about 45 minutes, a discussion about the president that a jobs bill and how it is paid for. we will talk to chris edwards, tax policy director at the cato institute and michael ettlinger at the center for american progress. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: good morning. thursday, september 15, 2011. but third anniversary of the lehman brothers collapse. as of the economy continue to have troubles, the president is out selling his jobs program. the house speaker is said to give a speech on jobs today. but our focus for the first half hour is on candidates and their religion. yesterday rick perry was at liberty university, founded by jerry falwell in lynchburg,

virginia, and one of the topics to talk about was his faith and how it shaped his life. it reminded us of president obama in 2008 on the campaign trail giving a speech on religion and also the discussions about the mormon faith and a -- two presidential candidates mitt romney and jon huntsman. our question is how presidents's date and how it might affect your vote. our lines are open -- our question is about the president's faith and how it might affect your vote. our lines are open. good thursday morning. "the washington post" made it the off-lead. here is the lead on the story.

our topic for you this morning is about political candidates and their faith. we will show you a clip from the speech and we have polling numbers from the pew center which studies religion in american life, which talks about the american public as a will. but we would like to hear from you about candidates and their faith and whether are like -- or not you like them talking about their faith and whether or not it affects how you cast your ballot. we will turn to a washington post reporter who has covered congress for that newspaper about speaker boehner and his jobs speech. thank you for being with us this morning. guest: great to be with you. of the faults have a front-page

story that says "boehner's speech may set the tone." give us the logistics. where will it be held? guest: house speaker john boehner is planning to give a big economic speech at 12:30 p.m. before the economic club of washington, a group of business leaders here in the capital. he will be talking about his vision for where the economy and jobs conversation should go. it comes directly one week after president obama delivered his address before a joint session of congress to lay out his vision for job growth. and the speaker is expected to lay out several plans. he is going to give his weight to comprehensive tax reform which is something leaders in both parties have pushed for. and also the title went -- instrument reform, which republicans have been pushing for the last several months.

-- entitlement reform, which republicans have been pushing for. and he will lay down the line for the joint deficit reduction committee, the bipartisan 12- member group. he will say that tax increases are not an option for this group. they are working toward that end up buying $1.50 trillion and deficit cutting and the next decade. to achieve anything of that magnitude and even greater without including some kind of tax increases will be a challenging task so the speaker, in laying down this marker, is pretty significantly laying down the conversation the committee will have. host: the president was on the road in north carolina selling the jobs plan to voters. it sounds like the components of the speaker is very different -- comprehensive tax reform as opposed to a very significant incidental or areas of the tax code.

funding the package with some tax increases. where does it leave the politics of this discussion? guest: a great point. the politics are very tricky. this deficit reduction committee has a little over a month in order to achieve its goal. they have had two meetings so far in their most recent one this week, the congressional budget office director basically told them they need to have their plan together by the end of october. in order for the group to do something as big as comprehensive tax reform, they might need to take a little bit longer than that. might be setting the bar somewhat high for the group, but the speaker is also expected to say when it comes to job creation, the house republicans are still open to some aspects of the president's plan. and they have been sparring with the white house back and forth but the plan should come to congress as a whole and whether members should pass it as one package in its entirety or

congressional republicans before that they can look at it a la carte and find parts they like. a pretty big contrast. one other thing, and head of the speaker's speech, the 12- member super committee on debt reduction is having its first private meeting at 8:30 this morning on the senate side of the capital. it will be their first closed- door meeting. they may be previewing the speech and seeing how it will be mapping out the road ahead. but it definitely does make their task a lot more complicated. host: thank you very much for setting the stage for the deficit committee getting down to work behind closed doors and for speaker boehner's jobs beach later today. guest: great to talk with you. host: here is a photograph from "the washington post" from rick perry's speech. we are going to show you just that little bit of that and then engage you in a discussion about

candidates faith. >> i spent many a night pondering my purpose, talking to god, wondering what to do with this one life among the billions that were on the planet. what i learned as i wrestled with god is that i did not have to have all the answers. that they would be revealed to me in due time, and that i needed to trust him. my faith story is not the story of someone who turn to god because i wanted to. it is because i had nowhere else to turn. i was 27. i had been an officer in the united states air force commanding a fairly substantial piece of sophisticated

equipment, telling men and women what to do. but i was lost. host: rick perry yesterday at lynchburg, virginia, at liberty university. looking at the pew forum. in july this year they put out this survey. some interesting history about presidents of candidates and their religion. here is what daniel burke of religion news service rights in this report. the white eisenhower buried his family's roots as jehovah witnesses and presented himself as a presbyterian -- dwight eisenhower buried his family's roots as a jehovah's witness.

so, are question to you is about candidates faith and whether it affects your vote. springfield, virginia. lou is a republican. caller: i am also a 40-your subscriber of "the washington post" and member of the national press club at where i heard jeremiah wright gave the speech and i read it rick perry's book about his career as a scout. i think it is a forthright statement -- people, as you know, are evasive about their religion and try to pander to

the common denominator. i think rick perry is to be complemented for being forthright and a real man of integrity. i hope c-span broadcast the entire speech. host: we will, and it will be on the archives. i not sure what your own opinion is about candidates in your religion. caller: another quote from another republican president, a theater roosevelt, i think it is bully. host: on the twitter feed . dallas, david is a democrat. caller: i just wanted to comment. plays a large role in voting around the country. what the candidates do -- maybe nothing a good -- but how does

that vote and may be the ideals at home change and bring reform to anybody. just want to see hopefully how that would change more mines for everyone. host: to understand -- it is how of the religion and forms of their ideals and therefore their political goals? caller: informs themselves as a person. host: their character. caller: if they see character like that. my idea would be hopefully it brings the same ideal today would be brought up with and it gives me more of a field -- yeah, i guess, the person actually there, further out from that, not just the political side. host: laurel, maryland. john, you are on the air. caller: we have seen a result of having a muslim presidents

claiming to be a christian. host: after all this time you still don't believe that -- that the president is a christian. caller: you say yourself forming their ideals. he came out and said there is nothing more beautiful than the call to prayer, the muslim call to prayer day after day. look at the results. how could we be thinking otherwise. host: let me ask you the larger question about whether a candidate's religion aspects how you both in the voting booth. caller: i believe that rick perry could put it in check. the left will make an issue out of it but they will completely dismissed any sort of comment that barack obama has made about his, what i believe to be his true calling. host: thank you for your call. laurel, maryland. lake oswego, oregon. this is andy, a democrat there.

thank you for c-span and having me on. you do a great job moderating these conversations. host: thank you. caller: the way candidates faith affects my vote, if they over emphasize and i am troubled by it. i am an atheist and when i see a candidate bring religion frankly about other things that i believe are critically important i find it troubling. me is aomments before predictable of how i think religion gets in the way of some thinking and good government -- governance one of -- after all these years he is quitting barack obama is a muslim. i see religion as big an issue that frankly keeps our country from effectively governing itself at this point in time. in this election and all election when a candidate puts religion so far in front of a lot of other things i am deeply worried by it and i tend to turn the other way. host: what if you have both major party candidates talking about faith during the campaign?

caller: it is inevitable. you cannot be elected as president or any other office in washington if you are not professing to be a christian, which i find to be deeply troubling. you are going to see, because it is required, candidates do that. you cannot do otherwise in this country. but i tried to take that and blended with what ever else the candidate is doing. frankly, the more religious the candidate professes to be the less likely it is i am going to vote for them. host: let us listen to president obama from the national prayer breakfast held in the city each year talking about faith. >> my christian faith has been a sustaining force for me over these last two years. all the more so when a shell and i hear our faith question from time to time -- when michele and i hear our faith question we

know openly what matters is not what other people say about us but whether we are being true to our conscience and true to our god. seek first his kingdom and his righteousness and all of these things will be given to you as well. as i travel across the country, folks often ask me what is it that i pray for. like most of you, my prayer sometimes our general. lord, give me the strength to reach the challenges of my office. sometimes they are specific. lord, give me patience as i watch malia go to her first dance where there will be boys. [laughter] host: the president speaking about his days as a -- add a prayer breasts -- breakfast. that pew forum looked at us as a

nation and religious beliefs. let us share the polling. 26% belong to evangelical protestant churches, 18% to mainline protestant churches, historically black churches, 6.9%, catholics, almost 24%, more men, 1.7%, jehovah witnesses, less than a person, orthodox, 0.6%, of a christian, 0.3, jewish, 1.7, muslim, 0.6%, buddhist -- other world religions, 0.3%, unaffiliated, 16%. next is a caller from hillsdale, michigan. good morning to our caller, david, a republican. caller: my feeling on that is the that our president barack obama is a muslim and he professes the teachings of his

pastor for many years, jeremiah wright, who has kind of become famous of making the statements of g-d america, and i think as a muslim obama is sworn to bring the u.s. -- u.s. -- usa down. host: you are taking us off track about the discussion about candidates face and your vote. looking into election year, how important is it for a candidate to express his or her faith? caller: i would like to hear that. i think it should be brought out, what their faith is. like i said, obama is kind of, well, disingenuous and lying to us because he is a devout muslim. host: thank you for your call. hills there, michigan. jim is on twitter and he sends us of this message. next is a telephone call from

chicago. kathleen, democrat. caller: thank you so much. i listened to your statement about does a candidates faith affect my vote. it should. if you listen to some of these -- and not democrats, but if you look at some of these people running for president now, they say god in one breath but their actions do not stand for what god stands for. how can you be a child of god and hate your fellow man? how can you date a child of god and absolutely want to stand for people to go hungry and homeless and have no -- because i listened to the debate the other night, people were tapping when they were talking about somebody because they do not have money, you put money over one of god's children? if they don't have money at it is ok to let them die? you call yourself a christian? you have more christians doing harm to people and saying

harmful things than you have muslims. how dare people talk about people faith. it is not what you say and what people do and got as not in one of that because he is a righteous god. host: the next up is canyon lake, texas. pete is a republican. excuse me, it is richard. you are on the air. candidates and their faith and how important is it. caller: as a vulgar and as a christian, -- as a voter and a christian i read the sermon on the mound and i compare the candidates to what christ says, to love your dog with all your heart and soul and might and love your neighbor as yourself. i find it hypocritical for parry to say he is a christian while as a governor he cut the handicapped funds every year

since he has been in power. the last time i checked, only four beds available to put -- the mentally ill in hospital. instead of putting them in the hospital he has the officers putting them in prison where they are molested. then he says he is a christian. i believe as the bible says you will know them by their fruits. when you are pushing for the money people and the monopolies and for getting middle income people, forgetting the poor, and letting people go hungry in this great nation of ours, and bragging about how many people you killed instead of saving, it is just contrary to what christ's message was. so, yes, being a religious person is important but it is

important to the point of -- you are supposed to love mankind and not just go out and profess your love for christ. host: from canyon lake, texas. jim writes on twitter -- sarah palin will be profiled in a new book and it has been making a lot of news. you probably heard some of it. "the daily news" of new york puts it on the cover. "the daily beast" has the craziest tidbits from the new book. it is not yet in bookstores. "the daily caller" conservative news coverage, reports sarah palin book notes fetish for

