also i want to make sure that my friends know that even though there are changes in mandatory

programs, that no conservation contracts will have to be canceled because of these limitations. the federal government cannot and does not break farm commodity or conservation contracts without significant consequences. we are aware of that so we have made sure that none of the conservation contracts would be abrogated. then finally i want to say to my friend, the ranking member, just to underscore some of the sensitivities we have been through the last couple days, that this actually does cut the w.i.c. program, cuts the commodity supplemental food program, and it cuts the consequence vigse reserve program and a lot of the other programs which there has been so much passion about object this -- on this floor the last couple days w that i oppose the amendment and urge everyone to vote no. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much,

madam chair. i raise with great concern with this amendment. it wants to reduce about $5.88 -- 5.88% across the board. our problem is that we have -- we were dealt a bad deal. the bill we brought to the floor, we cut some last night across the board, was -- is $5 billion, or 23% below what the president requested. the president put together all of the asks, and as you know o.m.b. scrubs those things and we are always very critical of the president's requests. sometimes because they are so low. nonetheless this is 23% below what the president requested. it's 14% below what we enacted last year. we in the committee last year under rosa delauro, when we were in the majority, we didn't have

the impact on farm programs, particularly the environmental programs, that cuts do this year. it's below the 1910 -- 2010 enacted level and actually below the 2008 enacted level. people use these terms very loosely. below level. think of it in your own personal income. think about what the costs of life were you in twain versus now. i submit almost in every case your water bill, your cable bill, your garbage bill, your utilityity bill, certainly the price of gasoline now is a lot higher than it was in 2008. nonetheless you got the same amount of money. so it's going to have draconian impact, this bill, and underlying bill, on the department of agriculture and food and drug administration. so i'm concerned, i think the gentleman is very intended to protect the programs that i care

a great deal about, but i think the 5.8% across-the-board cut on top of what we have already cut is just too much. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. holden: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. holden: question. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. campbell of california, at the end of the bill before any short title, insert the following new section, the amount otherwise provided -- section, the amount otherwise provided by this act for

agricultural programs, animal and plant health inspection service, salaries and expenses as hereby reduced by $11 million. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. campbell: thank you, madam chair. this amendment really ought to be a no-brainer. it cuts $11 million from the usda wildlife services livestock protection program. let me give you four reasons why this should be a no-brainer. first of all it saves $11 million. not the end of the world, but it's a start. we all know we have to save a lot of money. we all know we have to spend less money, this is a start for doing it. why does it do that? this program is taxpayer money used to kill potential predators that supposedly are threatening livestock. but this killing of predators is very indiscriminate. we are killing all kinds of wildlife out there. both predators and nonpredators, both threatening and nonthreatening. third, only -- less than 1%, less than 1% of livestock in

america is killed by predators every year. so we are spending this money for a tiny, tiny portion of the livestock that is out there. fourth, this is almost the biggest reason, why are taxpayers paying this? why is this a taxpayer responsibility? if ranchers want to protect their livestock, why don't they do it? why don't they pay for it? madam chair, there are so many ways to protect these livestock with pens and fencing and lighting and all kinds of things without killing indiscriminately killing wildlife and without using taxpayer money to do it. madam chair, this is $11 million we can save, should save, and will save if this amendment is approached. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wyoming rise? mrs. lummis: i rise to oppose

the amendment. and -- the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, madam chairman. the gentleman from california would be correct that ranchers and farmers should be able to pay to deal with the predator situation. the problem is they are not allowed to. the federal government doesn't allow people to kill predators that are attacking their livestock. . so consequently here's another situation we discussed yesterday where the federal government puts restrictions on ranchers and farmers where they can't protect their own live stock so -- livestock so the taxpayers can't protect their own livestock that the federal government steps in. in addition, though, wildlife strikes costs -- excuse me --

