years ago, i think, to the f.t.c. to look at issues of food advertising to children, knowing that, of course, how we eat what we eat, does really matter for health. the f.t.c. put together a working group including the f.d.a. and other components of government to look at some of the issues and voluntary recommendations to industry have been put forward for further discussion. and it's an important discussion to have because we need to work with industry to be able to provide consumers, parents and children, all of us, with the best possible information about nutrition and health. so that we can all make good choices in terms of promoting and protecting health. >> the grocery manufactures doing business in making these changes -- >> these are voluntary recommendations and, you know, we work closely in many domains

with the grocery manufacturers of america and other industry representatives because how food is formulated, you know, whether it's sodium, sugar, fat, you know, really does matter for issues like obesity and heart disease and diabetes and other things. the food industry recognizes that there are ways that they can improve and make more attractive the food products that they're developing. we certainly have a vested interest in that as a public health agency and, you know, we want to work with them on that. >> following up on that question, really. [inaudible] say the next step is to put pictures, graphic images of clogged arteries and hearts on really bad food, is that the direction you would go in a perfect world? >> well, again, i think tobacco is unique.

it is a product that is the number one cause of preventable deaths. we know that there are strategies that can be very effective because they've been in place. we also know that we've installed in this country so this effort about tobacco regulation efforts around tobacco cessation has been decades old and is something that is a unique situation. having said that i do think that there are going to be ongoing discussions, as you look at the underlying health care costs, where we spend 75 cents of every health care dollar treating chronic disease, what are the areas if you want to lower health costs and have a healthier country, that you can focus on, certainly tobacco and obesity become two of the major underlying causes. so the work around obesity and healthier, more nutritious eating, more exercise, will continue to be, i think, an

ongoing focus. >> no graphic images on our food in the future? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. we appreciate it. thank you all. ok. so let's start anew. i just want to -- obviously you all got the announcement that we sent out that the president will be addressing the nation rather from the white house tomorrow evening at 8:00 p.m. to discuss his decision about the implementing the plan for drawing down u.s. forces from afghanistan. and with that, first question. >> is that going to be from the oval office? >> we'll announce when we're ready which location within the white house that it will be, but it will be the white house. >> has the president decided on what it is he will be announcing? he has made his decision, yes. >> and what is it? >> ok, i'll tell you. no. i'll leave it to the president to make his announcement. i will make the point, however,

that the president, this is obviously something -- an issue he knows backwards and forwards, something he's been engaged in intensely for a long time and this has been a process, as i pointed out, on a number of occasions in the past. it wasn't just started anew in the last few weeks. he's been chairing regular monthly meetings of his national security team, including our senior military and civilian leaders in afghanistan, since he initiated his policy in december of 2009. he has obviously in the last few weeks, as i've talked about from here, had discussions with members of the national security team about various recommendations to take under consideration as he makes the decision on the pace and slope of the drawdown that will begin next month. i'd also like to say that there's been a lot of speculation and i think it's testament to the fact that every story has a different answer on what he's going to announce, the

stories you're reading are speculation and the president's decision will be known when he announces it. in fact, a lot of the stories came out before he had even finalized his decision. >> will his speech cover all of the 30,000 -- [inaudible] >> again, i will leave the announcement to the president, which he'll make tomorrow evening, 8:00 p.m. from the white house. in an address to the nation. which we hope a lot of americans will tune in to watch. the parameters of the decision involve the beginning of the drawdown of u.s. forces, as you know we ramped up in a surge the number of forces in afghanistan and we are at that peak point and the president identified in december of 2009, made the commitment that forces would begin to drawdown in july of 2011. is he keeping that commitment. and that's what he will announce tomorrow evening. the other point i would make is

that in lisbon at the nato conference last year, nato identified 2014 as the year when final transfer of lead security authority to the afghan national security forces would take place. so this is within a framework of the transition of security lead to the afghans. it's begun already in some places, but it will progress over the next several years and obviously as that happens troops will be drawing down. but the decision that he'll announce tomorrow will focus in the fist case on the beginning of that drawdown. >> is there a risk of taking people out too soon? senator mccain was saying pull out only 3,000. >> i do know there are 100,000 u.s. forces in afghanistan. second of all, the president, as i said, is extremely

knowledgeable about the situation in afghanistan, about the success that our policy has had and our strategy has met in afghanistan since the beginning of its implementation in late 2009. i would note again that the president's objectives, that he set out in that announcement, were quite clear. primary priority, primary objective, disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda. second, stabilize afghanistan so that it can -- will no longer become a haven for terrorists like al qaeda who have as their goal of doing harm to the united states. those objectives are being met, we've had a significant amount of success in meeting those objectives and the president has, as i said, been very engaged in the process of evaluating that. we're not there yet, obviously,

but it's important to remember what the objectives were from the beginning and what they were not. and the president will i think make that clear again tomorrow evening. >> how much does the bin laden -- [inaudible] >> the successive mission against osama bin laden highlights the broader success that we have had in going after members of al qaeda in the afghan-pakistan region. and it really is to the credit of our men and women in uniform as well as to our intelligence officials that we've been able to do that. that is part of the overall strategy that the president put into place. it is a high profile and highly significant success but it is one that is representative of a broader success the mission has achieved. dan. >> just to bounce off of that. the cost of the war, critics have said that was another

reason for not keeping large numbers in afghanistan. how much weight was given to the cost in his decision making process? >> the process was all about the mission that was laid out in december of 2009, the surge in forces that followed from that decision and that mission and the evaluation of the success that we've had since that mission began. i've said that we are always mindful of the fact that as powerful and wealthy as this country is, we have -- we do not have infinite and unlimited resources and we have to make decisions about what -- how to spend our precious dollars and more importantly how and when to use military force and put our -- put americans in harm's way. that's a decision that obviously the president takes incredibly seriously. obviously he felt very strongly as he said during the campaign that we needed to refocus our

attention on what had become the forgotten war in afghanistan, that we needed to end the war responsibly in iraq, he is keeping that obligation and keeping that commitment. as you know he's withdrawn more than 100,000 troops there iraq. and we are on track to fill full -- fulfill our obligation with the iraqi government to withdraw all of our forces from iraq by the end of the year. second airline we need to refocus our -- secondarily we need to refocus our mission on afghanistan, on particularly al qaeda, the threat that brought to us afghanistan in the first place. and he has done that. that has been the focus of the process that has led to the decision that he made. >> earlier you said there are a lot of numbers out there, some of them are missing the mark. but is the president willing to go against some of the advice from his military leaders who wanted a slower withdrawal, smaller number rather than larger? >> i would say simply, dan, that the president's commander in chief and as was true when he

oversaw the incredibly sweeping review of our policy in afghanistan, in which he insisted that every assumption be examined, every assumption underlying every policy option be examined and examined again, and tested, he is in charge of this process and he makes the decisions and this decision will be the commander in chief's. >> among the goals and i get this right nine times out of 10rks but the objectives that the president laid out in december of 2009 were, one, disrupt, dismantle, openly defeat al qaeda. dwo, reverse the momentum that the taliban had had leading up to that and then to stabilize afghanistan in order to give the afghan government the breathing room it needs to mr. up the afghan national security forces and to prevent afghanistan from becoming a haven for al qaeda

and terrorists who have the united states as their goal. now, it is important to note that defeating the taliban is not the objective here. reversing the momentum of the taliban is an objective and we have had significant success in achieving that objective. the fact of the matter is that any solution, any end to the violence or hostilities in afghanistan in whatever time period will require some sort of reconciliation between afghans and that includes the afghan taliban. we've talked about this, we talked about it as recently as yesterday that we support the initiative led by the karzai government to explore reconciliation possibilities. >> if you look at the taliban, if you look at the total number of security incidents and compare them season by season which is the way the military says is the right way to do it, you compare october, 2010, to march, 2011, in the same period,

2009 to 2010, incidents up. you compare last year -- can >> but the primary reason for that -- i don't want to say i'm a military analyst but we have more boots on the depround, we have more soldiers engaging because we surged troops by 30,000-plus. we've been taking the fight to the taliban as well as going after members of al qaeda. and that has been why we've had the success that we've had and the progress we've made. >> no question, and the military will say it's because of increased activity. but what indicators, hard indicators, is the president looking at to indicate that the taliban has lost the momentum? >> again, i think that the engagements reflect the fact that we have been more aggressive in engaging the taliban in securing territory and the success we've had in the south in particular. the progress that we've made in achieving the goal of breaking

the taliban's momentum is i think been articulated by members of the military including the commander in general there. obviously we are keenly aware of the fact that this progress is not a done deal, that the mission is not fully achieved and that's why the mission continues and that's why the president supported the process outlined by nato in lisbon, that the full transfer of security lead would not occur until 2014, that this was a gradual process, as the afghan national security forces become more sophisticated, become more capable and more numerous. that transfer will continue to take place. >> you mentioned reconciliation. you're aware of recent stumbles, have u.s. officials or their intermediate yares heard anything from reputable taliban leaders, that they're interested in reconciliation? >> i don't have -- i'm not able to speak about meetings.