black men, extramarital affair and cocaine use. what is interesting is "the new york times" in its review of the book takes on joe mcginnis, the author of this book, and had lied -- "she could see this guy from our house." her review. let me read a little bit about what she writes. he explains he was shocked at the angry response --

so, "the new york times," however you want to process that, in its review of the book, taking on the author, while some of the internet sites are reporting the factoids in joe mcginnis's new biography of sarah palin. talking about candidates and their fate. -watseka, georgia. pete, republican -- hiawassa, georgia. caller: i think in america we devolved as one of the richest and most successful countries on the planet into a very arrogant and prowled people -- proud

people. we feel it is uncomfortable and not politically correct to bring god into the arkansas arena of politics and government -- into the arena of politics and government. it as soon as we do that, people shy away from it for fear of offending nonbelievers. in this country, there is the -- only 7% of america is openly atheistic, and that leaves us 93% of people that believe in some higher power. so, we are willing to offend the god that created us all, create everything on this planet, we are willing to offend him for the sake of 7% of our population because we are afraid of offending them? it is just so sad to think of

the reality of that. so, i support and i respect any candidate who openly professes their faith. manne knows what isn't a and in a woman's heart, only god knows what is truly in their heart and how they believe and lived their lives. host: thank you for your call. in "the dallas morning news" in the end of june on the editorial page, how jon huntsman and mitt romney handle their moralism -- mormonism. inviting pastors to write about that. we are discussing the candidates and their religion and how it affects their vote -- your vote. a viewer on twitter --

telephone call. west palm beach, florida. rick is a democrat. caller: good morning, c-span. a very wonderful forum for all of the people of the world. you are looking beautiful this morning. hey, the gentleman -- mr. perry is being very verbose about his christian beliefs, but in america there is a separation of state and government. you can state your point and say you are, but i mean, lord have mercy, we are looking for people -- there's a lot of problems in the world right now. and we really need to address the serious problems of what is

going on. a man here -- if he's got to push the button, lord have mercy, i don't want him running the church and ordered to do a decision about what is going to happen to mankind in the next three and a half minutes. i got to say like the american president, this is time for serious talk and we really need to get on with what we need to do. and i am really getting tired of all the duck and cover about what people and candidates are doing in a three-minute spot. i want to know what these people think. host: thanks for your comment. here is some our e-mail messages.

and another viewer writes -- finally -- next is a telephone call. north carolina. it -- is an independent. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that i watched the presidential election from jack kennedy running and his being a catholic, and the living in the bible belt and him being a catholic, there was a lot of controversy back then.

i don't believe that the problem is the candidates faith, although it will determine who they appoint and what they do. i believe the honesty in their faith is what is more important. host: those of you who are regular washington watchers remember the name malcolm wallop, senator from wyoming, he died at age of 78. here is the associated press reported on that.

dead at the age of 78. as we heard on the outset, the super committee is scheduled its first closed-door meeting and little while from now and it comes right on the heels of senate minority whip john kyl who was concerned about the lack of real policy work. next is a call from asheville, north carolina. discussion this topic this morning is religion and presidential candidates and how it affects your vote. caller: i went to see a candidate not only openly talk about his faith but also how his face would guide his decisions in governing the country. whether or not i agree with him, i would like to see a candidate say i believe abortion is

wrong, i believe roe vs. wade was wrong, and that that decision should be returned to the states based on what i believe as a question. i would also like to see the candidate say i believe, such relative is wrong, and therefore, that is a decision that should be left up to the states. our constitution was founded by men of faith. the principles that are in the constitution come directly from their faith. and it has made this country the greatest country in the world, and all these people that complain if you are a christian you want to see people die, that is crazy. the people that founded the constitution were also active members of the church, active in helping the poor, disabled. that is what our country was founded on. this turning from god to

government has resulted in tyranny. having money taken from you at the point of a gun to give to someone else is tyranny. that is all i have to say. host: next is a telephone call from carson city, nevada. a democrat. caller: i am in total disagreement with your previous caller but i do not even want to go into that. religion is to be separated from our politics, i am sorry. instead of, when they open up the congress and they have some religious person saying a prayer or something, at this time in our history, i would rather see all of our representatives pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and not have our representatives,

who are apparently the employees of transnational corporations, so when they talk about the economy, they are talking about the world economy. there are no longer talking about the united states or the middle class. the middle class is being hammered right and left. as far as tax increases are concerned, i would like to see the top 1% pay of a tremendous amount of money. ever since they did deregulation -- well, the bottom line is this. and we were a constitutional republic, and then they did away with glass-steigel, the sherman act, the regulation, the regulation, so one and so forth, to where we are today, and in my opinion, we have turned into an unconstitutional,

corrupt, dictatorship for finance -- campaign financing. host: i am going to have to interrupt you. john on twitter. we are also posting this discussion on facebook. here are some of the comments on facebook. we are taking your calls for another 10 minutes on this question of candidates and their faith. hear from "the new york times"

in arizona boycott over their immigration policy. advocates are split over the boycott. the right -- they write -- next is a call from janesville,

wisconsin. sky on the question that candidate faith. -- scotty on the question of candidate and faith. caller: i do not let pay affect my boat. it is hard to believe them half the time anyways. -- affect my vote. host: so faith is not a factor for you? caller: not at all. the way that our government is set up, religion cannot affect the u.s. citizen. it is too hard to inflict a religious and you on someone in this country because we have a political system set up not to do that. >> host: the house of

representatives will be considering legislation about the growing south carolina plant and the action against them. there is a photograph of workers in south carolina. they want the assembly line moved back to washington state. mr. solomon pointed to statements by top executives made saying that there are past strikes to open up new production line in north charleston. but boeing officials say that low-cost was the reason they located to south carolina. they afl-cio president said the republicans' bill has --

the house is in at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. that is the main piece of legislation on the agenda for them. speaking of the economy, "the financial times." imf warns against world part of the economy. bankers and policy makers have sounded rising alarm on the arizona travails, saying that failure to coordinate -- back to your telephone calls. this next one is from atlanta on. ralph, republican. caller: society must always find

a balance between the helping those who are hurting, but not helping them until they are hurt. liberals tend to go on to that extreme. liberals have rewritten the commandments. they say that social " portion of government and -- were ship government. to me, they have taken religion to an extreme. they do not understand it. they twist it. first of all, bill clinton repeal of glass-steagall. please remember that. what is happening at these technical schools is getting people in chairs and they are dumbing down the education. they did it to make things better but their policies actually make the situation worse. it sounds so compassionate in

the beginning. all we saw at that debate the other day was passing responsibility. obama is penalizing people for not paying. there needs to be some level of responsibility or else society does not function. liberals do not have that good balance at all. host: from page of the financial times -- "financial times" is on the bp investigation. ed crooks writes the story.

from twitter, and our question about candidates and their faith, a phone call from florida. william is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. faith should not be worn on its sleeve in its true form, pick it up when you needed, drop it when you do not. everyone needs to stop crying about everything the democrats are doing.

[inaudible] and this question attack on the muslims all the time, first of all, we started on the western coast. i am glad to be an american but people need to stop crying about these christians and muslims and stuff like that. it does not make sense. better yet, look at what these so-called christians are doing to barack obama in the name of god. it is not funny. he does said high and sees us low. i do not think he would be pleased with this.

thank you. you all have a nice day. host: back to facebook. you can continue the discussion there. next is a call from lincoln town ga. -- lincoln town, georgia. this is al, calling on the republican line. caller: i think faith is a contrary indicator in this state. one of the most corrupt members of congress was a christian. the far right but behind him and

he won a primary runoff by 25 votes. two weeks later we find out that he was hiding $4 million in hidden debt. then in may, we found out that he was getting campaign contributions. later in the summer, when he had to sell his commercial property, he sold his building to a porno shop operator. then we have a public service commissioner, claiming to be a christian, helping children, and more recently, was found extorting tickets to sporting events. in georgia, is a contrary indicator. most of the politicians down here are more crowded than a barrel of fishhooks. host: tony asks --

pat is up next. st. augustine, florida. caller: thank you for taking my call. two things. the woman that said the government should be giving more to the poor people, that that is what god said -- no, god said that man is the keeper. god did not want -- christ did not want money coming from the government. priced wanted the money to be coming from individuals who could show their love that way. and for the candidates, if they want to announce their christianity, but do it in a way

that demonstrates how they have loved according to price to's planned -- christ's plan, -- i am sure some of them have, i have not paid attention. some have even mentioned christianity, but definitely, that it is in that person's life. thank you for taking my call. host: the conversation continues on on washington journal twitter paid. you can also join the conversation on facebook. if he did not herein yesterday, ruth bader ginsburg was one of those that was -- had to slide down an emergency chute after an

evacuation flight. she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer two years ago. the justice continued on her way to an event in california. and by the way, we will be covering that on this network. how were other segment this morning, we are going to look at the individual provisions of president obama's job planned, specifically the tax part, which is how he intends to pay for it. so we will take it apart and learn about how much money they believe they can raise for the country.

>> the bestselling author of "ab of the mind talks about her latest book on economics and economic pursued has helped people worldwide. she is interviewed on "after bird's." we will also continue our interview series as we speak with pressures from george washington university on their books about modern afghanistan and voter suppression. and michael more recounts his life from starting his own newspaper in the fourth grade to winning an academy award. he will also be our guest next month on "in-depth." get the complete schedule at booktv.org. >> in an election marred by a

moral scandal and political corruption, james blaine lost in 1884, but changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in the new weekly series "the contenders" live from the agusta blair house in maine. learn more about upcoming programs at c-span.org. watch more video of the candidates. track the latest campaign contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape. all at c-span.org/campaign2012. >> yes, i do.