wildlife strikes on airplanes costs u.s. commercial aviation $700 million a year. one part of wildlife services is when usda works with 822 domestic airports as well as department of defense airbases in the u.s. and in iraq and in afghanistan. so part of this is to assist with efforts to prevent conflict between wildlife and commercial aviation flights, some of which can be quite devastating and deadly. furthermore, there's been an $18 million loss of sheep and lambs to predators or $111 million when you add cattle and calf losses. absent predator losses would explode and that would drive family farms and ranches out of business. this is a very balance program

in that it takes shared responsibility between airport managers and wildlife services, ranchers and farmers and wildlife services. it requires a tremendous cost share or matching program at greater than 40%. the wildlife services division has more than 2,500 cooperative agreements in place across the united states. madam chairman, i saw my former chairman of ag committee on his feet a minute ago and if he wishes some time to add further i would yield to him. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> the gentlelady is exactly right. we would be happy to control the predators. the problem is they won't let us. and right now we're going through a delisting problem on wolves. we just had a meeting a couple nights ago, a meeting up north. mr. peterson: part of the problem is because of the budget situation and the pressure on that part of the

budget, they don't even have the resources at this point given the existing money to be able to come in and help us control the wolves. you know, they're going through a process where they're turning over the management to the local state d&r and they're not allowing the farmers to go out there and control the predators. and they're eating their calves and their sheep and there's even a program in minnesota where they pay them because we can't control it. and we would be happy to, you know, we've been trying to -- we're happy they're finally being delisted, but, you know, farmers will take care of this. but in this agreement it says that we can't do anything for five years. we can't hunt these wolves for five years. we also have a problem in minnesota, other states, with

another thing. we entered into a agreement with mexico that we wouldn't shoot any black birds since 1973 under the migratory bird act, so we can't control them. and in wildlife services, the only way we can deal with that and we've been making some progress on it, but prior to this treaty we control these birds on these lakes by the local guys going out and hunting them. so we would be happy if we get federal government to get out of this, let us deal with it, we wouldn't need any money from the government. this is a problem caused by us, and that's why we need this money. the last thing we need to do is reduce it. so i oppose this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. peterson: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady from wyoming. mrs. lummis: maim chairman, i yield to -- madam chairman, i yield to the gentleman from

oklahoma, the gentleman from the ag committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lucas: the wildlife services use biologically sound and -- the chair: the time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma rise? mr. lucas: to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the chair will alternate sides. the chair would prefer to let the gentleman from oklahoma finish his statement since he was in his statement. the gentleman from oklahoma five minutes. mr. lucas: thank you. the wildlife services used biologically sound to resolve these issues when agriculture or public safety is at risk from wildlife. if you own a pet you benefit

from the wildlife services. they reduce rabies in wildlife populations which prevents the spread of that terrible disease to domestic animals and humans. every time you get in a car you benefit from the wildlife services. they work to reduce automobile collisions with deer which require an average of -- which affect an average of 29,000 people each year, cause $1 billion in damages. every time you fly in a plane, you benefit from the wildlife services. they have people working in all 50 states to prevent dangerous aircraft collisions with birds. how can we forget captain sullenberg's heroic landing on the hudson. he hit a bird on takeoff. while we applaud the captain's achievement, there is no question that reducing these dangerous collisions must be a priority in the future. and the largest portion of the

wildlife services budget, 43% is spent on protecting human health and safety, often wildlife services is the first line of defense against health risks involving everything from west nile virus, to aveon flu to lyme disease. they prevent disease to humans and livestock. wildlife services is one of the few agencies that has a private sector matching funds on a 1-1 basis. it's unfortunate there are not more federal programs as physically as responsible as the wildlife services. yet, every year animal rights groups opposed to the predator control conducted by the joint usda wildlife services programs attempt to eliminate the funding from this vital program. and every year congress rejects these attempts. that's because the wildlife causes $126 million for

