the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239. and the nays are 167. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois -- the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? mrs. biggert: madam speaker, i ask permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will come to order.

the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: thank you, madam speaker. on roll call number 857 i was unavoidably detained and had i been present -- the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. will the members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: madam speaker, on roll call number 857 i was unavoidably detained. had i been present i would have voted no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady's statement will appear in the record.

for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, november 22, 2011, when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 1:00 p.m. on friday, november 25, the year, 2011. and when the house adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on tuesday, november 29, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lobiondo: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3321, with senate amendments thereto, to that end, that the house concur with the senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 3321, an act to facilitate the hosting of the united states of the 34th america's cup -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey.

mr. lobiondo: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed. without objection, the original request is granted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the chair will entertain requests for one minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, as the largest manufacturing district in the country, and as part of a jobs plan that i think is important for our country, i'm focused on manufacturing throughout not only the country but specifically illinois' 10th congressional district. mr. dold: that's why i have been focused on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education, or stem. so that those that are currently unemployed are those students who will be entering the work force can learn new skills and go on to the field with good,

high-paying jobs. in my district, i'm working with high schools and manufacturers on recruiting students to go into stem fields. we are working on connecting students with manufacturers, who are looking for employees. i want to recognize the efforts of madusa consulting, illinois work net, and manufacturing careers incorporated for their leadership in bringing the manufacturing jobs fair to district 214 field house in arlington heights this upcoming december 5. i want to encourage my colleagues to support stem education and to work with their local businesses on hosting these important jobs fairs and manufacturing workshops. this is absolutely critical if we want to get america back to work. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one minutes? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the house will be in order.

ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. one of the reasons that i rose to the floor of the house to oppose the balanced budget amendment, and i hope the american people and our colleagues can see the value of a vigorous debate. i applaud the rules committee for allowing us the time to deliberate on the issue of a balanced budget amendment. it's for the very reason that my good friend and colleague just spoke about, our young people and opportunities for jobs. i join him in finding pathways for young people to be transitioned into jobs and others into jobs along with a college education. the north forest independent school district, a small school district in texas designated to be closed by governor perry, texas education, agency is trying to do just that. to have job training, to have partnerships with the houston community college, and i congratulate mr. ivory ahorn for getting some 7,000-plus signatures to oppose the closing

of this school district. a high school that is on the verge of training individuals in the trades and the skills of manufacturing and then bridging them on to community college and then on to college. we've got to recognize that we've got to build the human resource and a balanced budget amendment ignores the needs for protecting medicare, social security, and medicaid, but investing in our children, providing them with the opportunity and -- for jobs. working with this congress to invest with human resources. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, i rise at that honor the 150th anniversary of weld county, colorado. weld county takes its name from lewis led yard weld. weld was appointed by president lincoln as colorado's first territorial secretary. on november 1, 1861, the colorado territories general assembly officially organized

weld county. this november marks 9150th year anniversary. as with most western settlements, weld county had a sparse population. mr. gardner: today it's got over 250,000 people. from a humble start as an area based on coal mining, it's flourished with a thriving business sector and agricultural economy. it's the th leading agricultural county in the entire united states and only county outside of california ranked in the top 10. from small businesses, great land more farming, weld county is also home to the university of northern colorado and the uponee national grass lands. it's home to over 19 different towns, each one with a unique identity that makes this area distinctiony. . it's home to thriving interest and some of the nation's leading pioneers. one of my favorite events every year is the fourth of july greeley stampede and parade. it reminds me what it means to call colorado home. it embodies everything that is great about heading west. and i am proud to recognize their 150th anniversary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise?

ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, with thanksgiving approaching, let us think about our fellow americans and ask ourselves the question, what we can do to serve them this coming week and into the future. you know average incomes for americans for the average family has gone down about 6.7% and we know poffer rates have risen 15%. for all those listening today as we look across our country think about what you can do this week and every week to help our food banks that are short on supplies across our country. every class, every religious organization, every person can do something extra to help this week to give every american a good thanksgiving. think about how you can help a local feeding kitchen. think about how you might challenge your sports team to go green in the fields and collect if you live in the part of the country that agriculture exists, the extra cabbage and apples

that will be there and plowed under if you don't pick them. across our country this is a year when americans can say to one another, happy thanksgiving, we believe in you. we want to help you through these difficult times. it reaches the true heart of the american people. who know what's right to do. and let's give every american a happy thanksgiving. every day. god bless america. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. murphy: mr. speaker, this week speaker boehner announced a bill that will be introduced soon to congress to deal with our jobs issue. it's not one that raises taxes. it's not one which is going to add to the deficit. it is the american jobs and infrastructure and energy act which will be introduced soon. it is an act that is related to that i presented to this chamber for several years in a

bipartisan move to get america back to work. instead of importing $129 billion worth of oil every year and sending them, it uses our oil off our coast to create jobs. our infrastructure in america has a $2 trillion price tag to repair our roads, highways, and bridges. we also still have 14 million americans out of work and another 10 million looking for work. it's time america got back to work and we can do it with this bill. i urge all my colleagues to -- make sure their part of this bill when it comes ut a enget americans back to work and rebuild america once again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further one minute requests? . under the peeker tissue speaker's announced spoil of scran 5, 2011 the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus is recognized for 60 minutes of the -- as a designee of the majority leader.

mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i come down to the floor once a week to talk about the high level nuclear waste issue in this country and the fact that this country still doesn't have a sing real pozzer to to store high level nuclear waste. throughout this week, i have talked about hanniford, washington, that has high levels of nuclear waste. i went to zion nuclear power plant, right off lake michigan, to talk about its nuclear waste right off its waste. -- right off the lake. i went to savannah, georgia, to talk about the plant that sits right next to the river. i went to the pacific ocean between los angeles and san diego, where there's a nuclear power plant right on the pacific ocean. today, i take the nation to

idaho, for idaho national -- where idaho national laboratories is located. comparing this site as i do weekly to the defined location under federal law in the 1982 nuclear waste power act, yucca mountain. look what we have at idaho national labs. at the national labs we have 5,090 canisters of nuclear waste. ewe ka -- you ka mountain, none. at idaho, waste is stored aboveground and in pools. at yucca mountain, waste will be stored 1,000 feet from the surface of the ground. at idaho, the waste is 500 feet above the water table. at yucca mountain, waste is 1,000 feet above the water table. idaho national labs, 50 miles

from the national park, yucca mountain is 100 miles from the colorado river. why is it important to address these issues? there are nuclear plants not including nuclear waste at defense labs, d.o.e. labs and the like. what this country needs to understand is there's nuclear waste all over the place and next to major population centers and next to major water reserves. what i've also done in coming down hoar is highlighting how do the senators from the states that surround the idaho nuclear lab, what are their positions? and their positions are as follows. senator borasso from wyoming is a supporter of yucca mountain and has stated that the end

result of this is a five-foot-long, 25-foot-wide hole in the nevada desert, meant to store nuclear waste but instead it stands as a monument to government waste. the other senator said president obama promised change. i am dispointed that his yucca mountain policy ignores that campaign promise. mike crepo from idaho voted yes for yucca mountain and he's disappointed in the administration and the new north from idaho, senator rich, says the president's decision to kill the nation's congressionally directed repository for high level nuclear waste as a favor to one state is politics at its worst. the administration's decision to undermine their commitments to idaho and 33 other states