>> what is it? >> it is open for debate but it has pretty much been proven recently that it allows the right to bear arms to individuals, citizens of the united states. >> right to bear arms? >> do you feel safer with a handgun? >> yes, i do. as a woman, i am automatically the weaker parts it. -- target. with a handgun, i would be able to defend myself a lot easier. >> if you are talking about a robbery, obviously, when they see a gun, they would not bother trying to rob you. >> that is one of the winners from last year's studentcam

competition. you can see all of the winners online. get more info at studentcam.org. host: we are back. our focus for the next hour is going to be taking the major provisions of the president's job plan that has to do with revenue-raising side, the tax increases he is proposing. let me introduce you to our two guests that will be part of our discussion this morning. on my left, michael ettlinger is the vice-president for the center of american politics. chris edwards is from the cato institute. thank you for being here.

i want to begin with what is the largest revenue raiser. president obama's plan to cap itemized deductions for high earners. the president says doing this will raise $400 billion, according to bloomberg news. the specifics of about this, the president planned to cap itemized deductions at 20% of income, and this would apply to individuals earning $200,000 or more and couples earning $250,000 or more. guest: we have a strange system of upside-down subsidies. people in the highest marginal tax bracket, 35%, when they take their mortgage interest deduction, they are getting a 35% subsidy from the government, 35% of their mortgage interest paid for by the government, and they are

getting the money in the form of reduced taxes. someone in the 25% bracket, or lover bracket, gets lower levels of subsidy. no one who is designing a subsidy for home ownership outside of our weird system would ever give higher percentage subsidies to wealthier people than middle income people. but the president is trying to do is double that. people in the 35% bracket, you do not get a hold 35%, you are capped at 28%. >> other countries --host: other countries, like canada to the north, do not give any subsidies. can you talk about where that comes from? guest: i think it comes from home ownership and the value of that. it has really become embedded in

our system. we have proposed a plan that reduces the level of subsidy, but it would be a real shock to the housing system to get rid of it in one fell swoop. i do not think that is on the president's agenda at all. what he is intending is, for the range of deductions, to arrange it so that it is not so perverse that. . host: considering the state of the housing market, people say that we do not need any shock to the system, we ought to be promoting it. guest: the way to help the housing sector is not to offer subsidies. that is that the troubled part of the market. this is not some disaster shot to the system. again, just getting rid of what is really a perverse subsidy. host: staying with the mortgage interest deduction, we will go

through other controversial debate on the itemized deduction limitation, but on mortgage interest, as a country, we have trimmed this back. why not make further limitations to it, specifically in the area of mortgage interest? guest: in the long run, i would like to get rid of all these credits and deductions and lower the tax rate over all. that would reduce distortions across the playing field. as you point out, canada and australia, countries like that to not have mortgage interest programs in place. home ownership is just as high. the president is proposing these deductions in his new bill and he is making the tax bill more complicated in that way, and is putting limitations on these deductions in the tax bill as well, which makes the tax

bill more complex. i do not like his or all policy. he should be reducing complexity and lowering overall rates. host: there are two sectors of the economy who are already looking at this provision and raising concerns about it. one is charity. "wall street journal" why this could be bad for charity. if they deduct less, they will give less. what is your response? guest: this is something that has been studied, and it does not really support that. the rich do give to charity. it is somewhat subsidized, but it is not the primary motivation. they still lose the money. i do not think that is a cause really for great concern. i think you do have to remember

that the changes in the tax code are paying for something. it is not just raising the taxes on a whim. if you look at the other side of the ledger here, the job creations that will be made, reductions in payroll tax, which is directly tied to creating jobs, when you look at helping the unemployed, all the provisions on the spending side of this, you have to look at it as a balancing act. on balance, there is no question, in my mind, that it is good for the country, could for most of the purposes that charitable contributions care about. host: today we are trying to understand the implications of how he intends to pay for his jobs bill. questions and comments in a few minutes. let me ask you to comment on the over all -- the president's

plan will stimulate jobs? guest: i am completely against every part of his jobs bill. he wants to put in place a temporary tax cut. companies do not hire people based on tempered breaks. they hire people based on looking at their long-term investments. if they build a new factory, they need new workers in that factory and a higher. even if a company would add a few marginal workers from this peril tax cut than they are proposing, wouldn't they fire them in one year once this expires? also proposing their brakes if a company hires people, they get a special $4,000 tax break. at the thought makes sense to me. the president complaints about business tax loophole but is proposing to add new ones to the code. we should focus on overall

reductions in the tax rate and making it more efficient. host: limitation on itemized deductions, two other sectors. comment on charitable deductions and its effect on giving. when there be one? guest: i think there would be an effect. that does not mean i would not get rid of it in terms of overall tax reform. charity deduction is probably less distortion era than the mortgage interest deduction. that causes hundreds of billions of dollars of extra resources to move into one industry, housing. we have seen the problem that that has created. charitable deductions, it does not create this distortion for one particular industry or activity that is really damaging to the economy. i would get rid of the charitable deductions in terms of overall tax reform. i do not see any reason to go picking on and right now.

host: the other item is health care. if deductions are limited to 20% for higher earners, here is what is being written on conservative blogs. if that happens, what effect would it have? guest: it would have a marginal effect. again, ultimately we want to get rid of the distortion that the tax code creates on the health- care industry. but i think we should do that in terms of overall tax reform. i think adding in these sorts of narrow limitations makes the tax code more complex and does not really reform the overall health care system. host: some people get breaks for health savings accounts and their health insurance premiums. what does it do to the health insurance economy? guest: it makes it easier for

people to get health insurance. again, what the president is trying to do, though, there is no particular reason why higher income people should give more help in getting health insurance than middle income people. i think in terms of tax reform, that is the objective. i agree, the tax system is complicated and it should not be made more taut -- complicated. i see it actually as kind of a down payment for other tax reform. you are starting to move to a more level set of subsidization, which is sort of where we end up with bigger and broader tax group. host: let me move on to another provision. this one has been getting a lot of discussion in financial newspapers. that is the president's plan to tax income of investment managers at individual rates and not capital gains rates. they propose that this will bring in about $18 billion of revenue. here is an item, for example, in

the "the new york times." raises some hackles among private equity executives. what is this all about? guest: basically private equity managers are able to really -- what is really their earnings, what they make for doing their jobs, as capital gains, and get preferential 15% capital gains tax rate except for the tax rate everybody else pays. it is simply preventing them from playing that game and prevent -- paying the same level that other people pay. guest: this is the so-called tax increase on what is called carried interest. a company structured as a partnership -- for example, venture capital -- the managers of these companies get usually 20% on the deal income, investment in company, and it is treated as capital gains income

and it is sort of a gray issue. it is a debate of whether this income is really labor income or capital income. the president would not raise very much money from this provision, and i think it is a little dangerous. companies that are organized like this, venture-capital companies, have been organized like this for many decades and they helped fund silicon valley start-ups like apple and other great companies over the decades. so i think we are playing with fire if we start hiking taxes on businesses that really our job creators in the economy. i would be quite hesitant to go ahead with that sort of tax increase. host: i wanted to put a couple more of the major provisions on the screen and you can send -- call or tweet. the next thing is about corporate jets. it has been quite -- part of the

political rhetoric. the president that a plan to raise $3 billion is to limit the tax breaks corporate jet owners. reading some of the chatter about this on the internet, people who are against it suggest it will do the same thing for the private plane industry that many years ago the tax changes for the boat industry did, which is the press it in a bad economy. guest: he would reduce the depreciation deduction for a corporate jet. this is an odd provision. the president, among his tax increases here, he reduces depreciation deductions not only for corporate jets but for various parts of the energy industry. oddly, at the same time, he is proposing to extend 100% expensing. he would allow certain companies to write off all investments first year on the one hand, but on the other hand reducing depreciation deductions for

certain other industries. so, his tax policies are directly contradictory. i am ultimately for businesses writing off their investments completely first year, which is called expensing. whether it is corporate jets or energy industry equipment, let us try it -- let them write it off the first year and i think we could increase investment in the economy. host: does it make sense to take both the corporate jets and energy provisions all in one? guest: first of all, again, it is a leveling of the playing field. without getting into the details, the corporate jets have sort of got and an access level of depreciation and so we are fixing that and raising revenue. yes, he is doing expensing as well, but -- the is the way expensing across the board which, again, that affects everybody. i think it is correcting some distortions while providing an

incentive to invest during this period where we are short on investment. people are arguing, well, it will hurt the jet industry. we could have the government by every executive in the country his own corporate jet and we would help the corporate jet industry. but it would hardly be a good use of dollars. again, i know we are focusing on the taxes, but the point is how this money is being spent and it is being spent in ways that would create many, many more jobs than frankly any would be lost in the corporate jet industry. host: before we get to telephone calls, let me ask folks to talk about the politics. speaker boehner bank is expected to give a speech in washington and we previewed that with a washington post reporter and jobs -- she suggested he would call for comprehensive tax reform, again, saying no new taxes as the deficit committee is under way. what are the politics of the president's provisions right

now. guest: the tax increases will not go anywhere in the house of -- house of representatives. the white house knows this. a lot of the tax provisions they tried to pass in previous years and they could not get through congress. the carried interest provision for venture capital companies, they proposed that way back into thousand seven by democrats and it went absolutely nowhere. so, i think it is just politics. the president wants to pretend he is being responsible with the budget. proposing revenue increases that make no sense for the economy. they have no chance of passing. i don't like the temporary tax cuts he is proposing, either. the jobs tax credits i don't think make any sense. i do not think it will cause companies to hire. i think we ought to look at overall tax reform, lowering the very high corporate tax rate, for example, would be good long- term reform and something that could also stimulate the economy in the short run. that is the type of reform.

host: this morning we see in the new senators such as mary landrieu are concerned about the energy provisions of the president's proposals. what are your thoughts on the politics? guest: to some extent i agree with chris -- i did not think the white house is when did it as the specific mechanisms be a way to pass a jobs package. there are focused what the -- on what they care about most about, and like they said, the super committee, has other ways to pay for, it is fine with them. i think the white house cares most about creating jobs. and i think they need to pay for creating jobs. and these are the mechanisms they put on the table. i do not think they are wedded to this particular mechanism. that said, senator landrieu is representing louisiana. she is representing energy

interests in this case and expressing that concern. i think with respect to those particular provisions, with what oil prices are today, i do not think the oil companies need added incentives to drill for oil. host: one more and we get to telephone calls. yesterday a conservative group put out a comprehensive list of all 14 tax hikes in the president's stimulus plan. it was appearing all over the internet in various websites. they also highlighted one which they said would raise $4.8 billion of the spectrum tax. a new $4.8 billion hidden tax on wireless consumers levied on users of license spectrum. do you know anything more about this provision? guest: it is sort of like saying the president can launch a nuclear attack on a whim.

yes, assuming all the checks and balances within government are completely ignored, the fcc could raise the tax. actually it is a pretty sensible policy. they are opening up a more of the electromagnetic spectrum and they are going to auction it, so i way to allocate among cellular companies. even if you assume that every dime of this tax is passed to sell phone users it is less than $2 per cell phone per year. and the money is in fact dedicated to being used for helping with the 4g build out and improving that technology as well as doing something the 9/11 commission recommended in terms of rapid responders, first responders, having a part of the spectrum of their own so they can better communicate in

emergencies. host: highlighted last week with the 9/11 emergency. your thoughts? guest: the bill just -- , and fcc to raise a billion dollars a year in cellphone users and spectrum users. again, another tax we don't need. i would also get rid of the subsidies we get to the telecom industry, at that we did not need the federal government to tax or subsidize the industry. it does well by itself. host: let's begin with telephone calls. let's begin with a call from chicago. this is carl, a democrat. caller: i would just like to say, i understand the president is trying to negate the president that a ferry that tax cuts of the solution to job creation. i would like to direct this, however, to mr. edwards.

if this is malfeasance that caused this recession that put some money but out of work, and the taxpayers who had to step up with tarp and the stimulus to get it stabilized. we have done it over the last two and a half years. i would like to know from you -- with business now making profits, now $2 trillion-plus in cash. what are they going to do on their part for the country without an incentive? why should we not expect -- they should step up. the american taxpayers stepped up. why don't they voluntarily step up? this past summer they could say we believe in america so we are not going to let someone else by our treasury notes to raise the debt ceiling, we will, to raise the money. when it is business going to step up and do something for merkel? guest: thanks requested.