i think it's important to point out that this is an afghan-led process. this is not reconciliation between u.s. forces or u.s. personnel and the taliban. it's a reconciliation between afghans, between the afghan government, representative of the people, and the afghan taliban and that process is being led by the karzai government. not pretending that it's an easy process. but it is an important one that we do support. yes. >> you can tell us the specific circumstances of his decision, who he was with, exactly when, after a meeting with whom? >> i'm not going to get into all the process, but i think i've talked about the fact that he's met with members of the national security team, principals, as well as others on his national security team a number of times. and those meetings continued up through today. and he's been, again, this is not something that he was starting from scratch on. he has been working through his

decision over the course of the last several years and finalized that decision today. >> he made that decision during a meeting with some members of -- >> i wasn't you know inside his brain when that decision and he sort of said, this was the moment where i've decided, but he did meet with national security team members today and informed them of his decision. >> [inaudible] has he told you? >> i'm aware of the decision, correct. >> it's pretty widely disseminated in the administration? >> no, the meetings have been quite small. >> ok. will -- [inaudible] be pleased with the decision? >> look, i think this is a decision made in consultation with his national security team. and beyond that i think we'll wait and see what the president announces tomorrow at 8:00 p.m. >> just for clarification -- secretary gates, was that to inform him? >> that is his weekly meeting with secretary gates. which is, as i've tried to explain on a number of occasions

here, is separate from this process. it doesn't mean they don't talk about afghanistan and pakistan, because that's always an issue, to be discussed and could be discussed, but that is definitely from this process. >> the president's senior military advisors, the national security advisors at least comfortable with the decision? >> that's a variety of the question that ship just asked. this is a process where the president consulted with all of the senior members of the national security team and made a decision. and obviously the commander in chief makes this decision. it's also important to recognize that this is the implementation of a decision that he made after a thorough review of our afghan policy back in the fall of 2009. he identified then that in july of 2011 we would begin the drawdown from our high mark of 100,000 u.s. forces in afghanistan, in july of 2011. and he is keeping his commitment. >> members of congress have not been shy about offering their advice. have they contacted the

president? has he gotten a lot of cause? >> we have made a particular effort to regularly consult with congress with issues related to afghanistan and pakistan generally. over the past few weeks principals from the white house national security staff, defense department and state department and others contacted key representatives and senators from both parties to solicit their advice specifically on the july decision and on the way forward in afghanistan. there were more than two dozen such conversations, some were brief, others were lengthy, and they delved into many aspects of u.s. policy in both afghanistan and pakistan. >> did it have an impact on the president? >> he greatly appreciated and valued the insights that members of congress provided on this issue as he does on other issues. he has conversations are ongoing and very helpful. >> what has the president talked about the with the secretary today?

is this the last time he'll have this meeting? >> i'm not sure. i think the secretary's last day is june 30. i don't know if this is the last one or not. we don't read out those meetings. the president -- [inaudible] but the president obviously appreciates bob gates' service immensely. as he said when he made the announcement about his national security appointments, the fact is he convinced secretary gates to stay even longer than secretary gates originally said he will be able to do that and the president greatly appreciates the service. yes, sir. >> excuse me. this morning secretary gates said that the public sentiment was going to have to be a factor in the president's decision. how much consideration did the president give to the viewpoints of the american people on this war? >> i think we're all aware sophomore what the public generally thinks but i think the public is interested in the

right policy and a policy that is succeeding and achieving its very clearly specified goals and that is, as i said, disrupt, dismantle, openly defeat al qaeda, reverse the momentum of the taliban, stabilize afghanistan enough to give it the space to train up its forces so that it can ultimately take over security of its country. as the president has said and said during the campaign as well as this president, we are in afghanistan because al qaeda hacked the united states and took nearly 3,000 lives, innocent live, on september 11, 2001. in some ways you can say we lost our focus a little bit in the previous years before this president came into office. there was always a reason to be in afghanistan, there was an objective to accomplish there.

and we are moving steadily with great focus to achieve our goals. and that's why the president wants to speak to the nation tomorrow and he's not doing it during the day, he wants to do it at night so he can reach the american people and explain this decision, make clear that he is keeping commitment he made in december of 2009 to begin this drawdown and explain again why this is important. >> is he going to adopt the said it and -- set it and forget it approach to this drawdown, tell the people about the schedule between now and the end of next year, or is he going to pay attention to a possible surge in the unpopularity of war among the people? >> this is about the implementation of a strategy and this president made the decision that this was a strategy that was right for national security interests of this country, it is

a strategy that we believe has led to our successes in taking the fight to al qaeda, including in the successful mission against osama bin laden. it has led to our successes in stopping the momentum of the taliban and to our successes in training up afghan security forces and preparing them to take security -- [inaudible] . so this is the focus. it's the mission, and where we are in that process is achieving our objectives and keeping the commitment that he made to begin the drawdown in july of 2011. >> is there some flexibility, does he leave himself wiggle room for changes down the road >> i will leave the announce the to the president and all the details around it and the parameter that encompass his decision. mark. >> you said he's going to talk about numbers for july which is obviously the -- [inaudible] >> eel he'll talk more broadly

about the mission of our goals, about lisbon 2014 date. i'm not going to be drawn into providing more details about numbers and time frames because i think this is the president's decision to announce. >> is he going to be using numbers for anything for the rest of the year? is he going to be using numbers for -- >> i think that falls into the discussion of the details that i don't want to get into from here. >> you can address the question of the concern about whether the president is drawing down too many troops? carl levin was saying anything less than 15,000 is not -- [inaudible] you can speak to that? >> i think the president will make the decision that he believes is the right decision as commander in chief and obviously he has thought quite a bit about the objectives in

afghanistan, the decision he made to send additional u.s. forces, to put more men and women in harm's way, to achieve these objectives and where we are in the process of meeting those objective and how that affects our ability to drawdown. there was never a question, because he made the commitment that we will begin the dradown in july of 2011 and there was never a question since the commitment was made by nato in lisbon that we would complete the transition to full afghan security lead in 2014. as we've said, also previous to this, the decision about the pace and slope of the drawdown would be based on conditions on the ground and the president has keen -- is keenly knowledgeable about the situation in afghanistan regarding our forces and our civilian mission. >> -- factor for the comments and behavior of karzai, especially lately in terms of

suggesting that american troops were occupiers and that the aid that americans provide is breeding corruption and that reserving the right to deal with ask the foreign troops in a manner like afghanistan had throughout history, how much of a factor was that? >> i addressed this some yesterday, i was asked about these comments. i would simply say that we are very proud and -- of the contributions the united states has made in afghanistan, both civilian and military personnel. we have for a number of years now obviously heard the concerns that president karzai has expressed about civilian casualties on other issues and we have engaged with him on those because we share the desire to reduce civilian casualties. as an example of one issue that has been sometimes the focus of contention. but the reason we are in afghanistan is to meet our objectives.

we believe strongly that those objectives also are shared by the afghan people. and by the afghan government. al qaeda is no friend of the afghan people or the afghan government. the need to reverse the momentum of the taliban is a belief that's supported by and shared by the afghan people and the afghan government and obviously stabilizing afghanistan and allowing them to build up their security forces is also a goal that we share. we obviously have disagreements and we discuss those with members of the afghan government, with president karzai. but our objectives are clear. this is not obviously, as you know, this is not the first time i had a question like that. even since i've basketball here. we're very clear -- been here. we're very clear about what we're doing and what we've been achieving. >> yesterday when we asked you about -- [inaudible] i'm wondering if you -- [inaudible] and the president -- [inaudible] >> the president's aware of it.

obviously i had not had a discussion with him about it. i appreciate the question and, you know, i would just make a couple of points. one, as i said yesterday, the united states was not a party, with a not involved in the supreme court's wal-mart decision. but what the decision underscores in our mind is the importance of moving forward with legislation that will address the problem of pay disparities between men and women, comprehensively, rather than case by case. as i said yesterday, any paid discrimination is a key priority for the president and that is why signing the lilly ledbetter fair pay act was one of his first acts and why he continues to call for new legislation. the president has called for congress to enact the paycheck fairness act which the house passed over two years ago but the senate did not. coming only two votes short of closure. so that legislation's been reintroduced and we call on congress, we urge the house and the senate to take action because we think it's very important. >> [inaudible] >> i would say that it reminds all of us of the need to, yes,

pursue a legislative -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah, i think it adds urgency to the need, it reminds us that we need to do this. we need to do this in a comprehensive way and not in a case by case way. >> can i follow up on that? the case, while there is an undertone of discrimination, it was about the ability of workers to bring big class action suits like this to big companies. >> i don't have a comment on that aspect of it and i again would note that we were not party to the case. but on the issue of disparity in pay, the president feels very strongly and that's why he has supported measures in the past and action by congress in the past and why he calls on them to act again. >> what about rohrabacher backer? >> going back on the issue of the withdrawal -- [laughter] i am now, thank you for asking.

on the issue of the withdrawal, will the president's initial numbers satisfy those who are war weary in this nation? >> the president will keep the commitment he made in december of 2009 to begin the drawdown of u.s. forces from afghanistan next month. there are a lot of facts that are go into this decision, factors that he has considered deeply and seriously. and i will not prejudge from here how his decision will be viewed by different segments of society. but you can believe that it will be a decision made on the merits on what he views as the successes that we've had in the implementation of his strategy, the distance we still need to go in implementing that strategy, between now and transferring full security lead over to the afghans, and it will be a very thoughtful and reasonable

decision based on a thorough assessment of the situation and conditions on the ground. >> did he talk to any congressional leaders after those in the administration talked to them and passed on information? [inaudible] >> you know, it's entirely possible that he had individual conversations, other senior administration officials from the defense department, state department have had these conversations with members of congress, i'm sure. i just don't have a readout to give you. i'm sure the president had conversations with members as well. yes, sir. >> [inaudible] regarding morocco. [inaudible] how does the white house evaluate its response? >> i don't have a specific reaction to that speech.