with no clear alternative cannot stand. this has become a hallmark of this administration, first with the guantanamo prison site and now yucca mountain to jump without knowing where they're going to land. so the other thing i've been doing is highlighting, as i've been taking the country through the high level nuclear waste areas around the country, where are the senators based upon their past votes or current statements? right now, we have 17 narts in support. we have three in opposition, and we have four which really have no defined position as of yet. senator feinstein, of course, has spoken in opposition to yucca mountain but with fukushima daichi and the fact she has nuclear power plants on the shore, i think she's re-evaluating. we need 60 votes in the senate to move forward and finish the science on yucca mountain so

that by federal law, yucca mountain becomes the single repository for high level nuclear waste in this country. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair reallocates the balance of the majority leader's time to the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: in hosea 4:6, gd says, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. because you have rejected knowledge, i also will reject

you as my priest because you have ignored the law of your god. i also willig foreyour children. this is a promise from a holy, righteous god that can do nothing else but that promise. we have to understand that in this country we have a tremendous lack of knowledge about our u.s. constitution. we have a tremendous lack of knowledge about the biblical foundations of our nation and how our founding fathers believed in liberty. and we're losing that liberty tremendously because we have a tremendous lack of knowledge. for decades, sworn officers -- let me go back and tell you in psalm 11, god says if the foundations be destroyed, what are the righteous to do? i believe it's a call to duty to rebuild the foundational

principles that are behind liberty. for decades, sworn officers of the united states, in fact, all public servants, have been violating -- have taken an oath to uphold the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. for decades, sworn officers of the united states have violated that oath to uphold and protect our nation's most precious document, the u.s. constitution. domestically, there are many who buy their -- who by their actions, either intentionally or unintentionally undermine our governing document. every day, officials, ranging from federal judges to u.s. senators, members of the house, leadership, ignore the original intent of our founders. that was put in the constitution of the united states. the distortion is so great that

that -- that now there is so little correlation between their words and our actions here in washington, d.c. this has become the norm for today's body of government. but it is not what the great lawmakers of the past envisioned for america's future. today, i'd like to focus in particular on one cause of the constitution, where we have seen a dramatic and a dangerous distortion of our founding fathers' original intent. the commerce clause has slowly been eroded by the selfishness of politicians and courts alike. nowadays, it can be carelessly applied to almost any case that expands the size and scope of the federal government as it relates to our economy. i'll walk you through today, through time. starting with our founding fathers' original intent for the cause and then moving through the years to point out

specific cases that have led to deterioration of the commerce clause. we'll end with a modern day situation that i know everybody in this country, i think, is familiar with. and that being the constitutionality of obamacare. i hoach that all of our viewers will stay with me throughout the hour because it is so important that you help me to educate the rest of your neighbors, your family, your friends, on how the federal government has spiraled out of control. it's up to the american people. we, the people. to demand that washington gets back to constitutionally limited government as our founding fathers intended it. we've gotten away from their thoughts. we've gotten away from their

intent of our government. and we see the problems that we have today because of that. there are many aspects that have contributed to the overreach of today's government. but the single biggest offender has been the ever-expanding interpretation of the commerce clause in article 1, section 8 of the constitution. in fact, as an original intent constitutionalist, i say we shouldn't interpret the constitution, we must apply the constitution as it was intended. article 1, section 8, commerce clause to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes. so what does it mean to regulate commerce? to understand what is meant by the word commerce, a great place to start is with the constitution itself. article 1, section 9 of the document states, no preference

shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to pay duties in another. what's that mean? commerce is between states. commerce is supposed to go across state lines. that's what commerce means. the way commerce was regularly understood, by both the framers of the constitution and the general public at that time, to mean trade between the states. now what about the words "to regulate"? during that period of time, the term regulate meant to make regular. not to control as it is so often used today. to make regular. to make it work. to expand commerce, not to control it.

to put it in plain words, the original intent of the commerce clause was to make that commerce and trade between the states normal or regular. it was designed to promote trade and exchange, not to hinder it with crushing regulations. moreover, the framers of the constitution wanted to ensure that commerce between the states was not limited by taxes or tariffs. here's some examples of what james madison and alexander hamilton envisioned. james madison wrote, the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. i encourage people to read the constitution of the united states. the 10th amendment says, if a power is not specifically given to the federal government by

the constitution, the 18 things that in article 1, section 8, that begins here and ends here in this little look let -- booklet, 18 things is all the constitution gives congress the authority to vote on. national defense, national security should be the major function of the federal government. it certainly is not meant to expand beyond what the constitution says as james madison wrote in "federalist 45." simply put, madison was reinforcing the point that the powers of the federal government under the proposed constitution should be very limited while the powers with the states are broad in scope and are more individualized and are extremely broad in character. again, the commerce clause. it was not meant to be stretched as thin as it is

today, where it can be applied to almost all forms of economic prosperity, at both the state as well as the federal levels. we get into more specific examples in just a few minutes. here's a quote from alexander hamilton, one of the federalists who wanted a strong federal government. he wrote, in "federalist 11," he makes the case that the states should have unrestrained economic interaction with each other, to therefore bolster u.s. productivity and make our exports more desirable to foreign markets. he wrote, an unrestrained intercourse between the states themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective products, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign

markets. the veens of commerce in every -- the veins of commerce in every part will be replenished and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. . some felt as though justice department prize would have a greater scope of diversity in the goods of different states. he also felt as though when an industry suffered in one state, it should be able to ask for assistance from other states. hamilton went on to say, quote, the variety, not less than the value of products for exportation, contributes to the activity of foreign commerce. it can be conducted upon much better terms with a large number of materials of a given value than with a small number of materials of the same value. arising from the competitions of trades and from the fluctuations of markets.

particular articles may be in great demand at certain periods and unsailable at others. but if there be a variety of articles, it can scarcely happen they should all be at one time in the latter predicament. and on this account the operations of the merchant would be less libel to any considerable obstruction or stagnation. the sleck laive trader will at once perceive the force of these observations. and will acknowledge that the ever good balance of the commerce of the united states would be appear to be much more favorable than that of the 13 states without union or with partial unions. he's saying this in an argument geared towards a strong union of federal government. but what's he saying there? that the commerce of the states in a hole should be considered. so to sum it up it is without a doubt that the commerce clause

was intended to ensure free trade between the states. and to ultimately create the most balanced and desirable american products to sell to foreign buyers. let's take a look at some specific cases that led to the destruction of the commerce clause. in the first case we are going to examine gibbons vs. ogden, this case was in 1824. it is the first case in which the commerce clause was broad and beyond its original meaning under the constitution. here's a little background on the case. new york passed a law granting two operators, robert l. livingson and robert fulton the excusive right to operate steamboats within its waters, within the state of new york. operators from outside the state of new york wishing to navigate waters within new york required

to get a special permit in order to do so. aaron ogden filed suit. arguing that this state sponsored monopoly was in opposition to congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. in his opinion chief justice john marshall ruled that the word commerce was found -- as found in the constitution includes in its definition the transport of goods between states. this ruling is inconsistent with the framers' intent. as you can see in federalist 42. when james madison wrote, to those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial states to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their noncommercial neighbors, must appear not as less impolitic than it is unfair, since it

would stimulate the injured party by resentment as well as interest to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. foreign trade. commerce opening up between the states is not controlled within the states is what he's saying here. madison went on to equate commerce with what he described as intercourse between the states and wrote that the definition of among the states as stated in the constitution was quite broad. he wrote, the word among means intermingled with. a saying which is among others is interminged with them. commerce along the states cannot stop at the external boundary line of each state. but maybe inter-- but may be introduced into the interior. it may very properly be restricted to that commerce

which concerns more states than one. as a result, subsequent courts have ruled that congress has the power to regulate commerce that not only is truly interstate in nature but also commerce which affects more than one state. as matthew clemente of freedom workers pointed out in a recent series entitled how the commerce clause relates to the expansion of the federal government through health care, this broad interpretation of the commerce clause has resulted in justifications of a number of federal laws that regulate purely intrastate activities. in the end, the marshall court struck down new york's law because of its view that congress not the states has the power to control navigation within each state so long as it relates to interstate commerce. and this opened the door for even looser readings of the commerce clause in later cases.