i think you used the word malfeasance and at the leading up to this there was malfeasance of on the federal government's side and to an extent by wall street companies, malfeasance -- wall street companies. on the government side, subsidizing the housing industry, keeping the fed reserve interest rates too low for too long, causing sort of a bubble in the economy. so, there is a lot of blame to go all around leading up to the recession and financial crash. you are right now. i think a lot of american businesses, they are profitable. they are making money and sitting on a lot of cash. the question is, why aren't they spending and investing. if you look at the national income accounts for investments by american businesses, building new factories and structures, it is very low. it crashed a few years ago and it remains low. i would argue it is because of the environment out there is very uncertain.

the tax rates on business are very high and the united states. so, if you take big american corporations like caterpillar or intel, they could invest anywhere in the world these days. we want them to invest in the united states, so we've got to give them an incentive. we've got to make the united states the best place for these companies to invest. i think they will start investing. one of the things i talked about a lot is reducing our very high corporate tax rate which i think currently scared away investment by businesses. so, let's get those businesses investing again and they will hire people and they will create greater growth and reduce the unemployment rate. guest: a couple of things. i think that the way to get businesses investing again is to increase demand in the economy. the reason why they are not investing is not because of the corporate tax rate, the reason why they are not investing is they are not confident in --

that there is a market here in the united states. what we need to do is what the president is proposing is input more money and more middle-class families and so there is demand that the economy for the goods and services that corporations produce. we can keep going back to about cutting taxes which we have gone over and over, but it is important to remember that taxes as a share of the economy right now are at the lowest levels since 1960. we have gone into the recession with the bush tax code and we still have the bush tax code. president obama has cut taxes since he became president. president obama at this point, taxes have been cut more in this -- his first term than they were cut under president bush, just more targeted, to middle- class. so the idea that we will go to the tax cutting well again and that is the key to get businesses hiring and investing again is wrong. what we need to do is pass the

debt overhang -- housing crisis, get money in middle-class pockets, get customers back in the stores and create demand for the products of u.s. companies. host: let me single it out, corporate tax rates the united states has. on the republican campaign trail it has been an issue. can you both explain to our viewers what your understanding of the comparative american corporate tax rate is? guest: the rate is high but taxes are low. overall what u.s. corporations pay are not high, in fact, lower than other advanced economies. the tax rate is high. what we had is the situation where the rate is high but there are so many loopholes in the system that companies -- very big and profitable companies sometimes often end up paying no taxes. it is a system that i completely agree with chris is in need of reform, but the problem is not

the overall level of revenue. host: anything further to add? guest: we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world at 40%, tied to japan, an average rate in europe is 23% in the global average is around 25%. we are way above average. it means a big multinational who can invest anywhere, instead of investing here, paying 40% corporate tax rate, they can invest in china and get 25% rate, they can invest in canada. it makes no sense to me. we need to become more competitive and lower our corporate rate. host: we mentioned the deficit committee opens -- starts with a closed-door meeting today. as you wa a viewer -- correct?

guest: that is what i was getting at earlier, is that the administration has offered these as a way to pay for this, but they are open to other ideas that may emerge from the committee. host: california, good morning to holly. republican. caller: good morning. this jobs plan is, like everything else he does, ideologically driven. just two cases in point. by the way, god bless cato institute, one of the last bastions of common, decent thinking. taking away the deductions for donations. that just plays into a term that is used in 100 documents of this administration called to the federal family. he wants all help to come from the government. he wants all people to look to the government. as far as the people under

water, we have employees, we have a large business. our home is --being able to deduct a house that we have a underwater and everybody else like us that is making payments on a house that is under water, one of the last advantages we have is being able to deduct. once again, he is striking the people will have something, will have created something, who stand independent of the government. as far as the corporate jets, i wish that i had been able to use mine as often as michelle obama has flowed around the world at my expense in her separate flight even from her husband because she could not wait another two hours -- just god bless america and something has to be done about this juggernaut we have and the white house. he keeps saying the president's

plan -- these are the machine that put him in the white house. he is an empty suit but they are coming after the american way of life. that is their agenda. host: thank you for your call. would you like to respond? guest: in particular the caller made the point that this is an ideologically -- this is ideologically driven. i think one of the telling things about the job creation side of the proposal is everything about that plan is something that has been embraced by republicans at other points in time, and in fact, recently. the payroll tax cuts, it was the centerpiece of what the republicans were proposing as an alternative to the recovery act in 2009. the president has tried really hard to not make this proposal ideological, to make it something that might have a chance of, at least in part, passing muster with the republicans that controlled the house of representatives. because you have massive unemployment and we need to do

something about it. host: on corporate taxes, a tweet -- guest: i am not in favor of that. right now the united states has what is called a worldwide corporate tax system. u.s. corporations are taxed on their activity around the entire globe. a system of taxation just about what every other industrial country is moving away from. to tell you how would works -- if you are a subsidiary of a french country in brazil, the french government does not care how many profits you make in brazil. the french government assumes it is good for french industry. in this country if the u.s. can't -- company had a subsidiary in brazil would tax the money. i don't think it is a good system. i think we should follow the system and other industrial countries have gone toward, and that is to allow our

multinational companies to become competitive internationally and not to over- taxed them. host: let's hear some arguments from the administration on the president's tax proposal. here is the omb director. >> the may -- the way the limitation on itemized deduction works, if you earn $200,000 or $250,000 as a family, your itemized deductions or exemptions are worth roughly 28%. if you are in a higher tax bracket, it is worth 33% or 36%. all it says is the value of the tax deductions above that threshold should be it the same of the value at the threshold. we think it is a fair provision. we think it is the kind of balance of trade off. host: to hear a voice on the other side, let's listen to the economist martin feldstein. >> it uses the revenue to finance a new collection of

government spending programs, when we need that revenue from reduced tax expenditures to reduce future budget deficits and to lower marginal tax rates. second, as you know, the president would limit the tax expenditure reductions just to hire income taxpayers, those with more than $200,000 in income. but a long-term deficit reduction requires that everyone shared in that burden. if congress were to pass the president that a proposal to reduce tax expenditures just for higher income individuals, i think it would be very difficult to revisit that at a later time and to extend it to the entire population of tax payers. host: two voices in the continuing debate over tax policy. we have two at the table this morning.

we are taking your telephone calls on tax policies, specifically using the president's proposals in his jobs plan at our vehicle for discussion. a viewer from new york says -- replacing the income tax with a consumption tax? guest: it would really raise taxes on lower and middle income people a great deal and cut taxes for the wealthy a great deal. i think it would be very damaging both to most americans and i think it would be very damaging to the economy. guest: i am strongly in favor of replacing the income tax system which has a strong bias against savings and investment and economic growth in my view, and replacing it with a consumption tax. the consumption tax could be anything, like a national sales tax or the flat tax that steve forbes championed a decade or so ago. hall rabushka flat tax -- this

dollars that introduced it decades ago. the consumption tax would be simpler and in my view it would be pro-investment and savings and help of the economy grow more strongly. host: carl, watching us from san antonio, asked a question what you were commenting. i do believe there should be deduction for mortgage and charitable donations. guest: certainly it is one of the huge problems we have, is the weakness in the housing market. the housing market is not just about construction workers. new housing construction is a big source of energy for manufacturing. as many of the things that go into homes are manufactured -- when people buy a new home, they buy the new things that go into

a home. it is a very important part of the economy and one of the big reasons we are struggling right now. can i turn back to what chris was talking about multinational corporations? it is important to keep in mind that these big multinational corporations that chris is worried about are in fact the ones that are by and large paying the least it taxes right now because the fact that they can shift income back and forth across borders gives them a way to avoid paying u.s. taxes. in the u.s. system that chris began to describe -- he said the u.s. would tax the u.s. company on its income in brazil. that is true. but it gets a credit for any taxes it pays in brazil. so, it is not be double taxed at the benefit of that system -- which, i admit, it needs to be re-looked at, but the benefit is it takes away the incentive for businesses to move jobs in brazil because they don't get a

tax break. they pay the brazilian taxes but anything in excess of the brazilian taxes they pay, if they put the plant in the united states, they pay to the united states. host: the next telephone call is from massachusetts. dave is an independent. good morning. caller: these guys can't really tell you the truth because they might get fired. the truth of the matter is the biggest transfer of wealth from the port to the rich because of bush's patriot act. sitting here with the patriot act and having the technology go to the ridge where the bankers targeted the middle class and the poor. besides, the cato institute is the reason why this policy has been enacted. they were complaining about how all the companies were not able to do all of this business, and all of the sudden a tax breaks come in and we have tax breaks for 10 years. the disparity of wealth is

unbelievable. the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting richer, because the rich elite want to be as rich as the guys in saudi arabia but they are doing basically as same thing to the american citizens as those guys a doing their to the poor people living on $2 a day. ok? so, when you start putting people in jail as opposed to rewarding them for doing the things they have been doing -- you know, technology is a very double edged sword. when you use it for right, it usually works, but when you use it to manipulate or control the masses -- and that is basically what it is. that is why the whole world is having problems. host: i have to jump in. thank you. we understand your points. we turn to you for a response. guest: i understood very little of what had to say. he talked a little bit about the tax code and the rich and the port and seemingly blaming bush for everything. i must say that bush cut a

variety of taxes, and statistically, he cut taxes really across the board. we talked a little bit about some of these tax breaks that people at a higher income levels enjoyed, such as the mortgage interest deduction, but at the bottom end of the tax scales we have a number of credits that have exploded in recent years, such as the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. these have been expanded by both democrats and republicans over the years and have become enormously costly. so, we have a large amount of new tax breaks at the bottom end of the tax code as well in recent years. host: any comments? guest: no question the bush tax cut disproportionately benefit the most wealthy. host: two views of the present that a tax proposals of the nation's editorial pages -- two views of the president's tax proposals.

"the wall street journal" says -- and "the new york times" noted -- talking to our two guests about their views. host: will go to michigan. caller: i can solve all of your problems. i have come up with a new tax plan. it is so easy. host: we are holding on. caller: ok, there will be only one that loophole for charity.

we all know that at the end of the year, the rich figure out their taxes and get a bunch of money to charity in december. i think that should stay. as far as what they are talking about -- guest: we missed the planet. host: only one deduction for charity. guest: it is sort of econ 101. i go back to something interesting and earlier caller mentioned. it is important to have a large nonprofit charitable sector in the united states. it makes a difference. it does not just come from the

government, as it does in a lot of countries in europe. it comes from a very large charitable sector in the united states. americans, of course, are very generous. guest: i think we are not that far apart on this. it is useful, the effect is probably exaggerated by charities that are concerned about what the impact would be if they got rid of the deduction. i think they are overly worried about it. host: i have statistics from the center for american progress. these are numbers from 2010 and it tells us that tax revenues $2.2 billion while tax expenditures -- guest: within the tax code, there are many provisions that do not have anything to do with

the fair and equitable collection to run the government. it is a spending purpose. we call those tax expenditures because the purpose is more like the purpose of the government expenditure than anything having to do with the tax system. we just happen to implement it through our tax system. it does not make any difference whether the government since you a tax -- a check to help pay your mortgage or reduces the tax. what the statistics point out is that the tax expenditures have grown and grown. we are at a level of a trillion dollars. it is eating into the revenue we

collect. host: i would also like to show you the irs charts of 2011 individual income-tax rates. the tax rate is 10%. the next level is a 15%. 25%, 28%. those making $174,000 are taxed at 32%. those are the published tax rates. what is the real picture about what people paid? guest: listened to the rate schedule. it is very complicated. there are six rates under the current code. had an the 1980's, we bipartisan tax reform in 1986 that reduced the whole structure down to simple rate structure of just 15 and 28%.