or those proposed reforms. we have said we believe very strongly that the path forward in the region is to embrace political dialogue, embrace political reform, engage with civilians in a peaceful manner in order to bring about the kind of change that civilians all over the region are demanding. again, i can't give a specific response to that speech. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house has gaveled back in. they'll consider four bills first. renaming post offices and back at 6:30 for a bill eliminating the election assistance commission. live coverage of the house now on c-span. questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1632. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1632, a bill to

designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5014 gary avenue in lubbock, texas, as the sergeant chris davis post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. h.r. 1632, introduced by the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, was to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5014 gary avenue in lubbock, texas, as the sergeant chris davis post office. the bill is co-sponsored by the

entire texas delegation, and, mr. speaker, i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor myself. mr. speaker, it's altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office in lubbock for army sergeant davis to honor a true american hero and his service to our country. sergeant davis was born on october 25, 1971, in lubbock, and according to his sister, margaret, he was always helping people and serving even from a young age. she recalled he was always helping and serving and always thinking of himself. that was chris. with his passion for service, chris joined the army in 1999 and was eventually assigned to the 69th armor regiment, third infantry division based out of fort bening, georgia. while deployed in iraq sergeant davis was tragically killed on june 23, 2007, when his unit was attacked by insurgents by

an i.e.d. and small arms fire. he was -- he left his wife and two children behind. it's an honor to pay tribute to fellow texans who made the ultimate sacrifice courageously defending our country's freedom. i'm truly grateful for the service of sergeant chris davis and for all those who serve and protect us each day. i urge all members to join me in strong support of this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, is recognized. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: on behalf of the committee of oversight and government reform committee, i am pleased to support h.r.

1632, to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5014 gary avenue in lubbock, texas, as the sergeant chris davis post office. the bill before us was introduced by my good friend, my colleague, representative randy neugebauer of texas on april 15, 2011. the bill is co-sponsored by all 32 members of the texas delegation. further, h.r. 1632 was unanimously reported out of the house committee on oversight and government reform. mr. speaker, i would like to briefly highlight the achievement of the honorable service of sergeant davis. after graduating from high school in lubbock, texas, sergeant davis enlisted in the army and was assigned to the second battalion, 69th army regiment, third brigadier combat team based out of fort bening, georgia. he was killed in baghdad, iraq, while snurnlts attacked his unit by small arms and an improvised explosive device. sergeant davis was always described of being a servant.

whether helping out his community or looking out for friends and family. for him to serve the nation would be his crowning achievement to give back to the community. always described as a happy go lucky individual, sergeant davis will forever be remembered by his ultimate sacrifice to our nation. i ask that we pass the underlying bill without reservation, pay tribute to the honor, value of this young man displayed and so others understand his commitment and sacrifice to protect our nation. i also join my good friend from south texas, also my colleague, and i urge the passage of h.r. 1632 and reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, thank you very much. thank you very much, mr. cuellar. at this time i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from texas, the gentleman from lubbock who represents texas tech university and a fine area of west texas, the great state of

texas, the sponsor of this legislation, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, is recognized. mr. neugebauer: i thank the chairman and the speaker. i rise to honor a fallen soldier, sergeant chris davis of lubbock, texas, was atind to the 69th armor regiment at fort bening, georgia. he joined the army in september of 1999, and proudly served four tours in iraq, 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007. on june 23, 2007, while deployed in iraq, sergeant davis was killed in action when his unit was attacked by insurgents using improvised explosive devices and small arms. he was only 35 years old. the bill currently under consideration, h.r. 1632, would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5014 gary avenue in lubbock, texas, as the sergeant

chris davis post office. i believe it's important for congress to honor the sacrifice of this soldier and his family and i urge my colleagues to support this measure. chris was born october 25, 1971 . he grew up in lubbock, texas. graduated from escocada high school. before enlisting chris was a welder in a machine shop. sergeant davis wanted to serve his country from a very young age. according to his father, ray davis, said that while chris was in school he expressed a desire to join the army. his family remembers that he used to say, i want to fight for my country, i want to do something for my country. and if that's -- and that's what i'll do. and he said, so if something happens, don't be mad at anyone. chris earned quite a few awards during his honorable service to our country. one army commendation medal, three army achievement medals, one presidential unit citation, one good conduct medal, one

national defense service medal, one armed forces expeditionary medal, one southwest asia service medal, one iraqi campaign medal, one global war on terrorism expeditionary medal, and one global war on terrorism service medal. sergeant davis will be remembered as a valiant soldier and a wonderful son, father, husband and brother. he loved his family and was known to always place others before himself. his sister, margaret, remembers that chris loved to have barbecues just for the opportunity to give him time to spend time with his family. he was known to make people laugh. he had the knack for cheering up anyone around him who was having a bad day. chris was proud to be an american and he bravely served his nation that he loved. chris is survived by his wife, debbie, his daughter, taylor, his son, zachary, his parents, raymond and hermenia and nine

siblings whom i'm sure are watching today. on behalf of the united states congress, we thank you for your sacrifice. as i speak these wors, i'm reminded of the words of abraham lincoln used in his famous letter to a mother of five sons who were killed during the civil war. and i quote, i feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to begowl you from the grief of loss so overwhelming. i pray that our heavenly father may masaunl the anguish of your bereevement and leave only with the cherished love you lost and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid such a costly sacrifice upon the alter of freedom. abraham lincoln, november 21, 1864. mr. speaker, the four-year anniversary of sergeant davis' death a few days away, i ask my

colleagues to support h.r. 1632 in honor of chris davis and designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5014 gary avenue as the sergeant chris davis post office. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers at the moment. if the majority is ready to close, i'll yield back the balance of my time, so i'd make that inquiry. mr. farenthold: i am indeed ready to close, mr. speaker. mr. cuellar: then at this time, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, along with my texas colleagues, i'd like to urge all members to support passage of h.r. 1632, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

1632. those in favor say aye. 1632. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 349. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 349, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 4865

tallmadge road in rootstown, ohio, as the marine sergeant jeremy e. murray post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i'd like to ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker, that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, s. 349, introduced in the senate by senator sherrod brown of ohio, would designate the facility at 4865 tallmadge road in rootstown, ohio, as the marine sergeant jeremy e. murray post office. from a young age, marine corps sergeant jeremy e. murray had a strong desire to join the hirlt and to serve his country.

-- military and to serve his country. according to his mother, pam, jeremy talked constantly about joining the military. he prepared so well for boot camp he was able to break down a rifle faster than his superiors, something that didn't please his drill instructor. he joined the army in 1996 after graduating from waterloo high school in atwater township. he was later assigned to the third battalion, first marine regiment, first marine division, first marine expeditionary force and served three tours of duty in iraq. tragically on november 16, 2005, sergeant murray was killed by a roadside bomb outside fallujah. sergeant murray was 27 years old and left behind his wife, megan, and his son, ian. he was awarded the purple heart, the navy and marine corps achievement medal and a gold star for heroism. in closing, i'd like to read a quote from sergeant murray as

recalled busy hi father, harold. sergeant murray told his father, if i don't come home, dad, you know i died proudly. i died for what i wanted to do. this is my lifetime dream. we're grateful for sergeant murray's service to our country and for all our brave men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much each and every day. i urge all members to join me in strong support of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: on behalf of the house committee on oversight and government reform minority, i'm pleased to join my colleagues and my friend from texas in consideration of s. 349 which asks that we designate a post alpha silt in roottown, ohio, after marine sergeant jeremy

murray who faithfully served his country until his passing in november of 2005 after his third tour of duty abroad. s. 349 was introduced by ohio state senator on february 15, 2011, and was passed by the senate without amendment by unanimous consent on may 16, 2011. congressman ryan from the state of ohio introduced h.r. 725, also on february 15, 2011, which serves as a companion bill to the measure being considered currently. marine sergeant murray was a man who bravenly served his country and was rewarded the purple heart and navy and marine medal and heroic achievement in iraq. his mother, pam murray, is a long time employee at the facility that is being named in honor and memory of her son. with respect for his achievement and sacrifice for his country, i urge the swift package -- passage of this measure which will recognize sergeant murray's contribution to america by

naming this postal facility after him. i urge passage of s. 349 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: i'm prepared to close. mr. cuellar: if there's no further speaker at this moment and the majority is ready to close, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: as i do have no other speakers at this time, i am going to yield back. i'd like to urge all members to support passage of s. 349 and yield back the balance of my time. with that request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass s. 349. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. farenthold: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i'd like to request the yeas and nays.