so just to quickly recap. in this case the court ruled that commerce has both the power to regulate commerce that is truly interstate in nature and actions related to commerce which affect more than one state. even though not through one common channel. but the reality is that in the federalist papers alexander hamilton repeatedly equates commerce with trade between nations as we have already seen. he does not ever give it a broader meaning related to activities carried out with any state which may also affect activities in other states. let's look at another case. this one is swift and company vs. the united states in 1905. the case resolved around a number of meat dealers in chicago which had formed a meat

trust in which they agreed not to bid against one another in an effort to control meat prices. at the same time the members of the trust convinced the railroads to charge them below normal rates to transport their product. the u.s. government stepped in attempting to use the sherman antitrust act to break up this trust. icing the open door left by marshall's expansion of the commerce clause in swift, the court went a step further an ruled that activities involved in the stream of commerce were fair game for congressional regulation. totally against original intent. in his opinion justice oliver wendall holmes wrote that the elements of the meat trust scheme were such that it was clear that the participants meant to monopolize the meat trade within the state of illinois.

they took this observation a self further by saying that the trust intention may only have been to create a monopoly within its own state but the trust effect upon commerce among the states is not accidental secondary, remote, or merely probable. he went on to differentiate in this case from cases related to manufacturing stating that, quote, here the subject matter is sails. and the very point of the combination is to restrain and monopolize commerce among the states in respect to such sails, unquote. due to the fact that the meat at issue likely had roots in several different states not just illinois. and then its end destination could also have been within a different state. that in effect was affecting the stream of commerce.

thus the ruling in swift had the effect of allowing congressional regulation of actions which could potentially affect commerce in other states. not would actually affect the commerce but potentially affect commerce within another state such as the sail of items which speak -- could be considered to be within the stream of commerce. again a further expansion of the original intent. again to recap what this case has shown us. the court ruled that activities involved in the stream of commerce are potentially -- or potentially could be involved in the stream of commerce may be regulated by congress. but in reality this decision had the effect of allowing commerce to -- congress to regulate not just actions which could affect more than one state but also actions which are considered to be within the stream of commerce. as a result, it widens the

breadth of issues over which congress might have served authority upped the commerce clause, totally against the original intent. next the stafford versus wallace in 1921 we see congress passed the packers and stockyards act in 1921 to create new regulations on meat packers in response to charges that their practices were unfair. discriminatory. and encouraged the formation of monopolies. in stafford the court affirmed -- reaffirmed its decision in swift that we just talked about, finding that congress could regulate activities within stockyards. seen as local in nature because they are a part of a channel of commerce. writing the decision chief justice william howard taft stated that, quote, the object of the -- to be secured by the

act is the free and unburdened flow of livestock from the ranges and farms of the west and the southwest through the great stockyards and slaughtering centers on the borders of that region. and then in the form of meat products to the consuming cities of the country in the middle west and east. are still as livestock to the feeding places and fattening farms in the middle west or east for further preparation from the market. he went on to state that in his opinion any practice which, quote, unduly and directly, unquote, effects the expenses incurred during the passage of livestock through the stockyards is a, quote, unjust obstruction to that commerce. and as a result congress has the ability to step in and regulate it. here the court rules that the

commerce clause allows congress to act as if it believes that a local entity is preventing the free and unburdened flow of a good which could have its roots in multiple states such as cattle moving, stockyards, and the packaging plants. but in reality this simply reaffirms the swift decision which allowed congress to insert itself into any activity that affects more than one state. then in ricker vs. fill burn -- philburn, we see this case opened the doors wide, widely opened to allow commerce to regulate any activity that might relate to interstate commerce. i'm sure the founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what kind of power the court bestowed on the federal government with the decision in this particular case. so let me give you a little background information on this case so you can grasp how

ridiculous the court's decision was in this case. roscoe filburn was a farmer who was penalized by the u.s. department of agriculture for harvesting more wheat than he was allotted by a u.s. regulation that set quotas for wheat crops. filburn filed suit claiming that he was not going to sell the extra wheat. that he would only be using it on his own farm for his own family. and therefore the federal government should not have any say whatsoever in the matter. the justice robin h. jackson wrote in his opinion that, quote, the commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. it extends to those activities interstate which so affect interstate commerce, unquote. he went on to write, as this

poster shows, even if an activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. in other words, anything could be considered under the commerce clause. anything could be regulated by commerce. . anything. that's what we see today. most recently in 2005, the court reaffirmed the decision in wickard vfment filburn which shows the interpretation of the commerce clause to date. this is just a few years ago in 2005,s the widest interpretation of the commerce clause. showing that congress may not

even show evidence that an action could affect interstate commerce before it is table regulate it. this case also established that congress needs only to find that a, quote, rational basis, exists for believing that an action could affect commerce in order to regulate it. again, in this case, the court ruled that congress may regulate any activity which might relate to interstate commerce. how in -- how inane. how unconstitutional. the reality is it is just absurd that congress should have this power under the commerce clause to stop a phar -- a farmer from using his own cops to feed his own livestock in his own family simply because his doing so may result in his not purchasing wheat

from elsewhere within the marketplace. we cannot use the commerce clause to affect any activity on commerce. however the rehnquist court wrote from this trend and decide two key cases that limited the use of the commerce clause when the regulation was not firmly based on economic activity. i firmly believe that we need to move even more drastically in that direction that the rehnquist court started, or established. 1995, u.s. vs. lopez. the first case where a distinction was drawn between using the commerce clause to regulate economic activity and using it to regulate any

activity which could potentially impact commerce. alfonzo lopez was a high school student charged with possessing a firearm on school property under the gun-free school zones act of 1990. lopez challenged that, claiming the commerce clause does not grant congress the authority to say where someone may or may not carry a gun. attorneys for the federal government argued that the possession of a gun -- this is just so far out and crazy, it's hard to believe. but this is what they argued. the federal government attorneys argued that possession of a gun on school grounds could lead to violent crime. the gun doesn't make it lead to violent crime but that's what they were claiming. this would increase insurance costs. and it also would deter visitors from coming to the general area, thus dampening

the local economy. they also argued that students who fear violence in their schools are more likely to be distracted in the classroom, resulting in a less educated work force and an overall weaker national economy. boy, that's far-reaching. that's what your federal government attorneys argued in this case. in his opinion, chief justice william rehnquist wrote, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce. to uphold the government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would be unfair to con -- convert congressional authority to police power. we have seen that over and over

where congress has generated a bigger and bigger federal criminal justice system under the commerce clause when we have no constitutional authority to do that. rehnquist went on to say congress could regulate any activity that was -- that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens. family law, for example. it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education, where states historically have been sovereign. if we were to accept the government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to pozz sit any activity by an individual that congress is without power to regulate, an he is absolutely correct he added, admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to

congressional action, but we decline here to proceed any further. the quote on this poster shows rehnquist admitting how these cases i have talked to you about, the cases in the past where the commerce clause has been stretched very thin and often misapplied. in lopez, rehnquist ruled that the -- that congress may not use the commerce clause to regulate noneconomic activity. even in cases where it could find a tangential connection between that activity and the health of the economy at large. then in u.s. vs. morrison in 2000, built on the finding of lopez, and it reaffirmed the court's opinion, that congress could not reach into the commerce clause to regulate activity which only tangentially touched interstate commerce.