the congress at the time got together and reduced a lot of these tax expenditures that michael talked about. and used the money to lower marginal tax rate and simplify the code. that is the direction of tax reform we need to go down the road of and to simplify the rate structure. host: mississippi, david, republican. caller: good morning. can you c.m.e.? -- can you hear me? we have tons of people in prison for taxes and i did not know we had a -- we have tons of the poor in prison for taxes. we cannot go after their bread. they can put all these little people in prison. you 05 thousand dollars and i

said, ok. he said, i just want you on the role. my idea is to put everybody in prison, give us three squares a day. get rid of all these corrupt irs people. he did read of all these organizations that destroyed the people. thank you. host: are there a number of americans who are in prison for taxes? test coat he indicated that the irs goes after a low income folks. -- guest: he indicated that the irs goes after a lull in, folks. the problem is across the income specter. you have all these refundable tax credits that there is an

enormous amount of cheating on. at the high end, it incentivizes people to avoid paying taxes. a tax reform with lower rates to reduce cheating across the spectrum. host: the debate over the tax cut -- bush tax cuts, this threshold has been 250,000 for couples. what is magic about those numbers? guest: i do not think there is anything magic about it. i do not think there is anything magic about it. i think it is at a level where, you know, the richest 2%. it is a wealthy segment of the population. people get upset -- they think

they are not rich and they do not feel rich. what is important to realize is the way the tax code works. people making 300,000 a year do not pay much more under these proposals that it everyone over 250,000. it is on their marginal income. you kind of forget the truly wealthy, and up having to bring in a swath of people that are a little below that to make it work. i do not think there is anything magic about that. guest: ibm for fairer taxes. i do not think we should penalize people at the highest earners in the economy mood generally are some of the most productive people in the economy. if you look at people who pay the highest tax rates, they are venture capitalist and doctors and people like that.

i did not think we should be punishing them. postcode our next call comes from mexico. -- host: our next call comes from new mexico. call " i find your position on carried interest amusing. you talked about high earners and productivity. i would like to point to a specific example. john paulson bets on the subprime crisis and he walked away with $40 billion. his share of that was $4 billion. he would pay 15%. his company, though one vehicle he used, abacus was a synthetic debt obligation.

this was simply a back. there was not any tangible property or anything involved. most recently, his hedge fund in 2010, he walked away with $5 billion. betting on betting in not having anything tangible called their is some how productive, i do not see it. i see the only way that you are really going to address these people who do nothing but make that -- bets is somehow capture their money in the tax system. we have been unable to do it otherwise. we are unwilling to reach deals with these hedge funds. host: just for the sake of time. guest: he seems to be -- he has an example that i am not familiar with about a high end,

person. i do not think that is the prototypical type of person who lives in the top end of the income tax spectrum. i think steve jobs is more of a typical example of someone who is in the highest earning part of the income tax spectrum. steve jobs or bill gates, they have done enormous things for the economy. i do not begrudge the making billions of dollars in the least. the current tax code will be punished as these people at the top. they pay a much higher tax rate than people in the middle or at the bottom. i do not think it does the economy any good to punish them more. guest: on to the current system, that is not true. -- under the current system, that is not true. people make a big deal about the bush tax cut on the bridge. it is punishing these people. here is the reality.

at the rate of increase of income of the richest one%, it is about equivalent of a one time 10 month payment for that. when you stack up against the metal -- the middle-class, it is a matter of we have to pay for these things, we have obligations as a country, who can afford to do it? a 10-month pay freeze for that class of people is a modest ask. host: here is a comment from a viewer. our next caller is from maryland, a republican. caller: good morning. what i wanted to say was in the history -- never in the history of our country have we cut taxes during the time of war.

and we have had two wars. we gave them a blank check. i saw a hearing they said bags of money was given out. yet we want to blame obama for everything. at least health care is helping people. money that was squandered over there did not help anybody. and they still hate us over there. i think it is sad that obama gets the blame for everything. host: we will go from -- go to a call from baltimore. you are on the air, a democrat. caller: my question is for mr. edwards. mr. edwards claims he wants a -- $8 million tax return -- a

million dollar tax return. i did not think it is fair. talk about charity. charity is not supposed to be deductible. it is supposed to come from your heart or your conscious. -- conscience. the american people pay for deductions. bank of america, they got a lot of top money for the government. host: thank you for your call. your response? guest: the caller pointed out some companies that apparently paid no taxes in the current

year. that is true. one of the problem with the corporate tax income system is that it has a very high statutory rate. companies do not pay any tax, perhaps they are not profitable. general electric, for example, did not pay any taxes last year. you have a lot of corporations, wal-mart has a very high tax rates. they pay an enormous amount of taxes. it is a very uneven system. we should go to a simplified lower rate system and that we businesses would pay more consistent, but reasonable rates year after year. host: businesses create jobs if people buy products. guest: i think he designed the obama plan. that is a big part of what the president is proposing. you have the payroll tax cut.

there is also the individual tax cut on the worker side. he extend unemployment benefits so unemployment workers are not forced to constrain their spending. he puts a lot of money into the economy by investing in our infrastructure and putting teachers back to work. this is not the time we really want to be laying off teachers. it is an excellent time to be doing what investments we need any way in terms of our national infrastructure, both expanding its and repairing it. interest rates are low, we had an idle work force who want to work. we have contractors who want the job. that is the president's plan and i think the caller has captured the spirit. host: we are only on the air for

two hours. the house is incessant -- the house is in session early today. that is their major legislation today. next call, missouri. caller: i would like to make a suggestion how we can create permanent jobs. i am a baby boomer, also a small-business owner. a lot of my friends and they're getting to the age where we are ready to retire, but we probably will not. the government should give us three extra years of credit toward social security. if you were 59, you can retire at age 62. it would make some of us in the incentive to retire and create jobs you are currently laid-off. how would you pay for this?

i have a number of employees who are ready to retire. they cannot because there -- their 401k's are down. guest: i think that is exactly the opposite of what you want to do. there is going to be a huge increase in the amount of people who are retired and fewer and younger workers to support them. i think in the long run, we should reform the social security system so that it does not encourage people to retire early. the courage -- the current system encourages americans to retire earlier than they should. in the future, the number of young people to support retirees will be dropping. that will create a large cost on young working families. we should reduce barriers to people working longer in their lives.

after all, people and their 50's are very productive and very knowledgeable and skilled people that we should keep in the workforce. guest: i do not think as a long- term plan that would be a good idea. but i propose the exactly -- exactly what you are suggesting, in the short term. there is not enough employment available. you have people approaching retirement age who are in a situation -- if they are unemployed, it is unlikely they will ever get a good job again. i think something like that right now would make a lot of sense. host: a tweet -- next call, cleveland, a democrat. caller: good morning. bush gave two tax cuts.

one was 2003 for jobs. $3.50 trillion was given to the republicans jobs creators. by 2008, we had 99ers. people ran out of their unemployment, which means that they were unemployed to 2007. i am tired of hearing about the republicans and job creators. where is the $3.50 trillion? that is taxpayer money. where is our cash? where is our jobs? somebody needs to go to jail. i am tired of the jails being filled up with the poor people

and the rich people are skipping away with all the taxpayers' money. you guys are not credible anymore. republicans are not credible. where is our money? host: thank you. guest: i'd probably agree with the callers that republicans lost a lot of credibility during the bush years. some of the tax cuts or important for economic growth. other tax cuts, like expanding the child credit, i do not think did anything for economic growth. i also agree with one of the prior calder's that pointed out that bush spent a lot of money on wars. that has damaged the economy. we spent over $1 trillion all of the last decade. that money was sucked out of the private-sector economy. it damages growth and job creation. bush made a lot of mistakes. unfortunately, president obama is making a lot of mistakes as well.

host: the number of people applying for unemployment benefits last week jumped to the highest level in three months. the labor department says weekly applications rose by 11,000. that included the labor day holiday when applications typically drop. in this case, applications did not drop. the adjusted value rose. applications appear to be trending up. the four-week average rose for the fourth straight week to 419,500. would anyone like to comment on that? guest: i think congress and the president are not very good at micromanaging the economy. president obama has tried everything to try to micromanage businesses and hiring and demand and that sort of stuff. it does not work. the government is not very good

at. we should focus on long-term reform. there is much more agreement of what we need to do in the long term. by putting in place long-term a firm like -- long-term reform, it would help in the short-term as well. caller: of good morning. this seems to be a very simple way of doing things. the marginal tax rate for the wealthy is around 36%. as a percentage of the total taxes that we pay, it is insignificant. when warren buffett says he pays 16% on average for his taxes, there is something wrong. somehow, we are going to take the marginal tax rate down to 17% in order to get rid of the upper end taxes. miraculously, all these benefits are going to occur. when you are earning money outside the standard paycheck,

there are all kinds of deductions that you can take. the average guy cannot even think about that. this is a ridiculous simple- minded think that all the sudden, we will get more revenue. it is idiotic and a waste of time. we need to get the tax rates back up to where they were. host: any comments? caller i think the caller is on to something. i disagree with chris that there is some miracle from lower marginal tax rates. i think we have a system that is a mess right now. i do not disagree with that. there are a lot of inefficiencies. some of the things that the president is proposing in its revenue base is to paper his jobs package starts to get at that. some of the upside down subsidies, and i think we need

to straighten out the tax system. i do not think we need to drastically lower income-tax rates. the wealthy invest and hire people because they can make a profit doing that. what is going to determine whether they will make a profit is not their tax rates. what will determine that is whether there is demand for the products and economy is going well. the key to that is a strong middle-class. that needs to be the focus of our tax system and of our economic policies in general. guest: i would like to comment. the colored race to the warren buffett comment. warren buffett -- the caller raised the warren buffett comment. in general, that is nonsense. that might be true for warren buffett in particular. if you look at the overall data from the congressional budget office in terms of overall federal taxes paid, the top one%

in the country pays a 30% tax rates. in other words, add up all of the taxes, the top one% pace 30%. look at the middle of the spectrum. they pay about 14%, according to the cbo. the tax rate at the top and are much higher than people in the middle and the bottom. there are exceptions, but those are the overall averages. host: let's give it $3.40 trillion in tax rates to the top 400 families and keep our fingers crossed? caller: again, i disagree with michael. people at the top end are the most productive, the most skilled and most knowledgeable. you're talking about surgeons and people like that. they already worked enormously hard to in the ad an enormous

amount to the economy and create jobs. they already pay a higher burden on other people. i think it is costly for the economy to burden them with additional taxes. guest: i do not think drawn money at them is the answer. i think it has been a tried and failed strategy time after time. in general, throwing money at them is not the answer. host: just a couple of minutes. caller: good morning. ok, why is -- when it is the smoke screen going to come down? our economy is not stalling because of taxes. our economy is suffering, a 15 million people out of work. it all boils down to these wto

treaties that we are giving our jobs away to china. this jobs bill has three more fair trade deals in it. why doesn't anybody address the real issue? if everybody that was working and paying taxes and 40 million were still working in the united states, we would not have a tax problem. thank you very much. guest: i think there is a distinction between a long-term trend and the immediate crisis. the reason the unemployment numbers are spiking this week, that is not because of jobs moving overseas. that is a long-term trend and we need to look at currency manipulation and everything that goes on in international trade and the problems that are there and the damage it has done to the u.s. economy. but we do have a short-term

cyclical problem right now that we need to address. that is really what the president's job creation program focused on. it is about getting people back to work. it creates a circle that people are back in their jobs, they are working, which creates customers and the store, which means businesses have more faith in hiring and investing will pay off for them. we can end up turning this thing around. one quick additional point, it is important to note that when the president started the policies, we were losing over 800,000 jobs a month. for the last 18 months, we have had private sector job growth. given the whole that we are in, that is not good enough. we are not where we are -- it does not mean that the president's policies have been a failure. you have to look at where we were.