livestock losses, specialty crop losses of $146 million. all told, wildlife causes $2.8 billion in damage every year to natural resources, public infrastructure, agriculture. without the predatory management done by wildlife services, losses would explode, driving family farms and ranches out of business. cutting funding for the wildlife services would be both costly and dangerous. doing so also ignores the proven science behind wildlife services' work as well as their commitment to minimizing wildlife mortality. and this amendment is not scientifically sound and it's certainly not economically minded. i urge my colleagues, oppose it, continue the funding for the wildlife services' efforts to protect you, your property, your pets. i yield back the balance of my time, madam chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: we ran into tough times and said we wouldn't have this program. heard all the same myths. we are going to lose all our sheep. we are going to lose all these cattle. you know what happened? nothing. they took care of the problem themselves. i could oat comes on their prompt in proximity -- a coyote comes on their property in proximity to your property, you kill it. can you kill it? sure you can. there is a limited exemption for endangered species. they killed some wolves in eastern oregon because they were concerned they might cause predation. now, let's talk about this subsidy. it's unnecessary. it's ineffective. and it's a taxpayer subsidy. are you guys serious about cutting the deficit or not?

why give private ranching interests subsidies to do something they should do themselves? there's no good reason to do it. oh, we have to coit. we're worried about aircraft? no, we're only cutting in one budget which is $13.7 million which is the wildlife -- the livestock protection program. now, of course, you say it's incredibly cost-effective. about $1 billion spent on this program during its duration by the federal government. $1 billion. and during that time, because they're not saying biology or sensibility, the coyote population has tripled despite $1 billion. they fly around in planes and shoot coyotes in colorado. there is more coyotes now than when they started this program. they don't understand pack behavior and what causes dispersion.

they have coyotes in parts of the country where they have not seen them in 100 years. it's a good program. it has been working well. it's not about geese. it's not the subsidy to private ranching interests to conduct lethal predator control. and then they do some other great things. they have these nifty little devices called m-44's. it's basically a baited cyanide shot shell. now, it has sickened some humans. hasn't killed any yet. has killed quite a number of dough metzic animals. -- domestic animal. some kid will be pulling on this little string and say, what is this? boom, a sigh night shot shell. that is the same program that has helped triple the population of coyotes out there over the last 80 years since these programs have existed. so you can come up with all sorts of hoo-ha. it has to due with captain

sullenberg. no. you want to subsidize ranching interests. just be honest about it and say we want to borrow $11 million in the name of the american taxpayers and give it to private ranching interests. that's it. plain and simple. yes or not. -- yes or no. the chair: the question is on the amendment from -- offered by the gentleman from california. as many as are in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk labeled as flake number 1. the chair: the clerk will read. the clerk: an amendment offered by mr. flake of arizona. at the end of the bill before any short title, insert the following new section -- section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide or to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to provide to upland cotton producers under section 1104 of the food conservation and energy act of 2008, 7, united states code, 7814. under section 1204-b of such act, 1834-b, at the prevailing world market price for upland cotton, cotton storage benefits under section 1204-g of such

act, 7 united states code, loan deficiency payments for upland cotton of such act, 7 united states code, 785. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. flake: i thank the chair. as i'm certain my colleagues are aware now. brazil filed a complaint with the www.choosing the u.s. of trade distorting cotton subsidies which was inconsistent with our international trade obligations. the www.sided with practice zill -- the w.t.o. sided with brazil and offered brazil to engage in retalitory trade sanctions against the u.s. for more than $800 million. instead of effectively reforming our programs, however, the administration agreed to pay $147.3 million annually in technical assistance to brazilian cotton farmers every year until the issues of trade compliance in our cotton compliance is resolved in next year's farm passage or a mutually agreed

upon solution is reached. there is little chance that we're going to have re-authorization this year of the farm bill. i would suggest that it's probably not likely that we'll do so next year either. and so here we are again. we talked about this before. spending money, $147 million taxpayer dollars to the brazilians so that we can can continue to subsidize our own cotton farmers. we simply shouldn't do that. now, some will say, hey, if we do this it will spark a trade war. if we get rid of this payment to brazil. in my view we dealt with that effectively in the appropriations committee. i offered an amendment saying if you want to pay the brazilians off to not have them retaliate for our trade protections, then let's do that out of the money we're giving to our own cotton farmers. take out direct payments $147 million and pay that.