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 771. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 771, a bill to designate facility of the united states postal service located at 1081 elbel road in schertz, texas, as the schertz veterans post office. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd like to ask for unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous

material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, h.r. 771 introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from south texas, mr. cuellar, would designate the facility of the united states postal service loketsed at 1081 elbel road in schertz, texas, as the schertz veterans post office. this bill is co-sponsored by the entire texas delegation and i'm a proud co-sponsor myself, mr. speaker. it's altogether fitting and proper that we designate this post office in schertz to honor those who have sacrificed so much for this nation, our veterans. mr. speaker, i'd like to commend my colleague from texas for introducing this legislation and also commend him for introducing h.r. 1318, the south texas veterans health care expansion act. i'm a proud original co-sponsor of this legislation as well which is vitally important to the veterans all over far south

texas. h.r. 1318 would expand health care across the more than 117,000 veterans who reside in far south texas. currently without adequate medical facilities, many of these veterans are forced to drive over six hours to the nearest facility in order to receive needed medical care. this is unacceptable, mr. speaker, and we can do better. having said that, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to report that this legislation passed the house last week as part of the military construction and veterans affairs appropriation act for fiscal year 2012 and it's my hope that the senate will act swiftly on this measure and the president will soon sign this important bill into law. mr. speaker, the v.a. estimates nearly 49,000 veterans currently reside in the 27th congressional district that i am honored to represent. this makes up much of far south texas, along with the district mr. cuellar and mr. hinojosa represents. texas has an estimated 1.7 million veterans who according

to the v.a. there are approximately 22.5 million veterans all across our nation. to the men and women who served, thank you for all you've done for the countless -- done, for the countless sacrifices you've made. i'm truly grateful for your service, the hardship you and your families have endured and i am proud to stand in this chamber and honor you here today, both with bills, renaming the post office and our veterans bill for south texas. with that i urge all members to join me in strong support of h.r. 771 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: first of all, i want to thank my good friend and colleague from south texas, along with congressman ruben hinojosa and on the senate side, both senators, all of us working as a team, we've been working to improve the access to veterans

in south texas and i think my friend said it ably, there is a need out there and we're working together to make sure in a bipartisan way that we provide that health care to the veterans and i certainly want to thank mr. farenthold for all the leadership that he's provided. thank you very much. h.r. 771 would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1081 elbel road in schertz, texas, as the schertz veterans post office. to honor those who have served our nation's defense. many of us know someone who has served in the military, a friend, a family member, a parent or a neighborhood -- neighbor. nearly two million veterans, almost 10% nationwide, call texas home and i thank them for their service. our veterans have been given full measures of devotion, sacrificing their time, their youth and in some cases their health and in all cases time with their families. the schertz veterans post office will be located in the city of

schertz which is connected with the military presence with randolph air force base nearby which i represent. the county where schertz resides is the second highest concentration of veterans in my district. thousands and thousands have lived there. this legislation would name a landmark to serve as both a reminder and a sincere thank you to the veterans at home and abroad. i urge passage of h.r. 771, for all the brave men and women who have fought for our country and i thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. farnehoment. mr. farenthold: i'm prepared to close -- farenthold. mr. farenthold: i'm prepared to close. mr. cuellar: i have one speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, is recognized. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to yield to my good friend, congressman doggett, as much time as he may

consume to go ahead and speak in favor of h.r. 771. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. doggett: i thank the gentleman and i thank both of my colleagues from texas for using this as an opportunity not only to herald this important bill, but the importance of health care for our veterans in south texas. as a sponsor myself through several sessions of this effort, to strengthen health care in south texas, i'm pleased we're finally making some progress on it and we need to continue to redouble our efforts, whether it is there or at the burn center or as with our success last friday in austin, texas, where we broke ground on what will become the largest veterans outreach clinic to provide outpatient care for our veterans of anyplace in the entire united states. but of course what brings us here today principley is the bill congressman cuellar introduced and i'm a sponsor of, to salute the veterans of schertz, texas, by renaming this

as the schertz veterans post office. with so many in the schertz area who have contributed so much to our nation's freedom, there just aren't enough public buildings in schertz to name all of them for the individual sacrifice that has occurred. and so this bill very practically approaches the heroism and the contribution of so many veterans and their families in schertz by renaming this building the veterans post office. schertz's connection to our armed forces is a proud and storied history. most of the community's growth began going back to a general store in the last century, in the 19th century, but it began in the 1920's and 1930's by the army's construction of what was then called in hollywood and elsewhere the west point of the air. then the randolph field, before the air force was even formed. and today randolph field may be called randolph air force base

and schertz, texas, may have had since 1990 a tripling of its population, but some things have not changed. and one of those, since world war ii, 1946 and the end of that war, as the veterans were returning, has been the chartering and the continuation of the veterans of foreign war post commanded by mike. it is still a thriving heartbeat of community activities. and families are also still coming to schertz, texas, they're coming in droves because even cnn recognized it as one of the best places to live anywhere in america. so often rapid change will divide rather than unite and that can be especially true when you have people coming from literally all over the world in a community, practically adjacent to a military base, and otherwise filled with mini computers. but unlike so many other parts of our country, where folks return to the same street without a sense of neighborhood,

the people of schertz -- in schertz have maintained a community spirit that is reflected at the schertz family ywca, at the park, our in a football game at the high school. this renamed veterans post office will help maintain that community spirit and serve as an anchor and as a reminder of where schertz came from, how it has grown and the road ahead. a while back i stood at this very microphone to speak up for the renaming of a post office in south austin, on south congress, the street that once connect san antonio and austin, for sergeant henry ibarra iii who was killed in iraq. i remember the dedication service that we had there, joined by the catholic war veterans, the american g.i. forum, the knights of columbus, in addition to the family and friends of sergeant ibarra. it meant a great deal to them and i believe that the same

thing, the same kind of inspiration which they feel every time they go into that hub of community activity will be realized as well in schertz, texas. our veterans, whether they wore a uniform last he would week or decades ago, understand -- last week or decades ago understand a fundamental truth. as a grateful nation, we must continue to honor their service by meeting their health care needs and by taking steps like today in the renaming of this schertz veterans post office. i think it's a step in the right direction. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. mr. cuellar: mr. speaker, reclaiming my time, i'd like to thank the gentleman from texas my good friend, my colleague, mr. doggett, for his dedication, his passion, his commitment to the veterans, for many years he's been supporting the veterans, has worked very hard,

if there's anybody that works very hard for the veterans, it is my friend, mr. doggett, and i want to thank you for co-sponsoring this legislation. at this time we have no additional speakers at the moment, i believe the majority's ready to close and if that's the case i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i too would like to thank the gentleman from texas for their -- gentlemen for texas for their ongoing and continuing support for the veterans. there's not too much that we can do for the men and women who sacrifice time and again for our country. they sacrificed their team, they sacrificed -- time, they sacrificed their work and sadly in some cases they're asked to sacrifice their lives. i stand in strong support of this bill and urge my colleagues to pass h.r. 771, renaming the post office in schertz, texas, veterans post office. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 771.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. farenthold: mr. speaker. i'd like to request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 0, further proceedings on this question -- 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 655. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 655, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 95 dogwood street in garry, mississippi, as the spencer byrd powers jr. post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, and the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, will

each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i ask that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material under senate 655. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. farenthold: thank you very much, mr. speaker. s. 655, introduced in the senate by senator cochran of mississippi, would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 95 dogwood speaker in cary, mississippi, the spencer byrd powers jr. post office. he was born in 1945 and grew up in carry, mississippi, a town his family has called home for nearly a century. while growing up in carry, he had a sense of duty ingrained

in him by his father, brother and other relatives who all served bravely in world war ii. as the vietnam war progressed, spencer decided it was time to step up and serve his country. he fought valiantly until his tragic death on february 8, 196 , during an offensive attack operation in south vietnam. he was only 22 years old and just a few days shy of his 23rd birthday. mr. speaker, i am truly grateful for each and every member of our armed services that has paid the ultimate price and given the ultimate sacrifice in the name of freedom and in the defense of our nation. spencer byrd powers jr. and his family are a great example of the values that make this country a wonderful place, a country where sacrifice, duty, and a selfless desire to serve inspire and motivate people to

cause a greater good for themselves and for others. to the powers family and all the others who have served, i say thank you. i'd like to urge all members to join me in strong support of this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cuellar: i want to thank my colleague mr. farne farenthold for the leadership -- mr. farenthold for the leadership he's provided and i join anymy colleagues across the aisle in supporting this bill to are name the post office.

our colleague, representative thompson, from the state of mississippi, introduced a companybill to this measure in the form of h.r. 1072, both of which aim to acknowledge spencer byrd powers jr. by renaming the local post office in cary, mississippi in his honor. with his father and other relatives serving in the armed forces, spencer byrd powers continued the legacy by serving in the united states army up until his devment he was the first member of his family not to return home from serving in war abroad. spencer byrd powers was killed in an offensive attack in the vietnam war. i ask that we come together as americans to honor mr. powers' sacrifice so that those who continue to serve after mr. powers can understand his commitment an courage to serve on bhoof this beautiful country

we call america. i urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this fallen soldier and in support of renaming the office of the united states postal service in cary, mississippi, as the spencer byrd powers jr. post office. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: i have no further speakers at the moment, so if the majority is prepared to close -- mr. farenthold: i am indeed. mr. cuellar: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i urge my colleagues to support s. 655 and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is on passing h.r. 6556789 -- 655. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. without objection, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pusuant to clause 12a of rule >> house coverage at 6:30 here

on c-span. leon panetta was approved by the u.s. senate in a unanimous vote today 100-0 and he will be sworn in on july 1. the president will tomorrow night announce his plans for the drawdown of troops in afghanistan, with a prime time address set for 8:00 p.m. eastern on wednesday and we will have live coverage of that on the c-span networks. the vice president resumed his discussions on capitol hill on the i am pending raising of the debt ceiling. and we have an update from a reporter who has been covering those meetings. vice president biden back on capitol hill this week negotiating with house and senate lawmakers on raising the debt ceilings. how are those discussions going? >> they are still going which most of the participants will say is some sign of progress.