host: we have time for one last caller. caller: i am tired of hearing these global companies referred to as americans. i pay taxes because i am a patriot. we are now going to pay higher bridge taxes. one of the reasons -- host: we are out of time. guest: the reality, most of this globalization has happened not because of government policies. it is because of the advance in technology, the lower cost of shipping them around the world. international trade has exploded because of freedom and the advance of technology. the trade deals or a minor

positive benefit in my view. globalization has been very positive. host: thank you to both of you. you have a good thursday. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] researched john paparacki, bishop of springfield, illinois. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, we come to you in prayer and seek your blessing on the united states house of representatives. because our vision of your goodness is clouded by thin we seek your light to guide us on your way. because we do not always listen as we should to your commands, help us to hear your word. because we often fail to think in accord with your wisdom we need your truth to encliten our minds. because -- inlighten our minds.

because your ways are not our ways, give us prudence and courage to follow your will. may we take inspiration from springfield's most famous citizen, abraham lincoln, who reminded us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. may we heed his call and follow his example. we ask you, dear god, to grant these prayers and lead us to the glory of your kingdom where you live and reign forever and ever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, congressman scott. mr. scott: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor bishop paprocki of springfield, illinois. he served as the archdiocese of chicago before becoming bishop of springfield. the good bishop is only known as the holy goalie, the man who saves souls and goals. bishop paprocki and i have played hockey many times. it's his heroics on the ice pale in comparison to his service to our community. in his years since joining the priesthood in 1978, he's shown a dedication to helping the poor and disadvantaged. he set forth to find the chicago legal clinic to assist

these struggling communities. his work is an inspiration to us all. i am lucky enough to call the bishop a good friend. thank you, bishop paprocki for joining us today. see you on the ice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, with more than 14 million americans unemployed, the irresponsible agenda of the national labor relations board is destroying more jobs. in april, there was a complaint filed against the boeing company. the protecting jobs from government interference act will promote today a positive environment for job creators by developing their businesses in the state that offers the best opportunities for job growth.

the new law will prohibit the nlrb from dictating where employers can relocate, shut down or transfer employment. i am proud of the leadership of the four freshmen from south carolina making a difference promoting jobs led by congressman tim scott of north charleston who introduced this legislation. and i'm grateful to be an original co-sponsor of congressman trey gowdy, congressman duncan and congressman mulvaney. this will provide the certainty of job creators to invest in the economy and put americans back to work. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. inslee: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. mr. inslee: mr. speaker, during our discussion of the federal debt we heard a lot of

discussion about threats to our children and our grandchildren's future. what we have not heard enough discussion about is another threat to our children and our grandchildren's future and that is the threat of climate change. we have seen the first bitter taste of this oncoming tsunami of change with seven inches of rain in three hours in virginia, with wildfires in texas that have been unprecedented in our nation's history. and now our current job crisis does not give us the luxury of ignoring this long-term threat to our children and our grandchildren's future. i want to alert members to a thing they can check on right now, the climate reality project, which is something going on until 7:00 tonight. climate reality project. if people are interested in what is happening to our country today around the country and the world, check out climaterealityproject.org. it's a bitter taste. let's keep our eye on that ball as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, last year illegal immigrants built 4.2 billion dollars from u.s. taxpayers due to a loophole with the refundable child tax credit. according to a new report, this rampant abuse has cost american taxpayers billions. that's just wrong. it's time to close this loophole. that's why i reintroduced really a commonsense legislation, h.r. 1956 that stops the child tax credit sham. the bill requires tax filers to provide their social security number to receive that benefit. with the dire need to cut government spending, i hope this simple fix gets a serious look as a way to stamp out waste, fraud and abuse. if you want to stop illegal

immigrants from duping taxpayers billions of dollars every year by fraudulently claiming this credit, call the white house at 202-456-1414. tell them to pass this bill right now. tell them that h.r. 1956 should be a top priority. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: mr. speaker, today i rise to draw attention to a september 8 "washington post" editorial written by the dean of the house, the honorable john dingell entitled "congress needs a fresh bipartisan approach." congressman dingell reminds us of a time not too long ago when members on both sides of the aisle worked together for long hours for months on end to solve the problems of the day. these were times when members

were rewarded less of a good media hit and more of a reward of the challenges that overcome the nation. today we face the critical challenge of getting americans back to work. this isn't a republican or a democratic problem, and the fix that will get folks back to work doesn't prefer one side or the other. americans can no longer afford the political games. i ask my colleagues heed the advice of our distinguished colleague. let's roll up our sleeves and get the check back on track. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. olson: mr. speaker, last week in this chamber the president challenged a joint session of congress to pass his jobs stimulus bill.

he promised the american people that it would be paid for. this week we learned that it will be 100% paid for through tax hikes on job creators. one small business engineering firm employs 100 people in a district i represent in pasadena, texas. the higher taxes proposed by president obama would not affect his personal salary, but higher taxes would severely restrict the funds available to him to pay employees while maintaining the reserved cash needed for monthly salaries. the result, layoffs. mr. speaker, tax hikes on job creators like pinnacle are simply not the solution. regulatory certainty and reasonable tax rates will do wonders for job creation. i urge my colleagues to stand with the job creators and reject this tax increase.

let's get america back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. walz: thank you, mr. speaker. in this chamber there's a lot of back and forth about who creates jobs and who doesn't. some suggested it's not government, only business or vice versa. it's both. how about the construction workers who built a federal highway so businesses can ship their product? that's how we work together. how about the teacher that works 14 hours a day to teach the next generation of small business owners? that's how we do it together. if they spent two years away from their wife and child to protect their democracy to expand their wealth? that's how we work together. personally i don't think we or the american people give a dang who creates the jobs. let's get to work for america. we don't have to set up here and pit the worker at a private factory against the teacher who teaches our children.

we all have a role to play in getting this country back to work. let's end the partisanship, work together and pass jobs legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama rise? mrs. roby: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. speaker. our military families are the heart and soul of our armed forces. recognizing dennis in for the rutger, alabama, there will be a spouse day. army husbands and wives will run an obstacle course, fly simulators to experience life as an army soldier. military families are a vital part of my district. recently i was in fort rutger and i was speaking to a soldier and his expecting wife was sitting next to me and with

tears in his eyes he said, don't worry about me. i'm ok. just makes sure she's ok. unnecessary defense cuts could change our military as we know it today and these cuts will not affect military operations as much as they could weaken vital support for military spouses and their children. regardless of politics, our military families must continue to have the resources necessary to serve in their support role as military dependents. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i have a great idea. let's pass the american jobs act. it cuts taxes, it invests in infrastructure and most importantly it helps small businesses be more competitive in the global economy. mr. himes: economists of all political stripes tell us this will create 1.9 million jobs and it does it in part by making sure that u.s. taxpayer dollars are spent on u.s. jobs by applying the buy american

provisions. mr. murphy: we should pass the american jobs act and take this simple idea that u.s. taxpayer dollars should go to u.s. jobs and go to every corner of the federal government. for instance, we could create another 600,000 jobs on top of the 1.9 million if we just cleaned up loopholes that allow for thousands of defense contracts to go to overseas companies. you see, rhetoric on the floor of the house of representatives doesn't create jobs. real now-focused policies do like the american jobs act and buy america policy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the palestinians are going to the united nations to seek some type of recognition as a state, but this decision should only be decided with direct negotiations with israel and palestine. the palestinians have rejected this proper process for peace and goes instead for the anti-

israel u.n. for recognition. one said if there was a u.n. resolution whose first clause was anti-israel and the second was the earth is flat they would pass it. the u.s. has come to this issue late. and even though it will object to the palestinian statehood through the u.n. in recent years the u.s. has given mixed signals. that's unfortunate. israel is our most loyal and friend and ally in the middle east. it will be a hallow lone voice of reason. it will show once again that the u.s. has little say in the united nations. however, the u.n. will -- this is yet another reason to cut u.s. aid to the u.n. we don't need to pay the u.n. to hate israel. they do it for free and that's just the way it is. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. christensen: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm very worried about our country. democrats and our president are calling on the congress to pass a jobs act. so our fellow americans who have been unemployed can go back to work, so teachers, firemen, police, can keep their jobs, so those whose incomes have dropped from more money to spend on their families. and ensure small businesses get the help they need. building the political will to do this requires not only patriotism, it requires compassion. after watching the tea party debate which some candidates said an uninsured person should be left to die and loud applause for capital punishment, i wonder if we can feel pain. people need to speak louder to drown out the voice of hate and strengthen the values that have always made the united states of america the greatest country in

the world. as my pastor preached last sunday, if we do, we will not wish our neighbor ill or do them harm. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. -- the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. scott: die direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 372 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 61. house resolution 372. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 2587, to prohibit the national labor relations board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment under any circumstances. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a

substitute recommended by the committee on education and the work force now printed in the bill shall be considered as the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and work force, and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one hour. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: because the oneble amendment submitted to the rules committee was not germane, and because the democrats chose not to offer any amendments at all, house resolution 372 provides for a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. the bill -- the underlying bill would amend the national labor relations act to prohibit the nlrb from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment beginning the date of passage. since the nlrb filed suit against boeing, i have been reminded of an old saying, a government that is big enough to give you-all you want is big enough to take it all away. what you see now is exactly

that. big government killing jobs under the guise of protecting workers. let me be clear, despite what opponents will say, this is not a union issue. this is a classic example of government overreach which will in the end destroy american jobs and encourage companies to look elsewhere in the world. with unemployment at 9.1%, and an economy which is best described as fragile, we do not have the luxury of being able to afford this action. plain and simple. my legislation will remove the nlrb's ability to kill jobs. the government, especially an un-elected board, does not need to be involved in the business decisions of the private sector. in fact, it cannot be. we already live in a country where our corporate tax structure is the second highest in the world, and we cannot add another strike against us. today the nlrb's overreach threatens 1,100 jobs in my

hometown of north charleston. let me say that again, 1,100 jobs already created and filled. who is to say tomorrow it does not preclude another company from looking to expand not just in south carolina, a state where the unemployment rate is at 10.9%, but anywhere in our country. this instability is the last thing our job creators need right now. once again, mr. speaker, i rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. this commonsense solution will help spur job creation and more importantly it will remove impediments to job creation. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and yes on the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