in 1994, christy broncola was sexually assaulted by two of her colleagues, she filed against them under a law that provided for gender motivated violence. her attackers argued the government had no way to prosecute against gender motivated violence. the government argued it does affect commerce. chief justice rehnquist wrote, violence against women -- he wrote, the existence of

congressional findings is not sufficient by itself to sustain the constitutionality of commerce clauses -- clause legislation. as we stated in lopez, quote, simply because congress macon collude that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not necessarily make it so. he added, thus far in our nation's history, our cases have upheld commerce clause regulation of interstate activity only where that activity is economic in nature. in this case, the court ruled that congress is not able to use the commerce clause to regulate noneconomic behavior. at the same time, the constitution delegates such regulation to the states as an exercise of the state's police powers, not the federal government's but the police's, the state's police powers.

this particular case is just chock fall of great quotes. i'd like to take a few minutes to read some of them. the first being, on this poster, the constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. given petitioner's argument the concern we expressed in commerce -- in lopez that congress might use the commerce clause to obliterate the constitution's distinction between national and local authority seems well founded. the next quote if accepted, petitioners' reasoning would allow congress to regulate any crime as long as the nationwiding a gated impact of

that crime has substantial effects on employment, production, transit, or consumption. he went on to say, indeed, we can think of no better example of the police power which the founding fathers denied the federal government and reposed to the states than the suppression of violent crime of its victims. lastly, rehnquist closed the case by saying this, if the allegations here are true, no civilized system of justice could fail to provide her remedy for the conduct but under our federal system, that remedy must be provided by the state and not by the united states. as you can see through rehnquist's decisions in these

two cases that we just talked about, the commerce clause cannot and should not be utilized to expand the police powers of the federal government. the crimes in these cases that were treated as federal crimes should have been handled either by the state or locally. we do not have constitutional authority to create an ever-larger federal criminal justice system. in fact, initially, there were only three federal felonies, treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. that's counterfeiting against coinage, money. let's come to an issue that's important right now. it's one of the biggest assaults on freedom to date. one of the worst perversions of the commerce clause that i have ever seen. and i'm talking about the patient protection and

affordable care act. commonly known as obamacare. using the decisions in lopez and morrison, it is clear that congress lacks the authority to institute an individual mandate set forth in obamacare. as well as all the state mandates that are in that law. the individual mandate requires all citizens to have some form of health insurance, whether they want to have it or not. chief justice rehnquist made it clear in morrison that just pause congress has stated that it has an interest in regulating what kind of health care americans purchase or whether they purchase it at all, whether they purchase it or don't purchase it, does not make it so. and it is not a stretch from rehnquist's decision that he would have also struck down the individual mandate. given the fact that he opposed the idea that the commerce

clause allowing congress to regulate anything that could have a substantial effect on employment, production, transit or consumption. in a series of articles written by matthew klimeny of freedomworks, he argues that the cases all involve an individual or company which was proactively trying to engage in commerce. here, we see the opposite. individuals are being told that in order to go about their lives, free from penalty, they must purchase a certain product. folks, this is socialism. this is not freedom and liberty. the argument has never been made that the federal government can mandate that all citizens must purchase a certain product. my democrat colleagues mandated

it through this bill. through this law. that the president has demanded. obamacare. 23 congress wants to promote the purchase of health insurance in a constitutional way, it should pass legislation which is constitutional under the original intent of the commerce clause that would allow individuals to buy coverage across state lines. this would adhere to the original intent of the constitution. and would allow people to buy insurance, health insurance, at a much lower price than they can today. and we give a whole lot better products. -- and would give a whole lot better products. congress' -- congresses, presidents, court judges, every public official in this country , swears an oath, i swore the oath when i was sworn in to the

united states marine corps in 1964. i swore the same oath in 2007 when i came and stood behind this podium, in 2007, i swore to that oath. 2009, 2011. every member of this body swears to uphold and protect the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. we have a lot of domestic enemies of the constitution. a lot of those domestic enemies of the constitution are wearing black robes and they're sitting at benches in federal courts all across this land. they have violated their oath of office. every member of this body swears to uphold the constitution.

there's violation after violation that occurs right here on this floor. think about it. if we don't have a solid foundation upon which to build all our laws, all of our society , then we have no foundation at all. and the society is going to fall. it's going to fail. as we read in prove herbs, god says, there's a -- proverbs, god says, there's a way that seems right in the eyes of man. but its path is the way of death. it's going to be the death of this nation. i hear colleagues particularly on the other side say, the constitution is a living and breathing document. the supreme court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. and, that my friends, is not factual.

the only arbiter of what's constitutional or not is the constitution and what our founding fathers said about it. if we overstore our constitutional government, we're going to lose our freedom. we're going to lose our liberty. the bright and shiny star of liberty that's been over this nation for over 200 years is upheld by six pillars. the first of those is constitutional limited government as our founding fathers meant it. the second one is the free enterprise system. uninhibited by taxes and regulation. the third is the rule of law where everybody, every entity in this country is treated equal under the law. and certainly we're not being treated equally under the law today. the fourth is property rights,

where people can own and control their property and government cannot interfere with that ownership and if it does, if it takes it or devalues it, the constitution says that they should be appropriately compensated for the loss of the devaluation of that private profit. the fifth -- property. the fifth pillar is a pillar of personal responsibility and accountability. and the middle pillar that holds up the center of the star of liberty is the pillar of morality. in fact, john adams said, our constitution's written for a moral and religious people that's wholly inadequate for the governing of any other. i hear colleagues say, well, you can't legislate morality. they are so wrong.

every law, every piece of legislation, no matter what level of government, is somebody's idea of what's right and what's wrong. every law is legislating morality. our nation was founded on the premises of biblical truths, on the principles, the judeo-christian principles that have made this country so great. and have given us the liberty that we have. as a nation. but, friends, we're standing right on a precipice. we're staring down into a socialism and the question is, are we going to be pushed off, are we going to leap off and fall into that deep, dark chas much of socialism, -- chasm of socialism, would where we're going to lose our freedom and liberty, or are we going to turn around and march up the hill of liberty and regain for this nation what our founding fathers fought and died and sacrificed

so nobly for that liberty? it's up to us right now today, we're. we cannot afford to do so any more. we have to turn around and march up that hill of liberty and reclaim it and start rebuilding those six pillars of liberty that have being eroded, that are being eroded by democrats and by republicans, by conservatives and liberals alike. going back to that first post that are i put up here, where god talks, he says, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. we have a tremendous lack of knowledge. of how we've gotten away from the intent of the constitution. even lawyers and justices, judges don't have a concept of

the original intent of the constitution. and in fact, in most law schools in this country, even in the course of constitutional law they do not teach the constitution. they do not teach the original intent. they do not teach the principles that have made this country so powerful, so rich, so successful as a political experiment. the greatest of all of human history, what did they teach? they teach case law where justices in the supreme court have ruled on the constitutionality of a case and have ruled unconstitutionally. they should be removed from office. because they're destroying our liberty. they're destroying our freedom. and it's up to the american people to say, no, we're not going to put up with this anymore. we're going to make a change.