as long as no one has left the table, things are in shape. on the other hand, they are facing a self-imposed deadline of around july 1 where they can reach a broad agreement or whether they will be unable to do so. >> you talked to some of the members after that meeting. so what are some of the serious ideas that are still on the table that they are talking about? >> the main issue at least on display today deals with revenues. democrats believe that congressman hoyer, one of the top ranking democrats in the house caucus has a hard time to believe that democrats will not vote for a package and they are opposed to increased taxes and cantor, republican from virginia, made the point of the things that they have talked

about, such as oil and gas industry tax subsidies. that those are relatively small in terms of their deficit impact in terms of the spending that the republicans. >> mitch mcconnell had opened the door for a possible short-term agreement to raise the debt ceiling. what are other leaders saying? is that a possible path? >> it certainly seems that that is a possibility and almost even probable i think unless there seems to be some sort of major breakthrough in the next two weeks. cantor was dismissive of that because he says no use voting on it more than use. hoyer says democrats will have a final say and negotiate within the house conference themselves prefers the long-term solution,

but he did say that a short-term increase was better than nothing. so i think the longer that -- the longer there is lack of any sort of major people coming out of the room saying we are down to the last little bits, some sort of short-term solution comes to the floor. >> especially if they want to hit the july 1 target date that you just mentioned. >> july 1. and the reason for that, they want to leave some time to put the agreement, assuming there is one, working agreement into legislative detail which could take some time and one of the rating agencies said they would like to see progress by mid-july or else they will put the rating of the u.s. government on credit watch and august says the if

the u.s. can't meet its obligation. there is a weird aspect that says treasury can't issue any debt that would put them over $14 trillion but the deadline does not mean they can't roll over existing debt, sell new issues as long as they weren't borrowing more to retire those funds. >> keeping track of the biden discussions on capitol hill. thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> blackberry users, now you can access our programming any time with the c-span radio app, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history, all commercial-free and listen to our interview programs each week and all available around the clock wherever your download it free from blackberryapp world. >> the u.s. house back in at

6:30. discussion on yesterday's supreme court ruling in favor of wal-mart in a class action in a gender discrimination lawsuit. >> host: here is the front-page story. he has the top story. angeles times." guest: this is really an issue about statistics. suppose you have statistical evidence that has a big company on average women are paid $1,000 per less per year, and there is 100,000 of them. the question is could you bring a big class-action lawsuit in say there must be some sort of systematic discrimination from a look at the statistics. the court basically said no, 5-4

split. it says you have to point to some policy that caused the women to be paid less. that was the key issue. can you go forward wit a claim based on statistical evidencor do you have to point to something that shows the company intended to discriminate in some way? host: there were two decisions. what was the difference? guest: all nine of the justices thoughthere was a plot and the way this was brought, because it was brought under the class action thing that ian all or nothing decision. even the liberal justices said it is unfair to not allow women -- some people wanted to opt out of these cases. this was supposedly represented 1.5 million women. part of the losses you can opt out of class actions. there is another feared is provision for a company that says if you're bored to pay money, there should be individualized hearings.

nine of them thought this could not proceed as one big whopper of a case. the crucial issue was what do you have to show to go forward, and that is where they split 5- 4. ruth ginsberg and more liberal justices thought there is quite a bit of evidence of discrimination that goes across this company. they cited thetatistics. they would have allowed the plaintiffs to go back and try again to bring a class-action claim. host: to give you a flavor of the oral argument, we will play two clips. one is justice scalia. he ended up writing the majority opinion. >> at the sam walton instite where every manager has to be trained for the become a manager, they provide as a response to a standard question, why are women so under represented ofew women in management? the response given was because men seated it's meant more aggressive.

that is the stereotypical statement provided to every person going through the management training progm that they then go off and informed their decisions when they make these discussions to make promotio. >> how could that cause -- caused them to intentionally discriminate on the basis of sex? >> they have an intent to take sex into account in making their decisions. that is they apply a stereotype about women being ls aggressive when it comes to assessing their suitability for omotions. host: that exchange was and joseph sellers who represented the womenf wal-mart in this case. guest: they are really talking past each other. joe is saying this company had

-- it was taught to managers that men make better managers because they're more aggressive and driven. he is sayinghis is evidence that there was a culture here of treating women differently. justice scalia does not buy it. host: we want to get your telephone calls. all of the information on the bottom of your screen. we're talking about what the decision meansor business and wal-mart. let's listen to ruth ginsburg, the justice who offed the dissent in this. she came to the court in up background in the women by is and discrimination suits.

>> a company gets reports month after month showing that women are disproportionately passed over for promotions. there is a pay gap between men and women doing the same job. it happened not once, but twice. isn't there some responsibility to stop this? >> there is an obligation for a company to ensure there are not wage gaps in discrimination, but here if one looks at the aggregated statistics, it points to a completely different issue. it does not show there were

gender gaps at the stores among comparable people. that is really the fundamental flaw in their case. host: that is the glimpse of the argument from the attornewho represented wal-mart. guest: they're getting into what the statistics actually show. ruth ginsberg said 70% of the hourly workers at wal-mart or women. 33 percent of the managers are women. the statistics show the higher up you go, the more likely it is dominateby men. part of the liberal justice is that shows something is going on. something is worthy of pursuing in a lawsuit. host: your article makes the case the ruling might all but end class-actionawsuits. i am did try to plant at the reporting of analysis. -- hyatt have been trying to glance at the reporting of analysis. give us the case of what you

think this will mean. guest: when class actions really took off in the mid-1960's, the notion was to bring a suit in get the company to change policy. there were suits with the tracking forms were the police department that we're not promoting any african americans. -- there were suits with the trucking firms or police department for not promoting any african americans. later on it became a matter of seeking money. is decision yesterday, including the part that was unanimous, suggests it will be very hard to bring a case that seeks a change of getting money. i think some class actions could go forward. african americans have sued cities like chicago and said your firefighter test is unfair, you should change it. i can seehose kinds of class actions continuing, because they

are seeking a change in a policy, but i think a lot of the lawyers think that if you want a huge do that seeks money -- huge suit that seeks money, it will be very hard to get that to go forward. host: i'm going to read a tweet -- guest: outside this country? i think they're quite rare. i am no expert on foreign ball, but i think they're more of an american innovation. as i say, class actions came along as a way to change policies. another one is therwere suits challenging mandatory retirement. the police department or airline department had a 60-year-old airline retirement, all of the employees could join that class- action lawsuit and say that is unfair because it is based on

age discrimination. when it becomes complicated is when they are trying to seek a lot of money. not only justice scalia, but the other liberal justices think it is unfair to have 1 million people bringina class-action lawsuit that could result in billions of dollars of damages and then try to figure out how to split of the fund. i think the money part is we will see a lot less of the big money class-action spirites. host: how word, an independent. an independent. caller: i was wondering, it seems to me they decided on the procedural issue without deciding on the merits of the case. would you nothink in past years a supreme court might have done just that instead of preaching the merits of the case at all? guest: which procedural issue?

caller: the one about whether it should be brought as a class action. as i see, it is a different issue. in other words, you mentioned earlier they did not give the people option to opt out of the class action for example. so could it they dispose of this by saying they did not give them an option to opt out and leave it at at that? guest: they could have reed on the narrow idea of saying this is flawed and go back again. the whole question was, could these women join together and sue as a class? this is like giving to first base in a lawsuit. this is not anywhere near a trial on whether walmart discriminated. the question was could you pursue -- perceived as a class. the question is could you

proceed as a class is there a common issue that affects all of these people? five of the justices nted to say, no, -- if you have 500 store managers and make their decisions, we do not think that present a common issue. the problem earlier were you are suing to attack the mandatory retirement age, that is a common policy. i think the majority wanted to rein in class actions to some degree and focus them on things where there is really a common issue, not t way to attack broad discrimination in a giant company that goes across the country. host: this case was 10 years in the making. we have a timeline. this is courtesy of "the washington post."

apologize for that. the show's the progression through the federal court until yesterday's decision. as we look at that, let's take our next call from parkville, missouri. gabriel is a republican there. caller: i was based in a situation where women were getting promoted over males, and we were told they needed to hire women over meals, because they look better doing what we did which was selling food at a restaurant. discrimination takes place in all kinds of deals. i do not think is right to sue. you work harder and you prove yourself in a job. i think the need to stop -- i see the need to stop these lawsuits as well, because it is not fair to the company that your opinion your not being treated as fairly as you should. i worked in a company where the majority of the work force were women. i was passed a promotion where i

should have gone it for a woman, but i did not get mad at her, i worked harder. host: thank you. guest: i think he represents many people. there are lots of different factors that goes into who gets promoted into is not. most people may be unhappy but are not inclined to bring up a big lawsuit. host: next call from san diego. dean, a democrat. caller: until you are discriminated against -- i am a black male from the south, and i have been discriminated against. until you have been discriminated against, you do not know how it feels. we need to look at and see what this country is doing to ignore

black people. they are taking away everything that they work for. the system is taking it away from them. look at what they're doing in michigan, florida. they're taking all of our rights away. we need to forget about the democrat, republican from independent system, and we should go out and start fighting for our rights, because the federal government is sticking our rights away. there is 9 + 6 million people that say they were discriminated against. -- there is 9.6 million people that say they have been discriminated against. host: let's get a response. thank you.