iam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this yet another closed rule. and even in stronger opposition to the underlying bill. the difference between the two parties could not be any clearer. while democrats continue to push for legislation that will create american jobs, republicans continue to attack american workers. after more than 250 days in the majority, house republicans have no jobs agenda. nothing. instead, they have brought forth job destroying legislation that could cost up to nearly two million jobs and they have voted to end medicare, cut social security, and slash medicaid. today sadly is no different. instead of bringing american jobs act to the floor, the republican leadership gives us h.r. 2587, the g.o.p., job outsources bill of rights. mr. speaker, it is no secret

that my republican colleagues detest the national labor relations board. they have made that crystal clear in the past few months with their amendments to cut the nlrb's funding and undermine its authority. but today they have sunk to a new low. the bill before us guts the very fundamental rights of american workers to fight for better wages and working conditions and it makes it easier for companies to outsource american jobs overseas. not a single hearing was held on this bill, not one. no objective assessments were done by the g.a.o. or the congressional research service. not even any evaluation on the impact on wages or job security of the millions of american workers who will be touched by this legislation. if this is the republicans' idea of a job creation plan, they are even further off base than i thought. i would like to think that my republican colleagues haven't thought through this -- haven't

thought through the wide ranging repercussions of this bill, but let me take a moment to educate them. companies in the united states are free to move their operations as they see fit, as long as it's not in retaliation for workers exercising their right to organize, demand better benefits, and safer working conditions, or ensure a full day's pay for an honest day's work. the plain fact is if a company is allowed to retaliate its its workers simply for exercising their lawful rights, every worker in every other state, including south carolina, will lose some of their fundamental rights. a year from now if boeing decides to move production from south carolina to china to retaliate against workers who try to organize a union, the nlrb would have no power to order those jobs be kept or transferred back to the united states. for many american workers today, the nlrb's authority to restore or reinstate work that has been unlawfully transferred,

outsourced, or subcontracted away from the workers' exercising their lawful rights is the only remedy they have to keep their jobs. by eliminating the power of the nlrb to order work be restored or reinstated, a c.e.o. may simply eliminate the work and thereby the worker. that c.e.o. may even explain to the work force that if he eliminated the work because the work that was --ing worker was pro-union. even worse h.r. 2587 would apply retroactively to any complaint that has not been resolved by the time of enactment, including the boeing case. this is a terrible, terrible, terrible precedent. congress has no business sticking its nose into an ongoing legal proceeding. we have no business changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. republicans have sent a clear message, if you want a c.e.o. of a fortune 500 company, you shouldn't have any rights in the workplace. for the millions of hardworking

middle class workers who are struggling to support their families and pay their bills, h.r. 2587 is a slap in the face. democrats will not stand idly by as this republican congress tries to dismantle the rights of american workers. american workers have fought hard and earned these rights. they have sweated and bled, and sometimes died to secure them. i am proud to stand with those workers and their families. i find it sad that this republican leadership, a leadership that routinely fights to protect tax loopholes for corporations that shift jobs overseas is now bringing this horrible anti-worker bill to the floor. i urge my colleagues to reject this far-reaching legislation and get back to work to bring real and meaningful job creation bills to the floor, stop this assault against american workers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time.

the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. a couple of comments i'd like to make on my good friend's comments. for one thing not a single union employee, not a single employee in washington state, puget sound in washington state has lost their job because of the newline of work being done in north charleston, south carolina. another comment that my good friend made had to do with medicare and what republicans are doing to medicare. let us not forget the fact that without any question the legislation that has the greatest impact on medicare and its funding for the future happens to be the national health care plan passed by the democrats where they stripped $500 billion, $500 billion out of medicare to pay for the debacle known as national health care. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. joe wilson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for three minutes.

mr. wilson: thank you, mr. scott, for your leadership. the protecting jobs from government interference act will prohibit the national labor relations board from dictating where private businesses can and cannot choose to create jobs. the legislation ensures private businesses across america will be able to promote job growth by making decisions based on the best interest of their shareholders and workers. that prohibits the nlrb from ordering employers to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment. it fosters a positive environment for employers to develop their businesses and the state that offers the best opportunities for growth and job creation. it's truly sad that this legislation must be created to counter the overreaching agenda of the job-killing nlrb. earlier this month the bureau of labor statistics announced that the national unemployment rate is at 9.1%.

this means over 14 million americans are without jobs. so i find it bizarre that in this climate of high unemployment the nlrb is attempting to destroy thousands of jobs in south carolina. in fact, as politico hags reported -- has reported, the 1.1 square foot building is built, i was there for the groundbreaking. i was there to be there for the topping out. already as my colleague, congressman scott's pointed out, 1,100 people are employed today. another 8,000 people will be employed across the state of south carolina. this is not a hypothetical issue. it is a completed plant with jobs, with families at risk today. this year my birthplace has served as the center of this controversial ruling by the administration that a large manufacturer's created jobs across the country cannot relocate. this is not -- this is now

unprecedented. the boeing complaint is a threat to all right to work states, not just south carolina. the nlrb is chasing jobs overseas. being a right to work state means employers and employees in those states can choose for themselves whether to join a union. the nlrb complaint against boeing is really without merit. it falsely indicates that boeing transferred work of the 787 dreamliner assembly from washington state. however, not a single union employee has lost a job due to the decision to locate a new second line for 787's. the nlrb efforts may have unintended consequence. with the legal theory of business cannot expand from a union state to a right to work state, business will get the message, never locate in a union state in the first place. the only state's location is to establish a business in a right to work state. i applaud the proactive efforts of congressman scott in interduesing the bill. i want to thank the --

introducing the bill. i want to thank the chairman of the work force committee, john kleine -- john kline, and congressman phil roe of tennessee. i urge support by my colleagues. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: i'd remind my friend from south carolina that he and every single republican in this house voted for the republican ryan budget which basically destroys medicare as we know it. vullchurizing the entire system. it is his party's leading presidential candidate right now who is advocating eliminating social security. and now we have a bill on the floor that my republican

friends are supporting that will make it easier and more likely that u.s. corporations will ship u.s. jobs overseas. i mean, stop the assault on american workers. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes that my colleague from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i just want to point out and clarify a few of the points that have been made here this morning. regarding the boeing case and this is a clear overreach into the decision of the national labor relations board. the national relations labor act in section 7 establishes the basic right for employees in this country to self-organize, to join, to form and to assist labor organizations. the boeing workers have been organized with and by the machinist union since the 1970's. there's been a long and good

relationship there. the union and the employees at boeing were trying to exercise their basic section 7 rights. however, the management of boeing, which is a good company but clearly in this case the management of boeing committed an unfair labor practice by threatening the employees that if they exercised their rights under section 7 they would move the work out of washington, out of prugette sound and relocate it down to south carolina which they did. the -- puget sound and relocate it down to south carolina which they did. this is the only decision that the board could possibly come up with under the law. we are a nation of laws. you may not like the result but like it or not workers in this country have a basic right to join unions. i know that is not a popular idea lately. however, in this case i completely support the board's

actions. i any they followed the law, and i rise in strong opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill and i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this bill. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. phil roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank you, mr. speaker. i i rise in strong support of america's job creators, the rule and h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act. what this bill does is simply amends the nlra which was passed in 1935 and prohibits the national labor relations board from ordering employees to relocate, shut down or transfer employment under any circumstance. in other words, it allows managers to make business decisions that are in the best interest of their company and

their employees. let's just give a cliff notes' version of this. boeing is a good company. i visited that company in washington state. i also visited the plant in charleston, south carolina. what happened was they moved a second line of business there. the union -- the machinist union disagreed with that. lodge 751 lodged a complaint. what the nlrb is supposed to be is an impartial referee. it's like a basketball game. when you go into a gym you expect the referees to be fair to both sides. and to my friend on the other side, you have a right, the nlrb overseas elections, but you have a right as an employee to vote for or against a union. you have both rights. what about the people who work in south carolina? the company has invested over $1 billion to create good-paying american jobs. one week ago today the

president of the united states stood right where you are and made a very eloquent speech about job creation. but i guess it doesn't count or matter in south carolina where those 1,000 jobs, 1,100 people are working. it's not a very complicated issue. a company should be allowed to move within the borders of this country. i was raised in a union household. my father belonged to the union. he lost his job several decades ago to a foreign country. so i know what that's like. i'm very pleased that the people in washington state have added jobs, not lost jobs out there. so i believe that this absolutely is an egregious overreach of the nlrb. i encourage my votes to vote for the rule and for this very important piece of legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield 30 second to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i just want to respond to those statements. it is a simple case, i agree with that part, and boeing is a good company, good american company. but in this case if you read the facts of the case their management made multiple threats to the employees that if they chose to exercise their rights as employees under the law that they would move the work away from puget sound and locate it in south carolina and that's exactly what they did, that's exactly what they did. you can manage a company but you cannot use your management rights to trample the rights of those basic employees. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts' time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i'd certainly love to hear a single case, a single specific comment, a single specific fact to support your comments.

mr. lynch: will the gentleman yield? mr. scott: no. mr. lynch: i don't have time. mr. scott: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, is recognized for three minutes. mr. duncan: i rise in support of the rule and the bill. the boeing company, which operates a huge manufacturing plant in puget sound, has built a new production line for the 787 dreamliner fleet in south carolina. there's been no coinciding layoff at the puget sound facility. in fact not a single job was lost in the state of washington as a result of boeing's decision. on the contrary, boeing has add an additional 2,000 jobs in puget sound since that time. yet, the national labor relations board decided that boeing was harming the labor unions in washington, so they

made this unfortunate decision. no department or agency of the federal government has ever told any business that it could not or even should not move from one state to another without demonstrating the type of violation alleged in its case. for the national labor relations board to tell boeing that it cannot move from washington to south carolina with no substance of evidence of anti-union hostility is unprecedented. dick at that torial power grab that makes people wonder if we still live in a free country. if the shoe was on the other foot, mr. speaker, if the majority conservative on the nlrb told one to move to a nonunion state to a heavily unionized state those opposing this would be screaming to high heavens. this will stifle economic growth all across this nation and could cause more american companies to go to other countries or discurminging businesses from moving here in

the first place. i'm those who created the nlrb could never have imagined that a future board would make an extreme radical decision such as this. the nlrb was not set up to be a one-sided, unfair, biased agency that was set up just to protect unions. it was and is supposed to be a fair, impartial, nonpolitical ash terror between labor and management, business and unions. every member who represents a right to work state such as my state of tennessee should be very concerned about this decision. boeing had a 39 base strike in 2008 that cost the company an estimated $2 billion. the c.e.o. of boeing commercial told "the seattle times" last year we can't afford a work stoppage every three years and we can't afford this continueed rate of escalation. a poll showed 82% -- can i have