you see, the most powerful political force in this nation is embodied in the first three words of the u.s. constitution. we the people. we the people can make a difference. i want to remind you of what one u.s. senator, eric durson, former u.s. senator, once said, he said, when he feels the heat, he cease the light. -- sees the light. what he means is if he's headed in one direction and enough of his constituents contact him and say, buster, you're heading in the wrong direction, if enough people contact him because he's going to stand firm on the principle of his re-election, then he'll begin to see the light. the members of this body and the one across the way, in the u.s. senate, as well as presidents and our presidential candidates, that need to feel the heat, they need to feel the heat of liberty , they need to feel the heat of

we the people. that demand a different kind of governance, demand going back to the original intent of the constitution, because if we don't, our children and our grandchildren are going to live in a socialistic state such as we see in cuba and in venezuela and we saw in communist china and the soviet union. we the people have to get up in arms and start building grassfires, of grassroot support all over this country. but candidates and for maybes -- members that are already elected and say, we're not going to put up with this anymore. the only arbiter of the constitutionality of the constitution and what was meant in the constitution by those who wrote it. i'm ask all the time, paul, you weren't around then, how do you know what they meant? our founding fathers didn't have

video games and tv and the internet. they wrote, they read. i encourage the american citizens all over this country to read, read what our founding fathers said about the constitution. read what they meant by it. because if we are destroyed by a lack of knowledge, if you turn that around, think about it, we're not destroyed with knowledge. and you go on, god says, he's going to ignore our children, he's going to reject our children. the future of this nation depends upon we the people standing firm and saying, we're not going to put up with this anymore. we're going to go back to the original intent. we're going to do the hard work of knowing what our founding fathers said, we're going to do the hard work of demanding of our elected representatives that they stand by the principles, the foundations that have made

this country so great, so powerful, so successful. there are many members of this body that need to feel the heat. there are many people in this body that need to see the door. because it don't stand on the constitution, they don't oppose the -- uphold the oath of office, they don't do what they promised their constituents and the american people that they're going to do and there are judges all over this country, federal judges, that need to be impeached and removed from office because they're not upholding the constitution. they're not defending the constitution. they're not doing what they've promised that they would do. they're violating their oath of office. it has to stop and the only way we're going to stop it is for we the people to stand up and say, no more. we're not going to elect anybody who's not going to uphold the constitution in its original intent. and we've got to get the hard work done of restoring those six

principles. the six principles that have upheld that bright, shining star of liberty over this country for so long. and i'm excited because we see grassroots all over this country beginning to rise up. we see a sleeping giant that's beginning to wake up and stretch its arms and legs and begin to walk. the press calls it the tea party. there's not a tea party, there are many tea parties. and this freedomworks, there's americans for prosperity, there are groups, grassroots groups like the n.r.a. and gun owners of america and right to work and other groups that believe in the constitution. we're beginning to see the sleeping giant of we the people waking up. it's time to not only wake up and stretch our arms and legs and to walk, but we've got to run. we've got to do the hard work of

re-establishing liberty in this country. we're losing our liberty, friends. and we're going to lose it all, we're standing on that precipice, staring down in that deep, dark chasm of socialist. are we going to allow ourselves to be pushed off by courts? by congresses? by presidents? democrats and republicans alike? are we going to turn around as a people and demand liberty and start marching up that hill of liberty and it's going to be a mountain climb, but we can do it. i'm excited because i see that great sleeping giant. most powerful political force in america. embodied in those first three words of the u.s. constitution, we the people. our founding fathers believed in

we the people. that's the reason when they wrote the document they put the letters in such large script, much, much larger, probably four or five times larger than the rest of the text in the document, because we the people is the key. that force of we the people. so the question i have to ask today, are we going to jump or be forced down into that deep, dark chasm of socialism, or are we going to be a free people? are we going to demand liberty? it's up to each and every freedom-loving citizen in this country today. to demand a different kind of governance. and i believe we can do it, i believe we will do it, because we the people love liberty in america and i'm trusting in we

the people to do the right thing and demand constitutional limited government at all levels. god bless you and god bless america and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: an act to clarify appeal time limits in civil actions, to which united states officers or employees are parties. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. maloney: thank you. mr. speaker, last year when i was chair of the joint economic committee we held a hearing on

the pivotal role of government investment in basic research. we found that basic research spurs exactly the kind of innovations that business leaders, academics and policymakers have all identified as critical for our nation's economic growth. but we also found that the private sector tends to underfund basic research because it is undertaken with no specific commercial applications in mind. businesses understandably concentrate their research and development spending on the development of products and processes that may have direct commercial value. a report produced by the joint economic committee shows that the federal government funds 60% of the basic research in the u.s. and highlighted a study that estimated that

actual expenditures in the united states may be less than half of what the optimal levels would be. we are now engaged in an important national debate about how much and where to cut federal spending. and i wish to make the case for how reckless and shortsighted it would be to cut into the budget lines that fund the kind of vital, basic research that led to discovery, innovation, and economic growth. because doing so would be, as that bit of all folk wisdom goes, like cutting off our nose to spite our face. take the budget for the national institute for health, for example. the n.i.h. strongly supports the kind of basic scientific research that may not be directly useful in creating practical products yet, but it's precisely this kind of

research that can lead to the future development of new and undreamed of biotech and pharmaceutical advances. it is work that can lead to the kind of advances that will allow the establishment of new product, grow new businesses and produce private sector jobs. studies have shown that the money we spend supporting such scientific research is one of the best investments our country can make. for instance, out in los angeles, ucla generates almost $15 in economic activity for every taxpayer dollar that it invested, resulting in a $9.3 billion, with a b, impact on the los angeles region. in houston, texas, the estimated economic impact of baylor is more than $358 million, generating more than 3,300 jobs. in my own district in new york,

dr. sammy jaffrey a pharmacologist and faculty member at cornell college has developed a promising new technology for studying r.n.a. in cells and has just started a biotech exen, all with n.i.h. support. time and time again, basic research has been a game changer and economic incubator. take the biotechnology company genentech, for example. it was founded on discoveries made in our universities and those discoveries were made with financial support of grants from the national institute of health. and those federal funds proved to be a very good investment. the company has created over 11,000 jobs and the company created products that have had mauge effects on the health and economic well being of our nation.

they develop drugs that treat certain leukemia, arthritis, and breast cancer. n.i.h.-funded research has also had a major impact on the lives of those suffering from multiple sclerosis. m.s. is a painful disease that often strikes young women with children. thanks to n.i.h. research, drugs have been developed that are now in the marketplace that mean m.s. patients now live longer and have higher quality lives. since 1970, over 150 new f.d.a. approved drugs and vaccines are new ind -- or new indications for existing drugs have been discovered in university laboratories, most funded by n.i.h. millions of americans are hoping that somewhere, just over the horizon, there will be new discoveries and new breakthroughs leading to more effective treatments for

cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, aids, autism, bacteria, adha, schizophrenia, and depression, and much more. but treating these and other diseases will depend on discoveries yet to be made. discoveries of basic science, discoveries that can only be made with the federal funding and work of agencies like the n.i.h. i suspect that to some, this must just sound like pie in the sky. but just think back into our not too distant past, think back to the pole yows of the 1950's -- the polios of the 19450s, the children who were crippled, the patients in iron lungs. think back 30 years ago when almost all the children who were diagnosed with nonhodgkins lymphoma were not expected to live more than five years. think back to the time when

aids was the equivalent of a death sentence. polio is now eradicated. the five-year survival rate for n.h.l. is over 84%. and aids is treatable. survivable. this is all because of basic research. much of which was funded by the n.i.h. because of the basic research we have funded and made possible, because of our past investments in our nation's future. the founding fathers had the wisdom and foresight to write into the constitution a role for the federal government in promoting the progress of science and useful arts. if we are to remain competitive in the global economy if we hope to remain a lead for the biotechnology, if we hope to continue to advance the world's understanding and treatment of diseases such as cancer and alzheimer's disease, we must

continue to invest in the basic research and in the dedicated young scientists who make it all possible. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker' -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr.