guest: we have to callers take opposite sides of the view. it is the case that the supreme court's ruling will make it very hard -- if a big company discriminates in a small way -- there was a case earlier this year were supposed to have a credit card anything there is a $50 charge that is unfair, the court has been making a harder for those types of class-action lawsuits as well. class-action suits at their best our way to remedy small discriminations that affect a lot of people. five of the justices think in this case we really are not talking about discrimination. the more liberal justices were saying you are closing the door for people to g in the door to put a spotlight on small, but systematic discrimination. host: this is from a twitter

viewer who writes -- have any sense from the questioning you board or the tenor of the opinion that her point of view reflect the justices? est: it is clearly an overstatement, but there is something t be saidf the clip that you played earlier. they were trying to say they think men are better managers because they're more aggressive. that sure sounds like a type of discrimination, but justice scalia did not see it at all. you could say he is less sensitive to that concern and others. host: albuquerque, new mexico. good morning, joe. caller: i have a comment to make when he was talking about the

liberal justices. it has become my humble opinion that liberals or whenever you want to ll them, left-wing progressives, democrats, they cannot function unless they had and someone to blame. in class action lawsuits, nine times out of 10, the only people that really benefit are the lawyers that bring the suit. all of the other hundred people that are involved in the lawsuit, they end up getting some coupons or gift certificate or something like that. the lawyers walk away with all the money. why is that? because i contend that nd gressive ts amd

democrats have been so linked up with labor unions and things like that, and even some of the supreme court justices, they were appointed by a consummate chicago politician who is so in the pockets of labor unions that it is undeniable. it is a fact. guest: the calller certainly found people to blame, trial lawyers from the democrats, president obama. different view. host: lost angeles is next. carmen who is a democrat there. --os angeles. caller: [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a preview of the president's afghanistan speech and take you live to the house floor for a series of votes.

s. 349 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote, remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold to suspend the rules and pass 46r789 r. 1632, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1632. a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 5714 gary avenue in lubbock, texas, as the sergeant gary davis post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bills? members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house

proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 396, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will come to order.

members, please take your seats. the house will be in order. members, please take your seats. the house will come to order. the house will come to order. the chair would ask that all present rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. the chair asks that the house now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave young men and women in uniform who have given their lives in

service in iraq and afghanistan and all those who serve and their families. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. without objection, five minet minute voteic will continue, the unfinished business is the to pass h.r. 771 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 771, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1081 elbel road in schertz, texas as the schertz

veterans post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] 6 h 6

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 398, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. farne

holt, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 339, the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 339, an act to designate the facility at 335 call ridge road as the sergeant gerald murray post office. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 397, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative,

the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:30 tomorrow for morning hour debate, thereafter to resume its session at 11:30 a.m. >> you've got to be -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6 2 as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. pusuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on the motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. any record vote on the postponed question will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi rise? >> i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r.

672 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 55, h.r. 672, a bill to terminate the election assistance commission and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, and the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzales, will each roll control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include misrainout material on the matter under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. harper: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. as we move forward on the difficult job of securing our

nation's financial future, the congress will face mr. difficult decisions. programs will have to be cut an some eliminated. all of those programs are there, we have to look carefully at each one and determine whether the benefit it creates is worth the cost. the speaker pro tempore: members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from mississippi may resume. mr. harper: after two years of hearings, investigations and oversight the committee on house administration has identified not just the program but a federal agency we cannot justify to the taxpayers. that agency, the election assistance commission, should be eliminate. mr. speaker, while the house is going ton making some difficult spending decisions in the

future, this is actually a clear and easy choice. the e.a.c. was created in 2002 by the help america vote act. it passed the house with a large bipartisan majority. 172 republicans voted for the bill that created the e.a.c. its creation was a bipartisan choice and so should be its termination. one of the primary reasons that the e.a.c. was created was to distribute money to states to update voting equipment and voter registration systems. the e.a.c. has accomplished that, paying out over $3 billion to states for those purposes. with our deep debt and deficit, there are almost certainly will be no more money for the e.a.c. to distribute, meaning that that function is complete. another of the e.a.c.'s main functions, conducting research on election issues, is also complete.

the agency has completed all of 19 planned plex management guidelines as well as the 21 quick start guides. it has completed four of the five studies required under hava and the fifth is tied up in an interagency controversy making it unlikely that it will ever be finished. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. members, please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may resume. mr. harper: the e.a.c. also maintains the clearing house for election officials to share experiences working with voting systems. and it operates a program to develop voluntary guidelines for voting systems, tests voting systems against those guidelines and certifies that systems comply with those guidelines. 35 states and territories use

the federal testing and certification system in some way to decide what voting systems their election officials can purchase and use. unlike the grants and research programs that are now obsolete, the clearing house and the testing and certification programs -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman may resume. mr. harper: the clearing house and the testing and certification programs provide continuing value for state and local election officials. against that backdrop, we have to look at the reality of what has happened to the e.a.c.. when it was created by hava, the e.a.c. was a small agency authorized for three years, to spend up to $10 million per year . that was nine years ago. the agency is still there and its last full time full year

appropriation was for almost $18 million. since a staff ceiling was removed in 2007, the agency has doubled its size and this doubling came despite the fact that many of the e.a.c.'s responsibilities were completed or diminished. the average salary at the e.a.c. is over $100,000. it has an executive director, a chief operating officer, a chief financial officer and an accounting director. in its budget request for 2012 the e.a.c. proposed to spend $51.-- 51.7% of its budget on management and administration costs. mr. speaker, that bears repeating. the e.a.c. planned to spend more than half of its budget on overhead. an agency a with that plan is an agency that -- an agency with that plan is an agency that should be eliminated. the need to eliminate the e.a.c. is so great that the national association of secretaries of

state, a bipartisan group, whose members have received more than $3 billion distributed by the e.a.c., has passed two resolutions calling for congress to dissolve the agency. in 2005 and again in 2010 the secretaries of state asked us to do what i'm asking this house to support today. beyond simply being an agency with an increasing size and a dwindling purpose, the e.a.c. has proven time and time again that what the agency knows how to do best is to be reckless and irresponsible with taxpayer dollars. in the short time i have served on the committee on house administration we have learned of two different cases where legal claims were filed against the e.a.c. for discrimination against candidates for the position of general council. the first case involved discrimination based on the candidate's political affiliation. the second involved

discrimination based on the candidate's service in the military. political neutrality and assistance to military and overseas voters are values the e.a.c. should promote, not undermine. on top of that, these cases are expensive for the taxpayers. in the development of this bill we have sought out and received a considerable amount of input from election officials and others in hearings at the committee and other settings. that input has allowed us to improve this bill as we move forward. perhaps most importantly we added a guidelines review board that gives election officials and others a formal seat at the table when voting system guidelines are developed. this board streamlines two existing boards into a single smaller one, but preserves the ability of states and local elections officials to stay involved directly. before i close, i would like to

thank chairman hall from the committee on space, science and technology, he has worked closely with us as a partner in developing this bill. i appreciate his efforts to improve the bill and to bring it to the floor. this bill is a careful and thoughtful measure to close down a federal agency in a responsible way. to sustain an agency that has completed its assigned studies, dispersed its assigned grants and fulfilled most of its mandates is the definition of irresponsibility. and we haven't rushed through this process. we've held hearings, we've listened to numerous experts, we've kept and reassigned the programs that provide true value for election administrators. and now is simply the time to end the e.a.c. and save american taxpayers at least $33 million in the next five years. it doesn't get any easier to find examples of wasteful government spending.

if we can't do this, we might as well pack up and go home because this is as obvious as it gets. mr. speaker, thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise to claim the time in opposition to h.r. 672 and i would yield myself five minutes at this time. supporters of the bill once told us that this would save $14 million each year. i'm not sure how they came up with that number. what we do know is that when ranking member brady asked the f.e.c. if it could handle the responsibilities of the e.a.c., this is what they said. sure. if you give us more money. so this bill would take money from an agency they don't like and give it to an agency that no one likes. gone gone it will take money from an agency -- gonzales gonzales it will take money from

an -- mr. gonzalez: it will take money and give it to an agency on the opposite path, one that has become only more dysfunctional in recent years. but h.r. 672 doesn't move all of e.a.c.'s functions to the f.e.c. some of the best ones simply go away. so let's say that h.r. 672 will save the money, will save the federal government $6.6 million a year. that's great. unless you happen to live in a state. this is just another example of shifting the cost to the states. well, we lose the efficiencies of having a central clearing house for information, so maybe this isn't just cost shifting, but cost increasing. because no matter what we do, our states have to run elections every year, often twice a year.