30 seconds more? mr. scott: i yield 30 second, sir. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized 30 second. mr. duncan: 82% of the american people believe it's very hard or somewhat hard to find a job. now, unelected power manned bureaucrats at the nlrb who don't have to worry about their jobs have made a decision that will stifle job creation and business growth and expansion all over the country. we should pass this bill and overturn this short-sided decision that could protect jobs in washington but ultimately hurt working people all across this nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to make it crystal clear that this republican bill does not protect or create jobs. what it does is it forces american workers to fight over existing jobs by giving up their legal rights and underbidding each other. this is about a race to the bottom. you know, the problem i have with my republican friends is

their economic policies are all about lowering the standard of living for working families in this country. you know, we should be trying to increase the working standards, the living standards for american workers, and i would also say that rather than bringing up a bill that makes it easier and more likely for companies, u.s. companies to -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: rather than bringing up a bill that make it likely to send u.s. jobs overseas they should be bringing to the floor the president's jobs bill that he talked about here in the united states congress, putting people back to work. he came up with a series of bipartisan initiatives that will help stimulate, jump-start this economy. and rather than doing that which would put people back to work we are debating an anti-worker bill that will make it more likely that u.s. corporations will ship u.s. jobs overseas. it is wrong and i would urge my republican friends to stop your assault on american workers. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just say to my good friend, mr. mcgovern, that there's no doubt about it, no doubt about it that the president's jobs plan does one thing and it's consistent with what the nlrb would do as well. it doesn't simply shift american jobs overseas, it shifts american companies overseas so they do not have to play in the market called the regulations that this president and the federal government has imposed on businesses. we simply -- to quote the conservative "chicago tribune," the nlrb's worst decisions, however, is the unprovoked hit job on boeing. there is no question that whether you're a conservative or liberal, whether you are a passionate believer in the future of this nation and this world, here's one thing we have all in common. the decision for the nlrb to attack america's greatest and largest exporter is wrong and

indefensible. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my colleague. mr. speaker, we spent several weeks back in our own districts and i had a chance to talk to a lot of folks and a lot of my democrat friends. i do have some of those. always asks me, why can't we agree with the president? why can't we agree with what the president said? i get a joy to look, exactly what the -- look exactly what the president says. what do we know what the president has said? the president said in this very room last week that he was for jobs. that's what boeing is doing. nlrb is fighting them. but the president has said he's for manufacturing jobs. he said that he's calling for all of us to come together, private sector industry, universities and the government to spark a renaissance in american manufacturing and help our manufacturers to develop cutting edge tools. that's exactly what boeing is

doing and exactly what the obama administration and nlrb is fighting, mr. speaker. what else is the president for? he's for exports. he called on us to double our exports. in fact, he said and pointed out correctly. 95% of the world's customers and the world's fastest growing experts are outside our borders. we need to compete for those customers because other nations are. we need to up our game. and that is exactly what boeing is trying to do in north charleston and exactly what the nlrb is fighting right now. what else did he talk to us about? he talked about how important it is to have jobs here. last thursday night in this very chamber he said, and we're going to make sure that the next generation of manufacturing not take place in china or europe but right here in the united states of america. that's exactly what boeing is doing in north charleston. they could have opened this plant overseas. in fact, in hindsight, given the treatment of nlrb maybe they should have. they did not. they chose to have jobs in

charleston, south carolina and the nlrb is fighting them at every step. why are we here, mr. speaker? we're here because the president's words doesn't match his actions. we're here and we're not agreeing with our colleagues across the way because they are not backing up what they say with what they do. if the president would do the right thing and do what he did last week, he rolled back, give credit where credit is do, he rolled back the ozone emissions. he could do the exact same thing at the end of the day of the nlrb action against boeing. but since he won't, since he won't match his words to his actions we must pass this rule and we must pass this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, reserves. and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized. . . mr. mcgovern: i yield two midgets to the gentlewoman from ohio who believes it is wrong

for republicans to pass legislation to make it easier to ship jobs overseas, ms. sutton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman for the time. mr. speaker, it is no secret that the american people are very concerned about the failure of house republicans to help the american people get back to work. but, mr. speaker, it seems that we may have it all wrong. it turns out that house republicans have been working to create jobs, just not here in america. while the american people are suffering, h.r. 2587 gives big corporations which are already slush with profits and tax breaks yet another free pass to take jobs from hardworking american men and women and ship them overseas. without the support of the national labor relations board, to help working families get a fair shake, we can only expect to see more layoffs, lower wages, and a bleaker future for

america's middle class. instead of stripping power away from the nlrb to ensure the rights of workers are upheld, and handing it to corporations to bust unions and outsource jobs, we should be working to create good-paying jobs right here in america. right in ohio. we should be working to level the playing field for the american worker who are the best, hardest working, most innovative workers in the world. it is time that the republicans join us in that fight and it's time they join us in voting no on this rule and on this very bad legislation, h.r. 2587. stand up for the american worker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio yields back her time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. my good friends on the left continue to talk about shipping jobs out of america.

i want to make sure that everyone still recognizes the fact that the great state of south carolina is still a part of the united states of america. and in fact, when you think about it, you must scratch your head when in fact the washington state employees now have more people there working than they had when we opened the plant in north charleston. in fact, if you are talking about creating american jobs and american states, u.s. states, called south carolina, you would simply look at the fact that 1,100 employees have been hired in north charleston. you think about the fact that the compounding impact of those jobs in north charleston could create up to 12,000 new american jobs in our states. so the policy of the left is nothing more than rhetoric. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. jeff duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, is recognized for

three minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, i rise today in support of h.r. 2587, the protecting jobs from government interference act that would end the funding for nlrb's lawsuit against boeing. i'm an original co-sponsor of this legislation because i believe that what the nlrb has done to boeing and to the people of south carolina is one of the most egregious bureaucratic abuses of power that this administration has perpetrated. and with this administration, honestly, that's saying something. earlier this year the nlrb decided that it had the power to tell a company where it could move. what it could build, and how much. whatever you think of the nlrb, whatever stance you have on big labor and labor unions, would you ever think that our government would consider such an unconstitutional power grab? in the midst of this great recession when our number one focus should be on creating jobs, the nlrb is trying to stop

an american company from building american airplanes with american workers, south carolinians right here in america. during a recent congressional hearing, one of my colleagues from south carolina, he asked the head lawyer of nlrb if he knew of a single union worker who had lost their job because boeing decided to expand production in south carolina. nlrb's lawyer did not have an answer. but if nlrb win this is lawsuit, listen clearly, america, if nlrb win this is lawsuit, the decisions will be made not whether to locate in a union state or right to work state, decision american companies will make will be about whether to continue production in the united states of america or take those jobs and that manufacturing process to another country. that is the hard reality of what nlrb is doing today. i ask my colleagues to join the south carolina delegation and america today in standing up for

freedom, standing up for the right to start a business, standing up for american jobs, standing up to the bullying tactics of an out-of-control bureaucracy. mr. speaker, let's pass this bill. let's pass it right away. this is an actual jobs bill that you can go and read. this is one that we can pass right now. we can pass this bill today. and we can get americans back to work. i yield back the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, yields back his time. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott, has 11 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, has 18 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let there be no mistake that the republican bill creates open season for c.e.o.'s to punish workers, for exercising their basic rights. my friends on the other side fight tooth and nail to protect all these corporate tax loopholes that actually encourage companies to move their jobs overseas.

we can't touch them. they might with passion on the floor to protect them. but when it comes to protecting american workers, they are awol. i don't know what it is that they have against american workers, but this bill undermines the rights of american workers to be able to stand up and ask for a decent wage, for an honest day's work. it undermines their ability to ask for benefits like good retirement benefit. this is about taking away rights and powers of workers. granted these workers don't give big tax cuts, they are not the leaders of the fortune 500 companies, but these are the people -- these people are the backbone of our economy. we should be standing up for american workers in this congress. we should be fighting to protect american jobs to keep them in the united states. this bill makes it easier, in fact, more likely that corporations and companies will retaliate against workers who stand up for their rights by

sending their jobs overseas to places like china. why in the world are we doing this? we should be trying to find a way to empower workers in this country. it shouldn't be about a race to the bottom. and it shouldn't be about states competing for existing jobs. this is a bad bill. this is a bad precedent. and quite frankly, again, it is typical of what the republican agenda is all about when it comes to the economy. it's about a race to the bottom. it's about lowering the standard of living for american workers while protecting this big c.e.o.'s, the heads of the fortune 500 companies. their rights are always protected, but when it comes to the little guy, my republican friends are on the opposite side. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott. mr. scott: mr. speaker, we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina reserves. mr. mcgovern: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman

from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman. let's be clear, let's talk about south carolina for a second. no one has mentioned this. south carolina is a right to work state. what does that mean? it guts the ability of workers to organize and to form unions. to fight for higher wages, and safer workplaces. why do you think boeing was going to south carolina? because they thought it was going to be worse for them or better for them? a right to work state that guts unions. that's why they went. millions of americans are working today and they are looking for work, they are struggling to keep their homes, they are out of work, they are not working, yet we are debating legislation that tries once again to eviscerate unions, accelerate that race to the bottom. this bill does nothing to create

good well-paying jobs here in america. it guts the regulatory powers of the national labor relations board. it legalizes run away shops. it allows companies to fire employees trying to start a union. it's a right to work state. and actually makes it easier to ship jobs overseas. none of this is what our economy needs right now. it's like what we have seen from republican governors in states like wisconsin, ohio, indiana. this legislation represents yet another front in the majority's ideological assault against workers' rights across the country. i represent a community with a right to organize was hard won, at the dress shop where my mother sewed collars for pennies, at the gun factories, the aerospace industry, the government offices, and the great universities of my state. the families of my district know from hard-won experience that labor unions fight for employee rights, higher standards,

greater equality, security in work and retirement. they help ensure that workplaces and politics are driven by the dreams and the aspirations of working people, not by corporate power and the narrow agenda of the elites. unions were instrumental in forming the broad based middle class in this country, and thanks to decades of systematic efforts to guide their rights, as well as misguided trickle-down policy that never do trickle down. union membership has fallen in our country. middle class workers have been squeezed. their wages have stagnated, their benefits cut, their job security weakened, their wage and protections have been violated, and all the while income inequality has steadily risen in this nation to the point where even over 15% of the population today lives in poverty, 1% of people now make 23% of income in america. this republican majority's trying to go with the killing blow.

they want to make the bogeyman the nlrb. the board's function is only to defend that right that we consider fundamental, the right to form a union. the right to be represented by that union in dealings with employers. and the right to be free from retaliation from doing so. the board -- can i have an additional minute? mr. mcgovern: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional minute. ms. delauro: the board also enforces laws that protect employers and third parties against practices by unions considered to be unfair or harmful. in fact, nlrb's structure was amended to meet republican concerns in 1947 by the taft- hartly legislation. place disputes, nothing radical about the nlrb. what's rad cal is the anti-union measures this majority continues to try to foist on the american people. they try to slash funding for the nlrb. tried several times to repeal

davis-bacon. they are trying now to severely limit workers' rights to organize collectively. the bill is not a serious attempt to restore jobs, economic growth, or address the deficit. it's about marginalizing the labor movement with the capacity for working people to find fairness in the workplace. it will harm middle class families already dealing with the tough economy. itlogical grease the wheels for companies to move jobs overseas. i urge my colleagues to stand with american workers and vote against this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from connecticut's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. scott. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield 90 seconds to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, is recognized. mrs. black: thank you, my colleagues, from being is something, for yielding time. i'm here today as a member of right to work state and a co-sponsor of this legislation to speak out against nlrb's actions against boeing