speaker. even though this body is composed of a lot of people that have a lot of different political steadfast beliefs, it's still an honor and pleasure to serve with friends like car lynn maloney. so, it is an honor to serve, and even though we disagree sometimes on the way we get to the end, i know that, for example, mrs. maloney's heart, is always in the right place. mrs. maloney: will the gentleman yield? i would like to thank you for that very kind statement and i look forward to finding common ground on things we can agree on and work to help the growth and economy of this great nation and i hope you support the funding of nmple i.h. and basic research which has been so help to feel your great state and your great

universities and scientists, i yield back. thank you. mr. gohmert: thank you. i appreciate my friend from new york. and there are some areas of research that if the federal government doesn't do it, it's not going to get done and i'm sure there are areas we can certainly agree on. i wish i were coming to the floor just full of excitement because we had a vote today on the balanced budget amendment. kay came -- i came to congress nearly seven years ago believing we needed a balanced budget amendment, knowing that thomas jefferson regretted not having one. that ronald reagan wished there had been one. but since i have been in this body, it has become abundantly clear that this body is more likely to have the will to raise taxes than it is to cut spending. i came here not believing that

that was the case, but after we added over 80 fantastic freshmen coming up here with the right motivation, wanting to get our fiscal house in order, knowing that we are now -- we went from -- 2006 when we were last in majority before this year, where we spent $160 billion or so over what we took in, and then because we didn't have our fiscal house in order as the republican majority, it's my belief that's the reason, the biggest reason, actually, that the public turned over the reins to our democratic friends. we haven't done a good job of avoiding overspending. but also, in 2006, november,

when we lost the majority, i would never have believed that we would go from a time when we were spending $160 billion more than we were bringing in to the treasury and just a few short years to -- in just a few short years to spending $1 trillion more than we were bringing into the treasury. that was just unfathomable. and it is very, very clear that after a year ago, when the majority, we were in the minority at the time, made a pledge, we were going to return to prebailout, prestimulus spending and in the first year, we pledged we'd cut $100 billion. and here we are, we have just, at the end of september, finished the fiscal year of 2011, and we really didn't make any cuts.

jury's out. initially we were told we may save $27 billion over the year before. it's just chicken feed when you're spending -- you're bringing in $2.2 trillion an spending about $1.3 trillion more than that, $3.6 trillion or $3.7 trillion. all we can find to cut was $27 billion? and then we got word that we may not have even saved that much. some have told me that actually we may have spent just a hair more than we did. so it became abundantly clear to me, and i know that my friend, chairman paul ryan, voted against the balanced budget be -- budget amendment because he knew it ought to have more restraint on spending in their, spending cap. and mr. marsh, and mr. dreier,

who doesn't believe we should have one at all. it's really not fun, not voting with the people that you serve with, that you're in the same party with, you share so much in the way of common experiences. because i am a strong advocate for a balanced budget amendment. but the bill on the floor today did not have a spending cap. and this past year, we had just witnessed the largest wave election since the 1930's and over 80 new freshmen came forward with one charge, stop the wasteful government spending. following a pledge to make massive cuts in spending, it really appears that congress

finds it easier to talk about, quote, new revenue, unquote, which is just code for more taxes, than to cut spending. it doesn't live up to the pledge that we made. we made a pledge to the american people to restrain government an to get our fiscal house in order. and we should be doing it. 11 months into this majority. we should have made more progress than we have. president obama has ramped up spending with former speaker pelosi, leader reid, both majorities in the houses when they were democrats, by over an additional $1 trillion. far more than the democratic congress increased the debt under president bush. in 2007 and 2008. it just is mind-boggling that we could not find enough members to return even to the

liberal, democratic spending of 2007 or 2008. it's clear that if we had passed a balanced budget amendment without at least having a spending cap, future congresses would use the requirement of a blapsed budget to increase taxes in order to balance the budget. we are already at a point where almost 50% of the american public are not paying income tax. we are on the threshold of arriving at that point beyond which no representative societies have ever been able to come back to greatness. when one more than half who is voting is receiving more from the government than they're putting in, you're done. you're doomed. it's over.

all that's left is the slow walking and the low talking, but you're virtually at the end and we are getting close. the national debt ceded $15 trillion which left the united states with one of the highest public debt to g.d.p. ratios in the world. this $15 trillion mark forever enhanced the uncertainty that is this watering our economy from moving ahead. it's apparent america's on a route headed for ruin and if we continue to spend more money that we don't have, we will arrive at that destination. washington, this government needs to stop the runaway train of spending this president's policies have added $4.4 trillion to the national debt, all in a fraction of the time that that debt accumulated under

president george w. bush. if we had at least had a spending cap as part of the balanced budget amendment, wasn't even demanding the 2/3 supermajority in order to raise taxes, just a spending cap, make it a relevant spending cap, what we voted out of committee in the regular order which we promised we would do, we wouldn't bring bills to the floor unless we went through the regular order. that regular order produced a balanced budget amendment that had a 2/3 requirement before -- in the way of a vote before taxes could be raised, and it had an 18% spending cap, 18% of the g.d.p. was the most we could spend. that was produced through the regular order, but that's not what we voted on here today. i deeply regret having to vote no but i've seen what we're capable of and what we're not and we needed in the

constitution that the budget must be balanced and the spending cap must be there. some have said, well, states don't really have a spending cap, they can't print their own money. they can't go out and borrow money the way we do. at the federal government. it's different. and it needed to be addressed differently. we were told, well, we had to vote for this as republicans because it's the only one that had a chance to pass. and then on further inquiry we were told that the people that were saying that didn't believe it was going to pass the senate, knew it wouldn't pass the senate, and didn't think it had much chance of passing the house , then why weren't we pushing what came out of regular order, what i think most of the republicans believe was the best bill? i don't know. but i also know going back through this country's history

that even during some of the most difficult and darkest days of this country's history, there was a day set aside, sometimes many days set aside, for thanksgiving. mr. speaker, how much time -- i can inquire how much time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 19 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to share a proclamation of thanksgiving from the year 1798 signed by president george washington, 19 -- 1798, the end of president washington's time as president. and it was a difficult time. we were not a strong nation, we were struggling, some thought we ought to run to the aid of france.