. that amendment was adopted in the appropriations committee. guess what? a point of order was raised here and that amendment was stricken. we couldn't do that. all the concern, people say we are concerned about the taxpayer, we protected them saying let's take the money out of the fund we already pay our own farmers and pay off the brazilians. that was rejected here. here we are again. we have an amendment that we'll be voting on later, the kind amendment, which would simply strike that payment. i plan to vote for that amendment. i hope we do that. another way approaching that as well is to simply go at our own cotton subsidies to ensure that we are not distorting the market by doing this program in the first place. we'll keel with that in a new farm bill. they dealt with that in the old farm bill. many of us stood here and warned

and said this is trade distorting. the w.t.o. will rule against this and we'll end up with trade sanctions. the ag committee went ahead and did it anyway. didn't fix the problem. they will say, well, you tried, we tried, it's not the direct payment, it's the counter cyclical. it's the other programs that we have and until that is dealt with, we are going to have these trade sanctions. so when the ag committee says let us deal with that, i would remind people we have let them deal with that and they haven't. so we have to go about it in another way. and i would simply say we cannot continue to subsidize our own ag interest this way, in particular this cotton program, when we know it's out of step with our international trade obligations so you can go about it in two ways, you can say we are not going to pay brazil, this amount, this protection money, or whatever you want to call it,

this tribute, and then they will force us -- that will force us to deal with our own cotton subsidies. or deal with them ourselves. with this amendment. and simply say we aren't going to do these trade distorting cotton subsidies anymore. then there won't be a need to pay brazil off. that's what this amendment does. i would urge the adoption of it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: i oppose the gentleman from arizona's amendment. he tried this. the c.r. 1 lost this vote. this is a bad policy attack. bad way to attack this polcy. quite frankly the ag committee did a good faith effort in

acressing what we thought were the issues -- addressing what we thought were the issues. the brazilians lay out for us the what they don't like. if the gentleman could describe what those policies are, it's not the counter cyclical payments, it's other things that we have been trying to fix and we will attempt again to fix those in 2012. this he attacks with a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel, is poor for this contry. america has always had an ag policy that puts an -- an attempt to put a safety net under production agriculture. we enjoy the safest, most abundant, cheapest food and fiber supply in the world because of the hard work, sweat equity, and risk taking of the american ag producer. they rely on this safety net. there is intricate, complicated, it's interwoven, and it works. we understand in 2012 we'll have

far fewer resources with which to work with that. the ag committee is committed to getting that done. we will then bring that work product to this floor, the gentleman from arizona will then have an opportunity, if he doesn't think we fixed the brazilian problem, to present a solution at that time. but at this stage using appropriations bill to rework the farm bill in this manner ignoring the work of the ag committee and not view as wrong policy. we should defeat this amendment once again as we did in the c.r. in february, march, and i urge my colleagues to vote against the flake amendment. i yield back. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i also rise to oppose this amendment. the gentleman from texas indicated we have been trying to resolve this. mr. peterson: we made significant changes already but there are some ongoing

consultations or whatever you want to call it with the brazilians. he's right, they will not lay out what they actually want to resolve this situation. and frankly from what i can see, i don't think there's anything we can do that will -- that they'll agree to. we are trying to work through this. but as i said when we had this discussion yesterday, it's very troubling to me that we are in this situation with the way this w.t.o. operates. the brazilians have the most closed market in the world. you try to get any products into brazil and it's almost impossible. do we care about that? no. they are spending i don't know how many billions of dollars of government money to increase production and increase agriculture in brazil way more

than we are spending, and do we complain about that? no. some people say it's because of the agreements we have entered into, who knows exactly what it is. but the brazilians are not really white in all of this. they are utilizing some of the flaws in the w.t.o. agreement to push this cause. and frankly we let them do it. this is not the place to do this on floort of the house. we will deal with it. i think the chairman will back me up on that. we would love to have the brazilians tell us what it is that they will agree to that will resolve this. the discussions are ongoing. and hopefully they'll be more forthcoming and we can get an answer to what it is that will