the e.a.c. doesn't run elections , that's not its job. it assists the state and local election officials so they can run elections better and for less. and local election officials have written in from across the country in praise of the e.a.c. and opposition to this bill. h.r. 672 would eliminate the one federal agency that's focused on finding best practices for elections. that will make it that much harder for the supervisor of elections in palm beach county, florida, to learn that the registrar of voters in fresno county, california, figured out a way to process paper ballots so they would run more smoothly, representing a 25% savings in election costs. in my home, bear county, the elections administrator learned from an e.a.c. instructional video, a new tuck neak -- video

a new technique that will save our county $100,000 per year. that's $100,000 in savings from one county, from one e.a.c. instructional video. and we have more than 8,000 election jurisdictions in the united states. but the savings don't stop there. the recount for minnesota's 2008 senate race was estimated to cost the state as much as $5 million and the candidates around $20 million. worse, the people of minnesota were deprived of one of their senators for six of the most turbulent months in recent history. if the e.a.c. can prevent the need for such recounts and reduce the cost and time involved in others, how much is that worth? e.a.c. has been taken -- has taken tremendous steps to help our states ensure that our citizens, especially the disabled, are able to exercise their constitutional rights and civic responsibility to

participate in our electoral system. now, how much is that worth? are the proponents of this bill willing to put a place tag on that? -- price tag on that? mr. speaker, we spend millions of dollars and put our young men and women in harm's way, promoting and protecting our great democracy. is it really too much to spend $6.6 million here at home? when h.r. 672 was marked in committee, i offered a very simple amendment, it would have -- it would have had g.a.o. look into whether the bill would actually save money, including whether savings in the federal level would simply be the result of pushing costs onto the states and where the voters would be disinfranchised, giving us the time to reconsider if the results were negative. i had anticipated that the bill would reach the floor with no chance to offer an amendment. when we defeat this, when it comes up for a vote, and if the republican leadership should

decide to bring h.r. 672 back to the floor under a rule, i fully intend to offer that amendment again. if the supporters of h.r. 672 are so confident that the bill's savings and innocuous nature, i can't see why they would object to my amendment. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he shall consume to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. mr. lungren is the chairman of the committee on house administration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation. you know, mr. speaker, my mom was born and raised in chicago, illinois, and listening to her stories about what transpired in the political process when she was growing up there, i used to think that the only place you could find immortality in this world was on the voting rolls of

cook county. but i find here today that ronald reagan was right. immortality is in the name of a federal government program. this is supposed to be a temporary program. it was supposed to give temporary assistance to the states to make sure they could comply and it's done that. it has done that. it has let out all the money, billions of dollars that go to the states to assist in doing that, its time has come and gone. mr. speaker, if we cannot see that in these very difficult budget times we have to make some difficult decisions with respect to looking at programs to see if they've exhausted their usefulness, then we'll never be able to respond appropriately to what our constituents expect of us. mr. speaker, this legislation carefully drafted allows for those small elements of this

agency to be transferred to the f.e.c. with funds, to carry out those responsibilities. the argument that the gentleman has just made that somehow the f.e.c. is not up to snuff is not an argument i would think that the gentleman would support to somehow get rid of the f.e.c. we are giving them some responsibilities with funds and hopefully they can carry those out. the idea that we can stand here with a straight face and argue that an agency which spends over 50% of its total funding on overhead and be able to say that to the american people is not only disappointing but it's dispiritting. because it suggests the american people that we are incapable of looking carefully at agencies and departments to see when in fact they are doing a job that continues to be done or when they have finished their function and therefore no longer need to exist. now, the secretaries of state

have spoken rather forcefully before our committee with respect to the fact that they no longer need the assistance of this particular arm of the federal government. how often do we have people come to us and say we don't need this assistance anymore? not very often. should we ignore that in this particular case? admittedly this is a small amount of money, it's only in the millions. where i come from that's important. millions mean a lot. this is more important, though, as a similarble or a signal as to what -- symbol or a signal as to what we will do. maybe if we had all the money in the world we wouldn't have this on the floor. we don't have all the money in the world although we've tried to prove that we can print all the money in the world. the fact of the matter is folks back home want us to somehow get our house in order. that's the house of representatives and it's the house that we call the united states federal government. this may be a small room in

that house, but nonetheless we need to get it in order. the gentleman has done a food job holding hearings on this matter, hearings from all parties, the suggestion that somehow by disestablishing the e.a.c. we'll penalize the military is something that i cannot understand very well at all. the voting, the federal voting assistance program under the d.o.d. will continue to implement the move act as they have done since the passage of this bill in the last congress. the e.a.c. has a very small role in the process. it will continue that after the e.a.c. has been shut down. states are looking at us to see whether we can give them some relief and in some cases we're not going to be able to give the states some relief because

we don't have the money. businesses are looking at us. those in businesses, to see if we will understand the mistakes he made in the past, that is to try to become more effective. our constituents are looking at us as they look for some glimmer that we understand the terrible fiscal situation we find ourselves in, and they're looking for the littlest, smallest suggestion that we're serious about the mess we find ourselves in. the gentleman from mississippi said if we can't do this now, when can we do it. you have to act. there's all we're attempting to do. i hope we have near unanimous

support, and we have to yield back the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. >> i yield to the gentleman who was instrumental in passing the help america vote act. mr. hoyer: i think i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank the chairman, mr. speaker. i want to rise in opposition to this bill. the gentleman from mississippi knows as well as any of us that the right to vote is sacred. access to the polling places ought to be sacred. every american ought to be facilitated in voting and every american vote needs to count. that's what the help america vote act was all about.

bob ney of ohio, chairman of the house administration committee, subsequent to the 2000 election, and i, worked on this legislation and as has been pointed out, it passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way. the right to vote is at the foundation of our democracy. an so it is extremely disappointing that this bill would undermine our nation's ability to protect that right. from 1789 to 2000, the federal government had elections which it did not pay for, nor did it administer. now under this bill, we're still not paying for elections. we're still not administering. not this bill that's on the floor. but under our scheme of things, elections are still run by states and counties and localities. what this agency was designed

to do is make sure that elections could be run in the best way possible. there are over, i think, 120 million voters in america. this is 20 cents for each voter to make sure that their vote is counted and counted properly. it would harm the integrity of elections in 2012 and for years to come. voters deserve assurance their vote will count. in 2000, it was policewomen -- the result was blemished by our flawed election system. regardless of how we felt about the outcome of the system, republicans and democrats adepreed we had a duty to improve election systems so every qualified citizen's vote counts.

the s.e.c. has a responsibility to monitor contributions. not to run elections. they had that responsibility before when we developed the election assistance commission. we need to provide states the financial and informational resources to train poll workers and improve access for disabled voters. the result was the bipartisan help america vote act, or hava, which i was proud to help write. may i have one additional minute. it passed the house by 357 votes to 248, passed the senate with only two votes against. before hava, the federal government guaranteed federal

voting rights but did little to ensure the nuts and bolts of ensuring that objective were carried out. as part of its effort toward that end, hava created a bipartisan election assistance commission whose job is to administer grants to states and provide states with ongoing guidance. my friend from california my good friend, mr. lungren, with whom i've served for a number of years is wrong. there was no intention to make this a temporary agency just for the distribution of grants. it was an ongoing advisory agency to make sure that best practices were pursued. not because they can impose but because they can advice. an -- advise. an extraordinary worthwhile event. a plan was put in place to test state voting systems for accuracy and use of this program has been shown to save our states millions of dollars as the ranking member just said.

may i have one more minute? >> i yield an additional minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding the additional minute. e.a.c. is not perfect. there's no agency, including one we're going to fund this week, that spends almost $6700 billion, that's not perfect. should we fix it? -- fix it where it's broken? yes. should we do that to every agency? yes. is it our responsibility to do so? yes. now eliminate the very agency constructed to ensure that we do not repeat the travesty of 2000 is to retreat from ensuring fair, open, accessible elections where every vote will count. i urge my colleagues to vote against this piece of

legislation. if in fact the e.a.c. needs fixing, let's fix it. that's the responsibility of the house administration committee on which i served for, i think, 17 years. you ought to do that. if you think this is not working correctly. because what it does is absolutely essential for democracy and america. defeat this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. harper: i yield two minutes to the dr. gingrey, the distinguished gentleman from fwea, dr. gingrey is chairman of the committee on house administration subcommittee on oversight. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise today in strong support of h.r. 672. i commend my good friend from mississippi, mr. harper, for his authorship. the distinguished minority whipe, the -- whip, the former democratic majority leader,

just made the statement, essentially saying that few things are more important in this country than ensuring that every american citizen's right to vote is protected and e.a.c. helps america to vote. we agree on this side of the aisle, mr. speaker. we agree that few things are more important that than -- than ensuring americans can vote. however, the election assistance commission' support in this area is negligible at best. in 2005, and again in 2010, the national association of secretaries of state, the individuals in the states tasked with overseeing leches called for the dissolution of the e.a.c. the committee heard firsthand testimony of secretaries of state that affirmed the passion with which they support this bill, the harper bill, and how useless they feel this agency has become. when those who oversee elections call for the dissolution of the agency supposedly meant to be supporting their effort,

congress should listen. but no, it's like president ronald reagan once said, and i quote him, no government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. government programs, once launched, never disappear. actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth, end quote. mr. speaker, the minority ill whip just basically said the same thing, that once an agency is created, even after it's performed its function, done its duty, it's time to eliminate it. we're talking about millions of dollars, this is an important bill, as the gentleman from mississippi so clearly stated, if we can't do this, what can we do? in regard to reducing unnecessary spending or other taxpayer dollars so swreel those precious dollars for other, more important matters to help our state. is i ask my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle, please, let's have a unanimous vote in support. thank you and i yield back. mr. gonzalez: -- mr. gonzalez: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. holt: i rise in opposition to the so-called election support consolidation and efficiency act. this would eliminate as we have heard the election assistance commission and let me remind my colleagues, mr. speaker, there is nothing more crucial to democracy than guaranteeing the integrity, fairness, accessibility and accuracy of elections. democracy works only if the citizens believe it does. the system must work and the people must believe it works. but voting shouldn't be an act of blind faith. it should be an act of record. the e.a.c. helps maintain the integrity of the american

electoral process. too many people across the country lack confidence in the legitimacy of election results and the dismantling of the e.a.c. would further erode that faith that is so essential to democracy. how quickly members seem to have forgotten the florida recount with its hanging chads, pregnant chads and uncertain counts of ballots to determine voter intent. the 2000 election exposed critical flaws and inconsistencies and in its wake congress under the leadership of representative hoyer and others approved the help america vote act to help state and local jurisdictions. yet the legislation we're considering today willfully -- willfully undoing this.