but their convictions in france did not appear to be based on sound doctrine and desire for liberty, there was too much envy and jealousy involved in that revolution. and we were not a strong nation. and despite all the difficulties in the united states and those early -- in those early days, george washington proclaimed the following, whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty god, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly employ his protection and favor, whereas both houses of congress have by their joint committee request to me to recommend to the people of the united states a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signaled faferse of almighty

god, especially in a form of government by their safety and happiness, now therefore i do recommend and assign thursday to be devoted by the people of these states to the service of that great and glorious being who is the author of all that was, that is or that will be, that we may then all unite in rendering him our sincere and humble thanks and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great lord and ruler of nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to render our national government a blessing to the people, to protect and to guide all sovereigns and nations and to bless them with good government, peace and concord. to promote the knowledge and

practice of true knowledge and virtue and the increase of science among them and to us and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of prosperity as he alone knows to be best. signed by george washington on 1798. but in the darkest throws of this country -- trh -- tr -- throes of this country, the war that saw the death of more americans than any in our history, any of the wars, the spanish american war, it was a dark day. but there was this proclamation from president abraham lincoln simply entitled "a proclamation." lincoln said this, the year that is drawing toward its close has

been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and helpful skies, to these bounties which are so constantly enjoyed, we are prone to forget the source from which they come. others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is what bibt -- what by thely incenseble to the ever-watchful prove debs of almighty god. in the midst of a civil war, of unequaled magnitude and severity, which is sometimes seen to foreign states, to invite and to provoke their aggression, these has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theater of military conflict. while that theater has been

greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the union, needful devotions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle or the ship. the axis enlarged the borders of our settlements and the minds as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals have yielded even more abundantly than here to for. population has steadily increased norkts with standing the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battlefield. and the country rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor is permitted to exact continuance of years with large increase of freedom. no human counsel that devised or had any mortal hand worked out these great things. they are the gracious gifts of the most high god who while

dealing with us in anger for our sins have nonetheless remembered mercy. it has seem to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverendly and gratefuly acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole american people. i do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the united states and also those who are at sea and those who are sojournaling in foreign lands to set apart and observe the last thursday of november next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our father who dwelleth in the heavens. and i recommend to them that while offering up the he is crippingses just lew due him, for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble pen tans, for our

national, perverseness and -- for our national pe verseness and disobedience, put to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourningers or suffererers in the civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged. and fervently implore the inner position of the almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and union. in testimony whereof i have here unto set my hand and caused the seal of the united states to be affixed, done at city of washington this third day of october in the year of our lord 1863 and of the independence of the united states, the 88th.

signed, president abraham lincoln. we all know or hopefully most know that john hancock presided over the continental congress from which we got the declaration of independence. in 1791 he was governor of the commonwealth of massachusetts and signed this proclamation. from john hancock, in consideration of the many undeserved blessings conferred upon us by god, the father of all mercies, it becomes us not only in our private and usual devotion to express our obligations to him as well as our dependence upon him, but also especially to set apart a day to be employed for this great and important purpose.

i have therefore thought fit to appoint and by the advice and consent of the council do hereby accordingly appoint thursday, the 17th of november next, to be observed as a day of public thanksgiving and praise throughout this commonwealth. hereby calling upon ministers and people of every denomination to assemble on the said day and in the name of the great mediator, devoutly and sincerely offer to almighty god the gratitude of our hearts, for all his goodness toward us and that he has been pleased to continue to us so great a measure of health. to cause the earth plentfully to yield her increase so that we are supplied with the necessaries and the comforts of life, to prosper our merchandise and fishery and above all not only to continue to us the enjoyment of our civil rights and liberties, but the great and

most important blessing, the gospel of jesus christ. and together with our cordial aacknowledgements, i do ernestly recommend that we join the confession of our sins and employ the further continuance of the divine protection and blessings of heaven upon this people, especially that he would be graciously pleased to direct and prosper the administration of the federal government and of this and the other states in the union, prosper the administration of the federal government and to afford him further smiles on our agriculture and fisheries, commerce and manufacturers, to prosper our university and all seminaries of learning, to bless the virtually -- virtuously struggling for the rights of men so that universal happiness may

be allies of the united states and to afford his almighty aid to all people who establish in the world that all may bow to the center of our lord, jesus christ, and the whole earth be filled with his glory. and i do also ernestly recommend to the good people of this commonwealth, massachusetts, to abstain from all labor and recreation inconsistent with the so limbnyity of the said day. given that the council chamber in boston, the fifth day of october, in the year of our lord, 1791, and in the 16th year of the independence of the united states of america. this was from james madison, the fourth president, 1815. many credit james madison as

being the most productive person in the writing of our united states constitution. the greatest building block for any nation in the history of man. this is james madison's proclamation, and i quote, no people are to feel greater obligations to celebrate the goodness of the great disposer of events and of the destiny of nations than the people of the united states. his kind providence originally conducted them to one of the best portions of the dwelling place allotted for the great family of the human race. he proteched and cherished them under all the difficulties and trials to which they were exposed in their early days under his -- days. under his fostering care, it prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of

independence and self-government. signed, james madison, fourth president, march 4, 1815, thanksgiving day proclamation. and then in conclusion, no ye that the lord is god. it is he that has made us, not we ourselves. we are his people and the sheep of his pastor. enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his court with praise. be thankful unto him and bress his name for the lord is good, his mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations. mr. speaker, it is the wish here that you and all those of this body and around this country have a wonderful day of thanksgiving in the week ahead. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. wood yawl for

30 minutes. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i appreciate the time this afternoon. my first time down here as a freshman during special order time, my first time trying to coordinate charts and talk the talk and walk the walk at the same time. i'm excited about it because i'm down here to talk about the fair tax. if folks don't know what the fair tax is, it's h.r. 25, you can find it at www.thomas.gov,

the site everybody should have book marced if you care about what goes on on the house floor because everything that goes on here is available in realtime at www.thomas.gov. it's done through the library of congress, not a republican thing or a democrat thing, it's the real deal, what's happening down here. if you go look up h.r. 25, it's the fair tax. what the fair tax is is a bill that repeals all income-based federal taxes, and replaces them with consumption-based taxes. my friend from texas, mr. gohmert, was down here on the house floor, mr. speaker. he was talking about our founding fathers and those things happening between 1776 and 1787 and in that time, we funded all the federal government with consumption tax. it was not income taxes. it was consumption tax. there's a theory that if you had enough resources to go out

and buy that silver tea set from england, then you had enough resources to help fund the public. if you spent all your time working on your farm and barely had enough to buy thread at the local five and dime. doctor five and dime, we weren't going to tax you as heavily. i want you to look, mr. speaker. i know you have a tough time seeing from where you sit. in 1913, shortly after the fair tax, right before the income tax began, we had 400 pages of tax code in america. just the last century. in the 1900's. 400 pages of tax code and regulations. by world war 2, that 400 pages had grown to 8,000 pages. 20 times as much tax code by the end of world war ii. by the time we were in korea,