solve this problem. frankly my experience, i wouldn't hold my breath. we'll see. i oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it. this is the wrong place to do it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i kind of thought we were working on the annual agriculture appropriation bill with the discretionary money the programs that are handled on a year to year basis. mr. lucas: it seems we are going to debate the farm bill. if that's the case, maybe i should be managing it and just do it a year early. short statement is, like my colleagues, mr. conaway and mr. peterson, i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. this amendment would turn an industry on its head. it would do no good. my good friend from arizona's come to the floor and said this

would imply this would solve the trade dispute between the united states and brazil. it would do no such thing. mr. flake has called this the brazilian cotton problem. the dispute is more complicated than this problem and involves export programs. this amendment wipes out the safety net established in 2008. for what reason? is -- this is the kind of amendment you get when you have so-called experts offering amendments in areas outside the field of expertise. this is a devastating amendment. this would throw the cotton market into disarray. we have no assurance as the ranking member and the gentleman from subcommittee chairmen have noted no assurance from the brazilians if we eliminated the cotton program as this amendment does, it wouldn't make any difference to them. as my colleagues have noted, we made huge changes in the 2008 farm bill. eliminating step two.

changing the g.s.m. program in a way we thought would satisfy the brazilians. this amendment would circumnavigate -- kir couple vent the legislative process in what can be described as a haphazard way. honestly, i really expected this amendment to be thrown out on a point of order. because it clearly, clearly would end the counter cyclical program for cotton, significantly changes how the repayment program works, eliminate the loan efishen payments, the cotton storage program. those are major policy changes. again, this appropriation bill is 13% down. we are almost back to 2006 levels. anyone who is concerned about what's being spent on production agriculture in rural america, take note, we are doing our part today under mr. kingston's bill. and when we get to the farm

bill, be it next summer in regular order, be it this fall as a part of a grandiose budget debt ceiling agreement, we will make incredibly tough decisions because we will have to be a big part of addressing the national budgetary issue, but let us do it in regular order. let us do it in the farm bill process. speaker boehner has said time and time again, a more open process. look at the appropriations process. we are going to do a farm bill under this open process. all of my good friends here will get to use all of the agriculture expertise in every conceivable way they can. but let's do it under regular order in the proper fashion, in the proper way. again, madam chairman, i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. farr: strike the last word,

madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: thank you very much. i rise with great concerns of this amendment because i don't think it does what the author intended it to do. all it does is says none of the funds made available in this act. this act. not other acts. other bills the chair and ranking member pass in their committees can be used for counter cyclical payments to upland cotton producers. there's nothing in here about brazil. this doesn't affect brazil. but this does affect a lot of cotton growers in a will the of states, including the state of california which is one of the leading cotton producing states. if this amendment was constructive, i think you would find a lot more support of it, but i don't find it being very constructive because it only limits it to cuts in this bill and not to what the underlying

problem's all about which is covered in many other acts than this one. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. farr: i'll yield. mr. flake: i recognize the appropriations process is not the best way to legislate. it really isn't. this is a clumsy way. this only applies to this act and we can't -- you have to do it in strange ways. i understand that. but we are told we ought to rely on the expertise of the ag committee. the expertise of the ag committee is what got us into this problem in the first place. it is what got us into the problem of having to pay brazil in order to continue to subsidize our own farms. that's what we are dealing with here. i recognize this is clumsy. i recognize this is uncomfortable. we have to do this in some way and can't rely on wait until the next farm bill. it may not be this year, likely won't be. won't be next year, likely won't be. we could be doing this for years. i recognize its clumsy, i

apologize for that. we have to do something. mr. farr: reclaiming my time. in all due respect i don't think the ag committee created the brazilian problem. it was not the committee's act that created it. it was what the brazilians did in their ability to become a major agricultural production country, and they are. and they are going after production in other countries. they've got connection was their government, much closer between producers and government we have here. they are buying out companies. they are going to really try to affect farm prices in the united states. i'll tell you the next place they are going to go is after specialty crops. i'm not a big fan, as you know, i spoke last night with concerns about getting these payment limitations down and to essentially trying to find a better program that is not so costly to the taxpayers. but you don't do anything