this vote takes us in the wrong direction. while millions of americans are casting their votes on the on unaudited voting machines, eliminating the e.a.c. would increase the risk that our electoral process would be compromised by voting system irregularities. can we afford to take that risk? certainly not. h.r. 672 is another example of the desire of this chamber that seems to exist to recklessly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gonzalez: i yield 15 more seconds to mr. holt. mr. holt: the desire that seems to exist to cut recklessly valuable services rather than engage in the hard work of making government work at its beth. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this misguided bill. i yield back my time. mr. harper: i yield three

minutes to the gentleman from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> in listening to the -- mr. gardner: in listening to the opposition for this statement, it makes it sound the elections assistance commission is a branch of the justice department that is there to enforce the right to vote. it doesn't do any of that at all. the primary goal for the election assistance commission was after the florida recount, the problems there in the 2000 election, that according to the help america vote act, the state such as colorado, that i was secretary of state in, we're going to have to have a voter registration system that would be interactive, interactive database to make sure there wasn't fraud or it wasn't -- there wasn't duplicative registrations and

the e.a.c. would be the conduit for federal resources to be able to facilitate that and make sure that those -- that that was carried out by the states and that was for the 2008 presidential election, long since done. long accomplished. as to the e.a.c. which has no ability to mandate anything to states but as an advisory tool, elections officials across this country don't utilize it. there are associations that provide those best practices at every level of elections from the county clerks to the secretaries of state. and so this isn't an agency whose primary purpose is -- is long since overwith and we can transfer the remaining function over to the federal elections commission and i rise in strong

support for h.r. 672 and would urge its passage. mr. chairman, i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas voiced. mr. gonzalez: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has eight minutes remaining. the gentleman from mississippi has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. gonzalez: all right. i would yield at this time two minutes to my colleague from the great state of texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished speaker and i thank the distinguished member, my colleague from texas, and i acknowledge the manager of this bill from the majority side. mr. speaker, it is disappointing that we are here in the dark of night discussing the issues of election fairness.

i would almost imagine it would be somewhat similar to taking up the voting rights act, the one of 1965, in the dark of night. we can't speak lightly of this but i will tell you that every election time someone is denied the right to vote in the united states. i hope americans are paying attention tonight to realize that even though it is represented that the change in eliminating the particular agency that deals with the questions of fairness, the election assistance commission, we're actually not saving money and passing the responsibilities off to the federal elections commission. why could we not have accepted the amendment of the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez, who said, let's do it right, let's have a general accountability study and know what we're doing and if we're taking away the rights of those who are desiring to vote.

i will tell that you the purging of voting -- of voters that occurs in texas and other places around the nation and in particular in harris county is not a minor issue. the distraction of african-american male voters in florida during the 2000 election is not simply a distraction. and so the question is, even if this deals with interactive data, let me suggest to you that it is an important tool for local governments because without this particular commission, those resources, those responsibilities and the finding of the money will be on local governments. so now we're doing unfunded mandates. i would simply say that it was painful to pass the help bill. it was passed on one of the most emotional -- i can get 15 seconds or 30 seconds? gone begun -- mr. gonzalez: would yield an additional 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and i thank the speaker. this legislation, mr. speaker,

was passed in the backdrop of a great deal of emotionalism. and i'm not here to point fingers but i lived through that emotional time. it is history. my colleagues know that it is. but they know how painful it was to be engaged in hanging chads and discussions about who was turned away from the voting booth and also the discrepancies on how we count on votes in america. the most sophisticated nation in the world, the nation that others look to and say, how do we promote democracy? why would we stand on the floor of the house at 8:00 tonight and deny democracy? i ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation and to stand for democracy and fairness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized. mr. harper: mr. speaker, i have no other members who wish to speak at this time and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gonzalez: i yield myself as much time as i may consume, mr. speaker.

first of all, i'd like to address some of the remarks made by the proponents of this particular bill. first, i know it was not intentional to mischaracterize the words of mr. hoyer. he did not state that the e.a.c. should have an eternal life. what he said, it was essential in its present form and the functions that it provides. i think he also indicated that everything is not a simple budget or mathematical problem. there is cost benefit to look into and see what the true benefit is for the investment of that federal dollar. much has been said about the national association of secretaries of state coming out with a resolution. that is not news from the very inception they opposed the creation of the election assistance commission. and on a regular basis they will pass a resolution in such opposition, expressing that opposition. but i do wish to point out that the president of the national association of sex of state,

secretary -- secretaries of state, secretary of state of minnesota, mark richie, whose state knows something about the cost of problematic elections, testified before our committee on march 31, that he was certainly not in favor of terminating the election assistance commission. i would also wish to read from a letter we received today at about 4:00 p.m. to an election -- to a house administration election staffer. dear people, i am the election director of harper county board of elections in northeastern maryland. i am republican and have been act nvet republican party since 1968. i am also the republican member of the standard board of the election assistance commission. as a representative of a local board of elections, we are very isolated and depend on the e.a.c. as a clearing house of information and resources. the e.a.c. has been most helpful to local boards of elections in

supporting our election administration and providing guidance in the future -- in future elections. the f.e.c. is too political and cannot do and perform as the elections assistance commission. the passage of h.r. 672 will be a loss to local boards of elections nationwide. we are the grassroots of the election community and we need the support of the e.a.c. guess what i'll close with is that we will in fact defeat this tomorrow and i'm hoping that my amendment will be ruled in order and that we will have a chance to really look at the effect or the potential effect of this -- that this bill will have on local election officials, not to politicize it, this is not about republicans or about democrats,

it's about how effective and efficient our local election officials can be with the assistance of the only clearing house, the only commission with the expertise and the dead katecation to that single goal -- dedication to that single goal, there will be no other agency like it, there will be no other commission like it and it's well worth the investment that we make on the yearly basis to assure the integrity and the efficiency of our local elections. i don't know of any better investment. i understand that we have to tighten our belts. do we do it though at the cost of the efficient running of our elections? the very basis for our democracy? i commend the members on the other side of the aisle for this effort, but it is truly misguided, it's not based on facts or the realities on the ground. and almost every local election

official will echo those sentiments today. i oppose this bill, i will be voting against it and i ask my colleagues to please oppose this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. harper: mr. speaker, may i inquire again as to the remaining time? i believe 3 1/2 minutes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes, that's correct. mr. harper: thank you, mr. speaker. i find it very interesting that the statement was just made that the f.e.c. is too political to take on the responsibilities of the e.a.c. that's an amazing statement in light of the fact that the e.a.c. has been sued for political discrimination, the very agency that's supposed to take care of fairness and do things in these issues, gets sued for political discrimination. so that is hardly an argument to say that it can't be transferred. we are looking at transferring the essential functions of the

e.a.c. over to the f.e.c. with that personnel and funding that's necessary to do that job. it's a very responsible and adult thing to do, to take care of not only spending issues but we have an agency that's spending at 51.7% of its budget on administration and management. not in program administration, not in taking care of grants, those have come and gone. so here we are in that situation of an agency that needs to be eliminated and i want to make it clear that in no way by eliminating the e.a.c. are we doing anything to repeal or in any intent to do away with hava. that is something that came about in a bipartisan effort and it will remain and shall remain as we move forward. but the e.a.c. was created and funded for a three-year period, nine years later we have one of the most inefficient agencies that we will probably ever see.

it is beyond tweaking and correcting to do that. and i want to say that we all believe that everyone, it's essential in our country that you have the right to vote, you have access to vote, and that no one be disenfranchised and no way does that have any impact in a negative way. it will make the election process more efficient to do away with an agency like this. it is an agency, a federal agency that has long outlived its usefulness and if we look at the people that are on the ground in the states, the secretaries of state, in each of our states that would pass a resolution that this agency needs to be done away with, that we need to follow that great advice of those that are most intimately familiar with what's going on. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rule and pass h.r.

672 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, -- mr. harper: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. gonzalez: i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. burton of indiana for today. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the request is granted. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. the war in libya continues. it's the third war the united states is in. in my opinion this war is unconstitutional because congress is not approved it. it also violates the war powers resolution because even after the time limit has expired, the president still engages troops overseas without congressional authority. and this war is not in the national security interests of the united states. the administration officials say so. this is a war that is sponsored by nato and it's said that we need to help nato out. well, if nato wants to continue this war, let them. the united states is footing this bill and it's costing us $750 million already.