14,000 pages of code and regulation. by the 1970's, 19,000 pages of code and regulations. and in the 1980's, 26,300 pages of tax code and regulation. mr. speaker, i'm a reader. i love to sit down and educate myself through the written word. but i've got to tell you, 26,000 pages of tax code and regulation is going to make a criminal out of all of us. because you can't possibly understand all the ramifications of your -- of the tax consequences of your decision. do you remember 1986? that was the last time we fundamentally overhauled the tax code. 1986. in fact if you go to www.thomas.gov like i suggested and look at the laws and regulations, you'll see the tax code of 1986. it was the tax code in 1954, updated the tax code in 1986. that was the last time we

flattened rates and broadened bases. flattened the rates and broadened the base. where did we end up? between 1984 when we had 26,000 pages of tax code and regulation, we went through this process of simplifying the income tax and 10 years later in 1995, we have 40,000 pages of tax code. by simplifying the income tax, we grew it from 26,000 pages to 40,000 pages. now mr. speaker, if you're like me, you go out and shop around or you use the h&r block tax software or you're going to use microsoft tax software, what kind of tax software are you going to use because you hate paying accountants doing your taxes for you. i used to sit down with a pen and paper and do it myself. but it's gotten too complicated. why? because since i reached the age of majority in 1988, here we

have 1985 when i'm coming out of college, between 1995 and 2004, we added another 20,000 pages to the tax code from 40,000 pages to 60,000 pages. 2007, to 67,000 pages. 2008, kept it just a little over 67,000 pages. 2009, jumped another 3,000 pages. 70,000 pages of tax legislation. and to be clear, mr. speaker, when we talk about tax legislation, we're talking about the ways that the government separates you and me and all of the american people from our paycheck. that's all there is in the tax code. all the tax code is, is how do we separate the american people from their productivity. take 70,000 pages in 2009 to sort that out. 71,000 pages in 2010 and now 72,000 pages of tax code in 2011.

folks, what the fair tax does, h r. 25, it asks the question, if we could start from scratch, an by scratch i mean from the 72,000 pages that we do today, to just a blank sheet of paper. if you could start from scratch and draft the tax code that america ought to have instead of the one that has been forced upon us, what would you do? what would you do? there's a lot of difference of opinion on what to do. but simplification seems to be one of those things we can all agree on. you know, i didn't come to this house to try to be a good republican. i came to this house to try to be a good american. and there's lots of opportunities to do that. i'd like to think those things happen to occur simultaneously more often than not. but look at what folks are saying about the united states tax code. i'll quote house minority leader nancy pelosi. any tax reform and closing of

loopholes which is really important for us to do as a sense of fairness, must also reduce the deficit. because if you close the loopholes if you close the lobbyist funded loopholes, all the special exemption exceptions, by definition it brings in more money. mr. speaker, did you get the free golf cart in the 2009 tax bill? does anyone want to admit to having got then free golf cart? 2009, in the name of a good energy bill, in the name of green energy, we in the wisdom here in the u.s. house and across the way in the united states congress, of course i wasn't here at that time, but in our wisdom, we created a tax credit, 6,500 tax credit if you would go out and buy an electric vehicle. americans are smart. i love that about america. we are ingenious folks. what folks figured out is that the $6,500 they were giving

them to buy an electric vehicle, if you put bright lights, seat belts and side view mirrors on your golf court, you'd get yourself a free golf cart. turns out you couldn't get an american golf cart for $6,500. but our freppeds in china were willing to import a golf cart for $6,50 0 so in the fall of 2009, the spring of 010, the i.r.s. had to release guidance that said, when we first crafted the free golf cart regulations, we said you actually had to have delivery of the cart by december 31. but so many americans are trying to avail themselveses of the free golf cart provision that we're going to change the rules here in late december and say, really, all you need is a v.i.n. number from the manufacturer, that will give them several more months to fill the orders.

really, mr. speaker? is that what we need in the tax code? a tax code that distributes free golf carts to folks who likely didn't want a golf cart, but it was free so they availed themselveses of it. nancy pelosi agrees with me that we need to get rid of those loopholes. senate majority leader harry reid. our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. you know, let's take the poll, mr. speaker. let's go to the most liberal democrat in the house, the most conservative republican in the house, who doesn't agree with senate majority leader harry reid, our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. and we have the ability to start with a blank sheet of paper and make it the way we want to make it. listen to our president, mr. speaker. this is president barack obama. you've got too many companies ending up making decisions based on what their tax director says instead of what their engineer design or their

factories produce. and that puts our entire economy at a disadvantage. that's true. talk to any small business owner, find anybody who is at a c.f.o. or c.e.o. level in a business close to you and ask the question, are you making business decisions or are you making tax decisions? and every single time they make a tax decision, instead of a business decision, america loses. their shareholders may win in the short-term. profits may gain in the short-term. but when we in america decide we're going to do something to comply with these ridiculous 75,000 pages of tax code instead of doing what's best for business, instead of what's best for customers, instead of what makes sense, america loses it. in these challenging economic time, we cannot lose that productivity. let's go back to president barack obama. he says this. we need to make america the best place on earth to do

business. the tax code is a barrier government can remove, a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world. hear that. we talk so much about republicans an democrats, hear commons coming from the president of the united states. we need to make america the best place on earth to do business. a barrier government can remove is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. folks, that's agreement. i will tell you, if i had to characterize him, mr. speaker, i'd tell you the president sits a little further to the left than i do. if i had to characterize my own voting record, i'd say it's a little further to the right than most folks here in the house. but this is common ground we can all agree on. let me show you what that tax rate is.

i hope the colors are showing up, mr. speaker, for folks back in their offices watching on tv because the red line here is the u.s. corporate tax rate. the blue line is the oecd average, excluding the u.s. the oecd is that group of developed nations around the world, the folks we say have free economies and growing economies. this chart goes back to 1981. goes back to the beginning of the reagan era. you see, america's corporate tax rate is higher than the average tax rate in the rest of the world. this is that tax reform that i talked about in 1986. you see the tax rate dramatically drop. dramatically drop system of a short period of time, mr. speaker, we became on the red line more productive, more competitive with the rest of

the world at the -- and the rest of the world was on the blue line. look at those years. do you remember those years? 1988, 1989, 1990. do you remember those productive years? i think that's when theuppy label came around, folks were buying fancy automobiles and the first big houses, i was just coming of age in that time but i remember the conspicuous consumption. why? because america was creating wealth. and then what happened? here's the tax increases of the clinton years. bumps right up here. and you see a flat line of american corporate taxation at about 39%. that flat red line of corporate taxation. fair enough. i prefer predictability. i think we ought to know the direction things are going. i think we ought to plan to make business decisions. here's a very predictable line of corporate taxation. but what's the rest of the world doing? while america has a very predictable 39% tax rate,

what's the rest of the world doing? getting lower and lower and lower and lower. lower and lower and lower. folks, you know who can't lead america? capital -- can't leave america? capital can leave. you can pack up your bags and go. i talk to c.e.o. every day and say, rob, it's not worth doing business in america. why? because you are not competitive. you want to talk about growing jobs? mr. speaker, let's talk about keeping the jobs that we already got. i've seen in the chamber my friend from iowa, mr. steve king, who have struggled with these issues firsthand. who understands as a small business man before he came to this house trying to make payroll, trying to stay competitive. if the gentleman would indulge

me, what do you think it would mean for jobs in america if we got this u.s. corporate tax rate line below that world average, if we once again made it competitive to build jobs in america? mr. king: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i'd be happy to yield. mr. king: i propose taking it to zero. mr. woodall: why not take it to zero? i tell you what i'll hear back home, i say to my friend, what do you want to do, do you want to give business a free pass? because my understanding there are only two places we can get taxes. we can take them from me or we can take them from mcdonald's and wouldn't i rather tax mcdonald's than tax me? mr. king: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i'd be happy to yield. mr. king: the folks at mcdonald's will be paying the tax if we get it from mcdonald's so we know corporations don't pay taxes. they are aggregators of taxes that are paid by individuals, by consumers on the last stop.

so they are efficient aggregators. they are tax collectors on behalf of the federal government. corporations that collect taxes don't pay them. they transfer it through. by the way, they charge us for the $152 billion it charges every year to comply with the tax code. so i find it as an act of frustration to try to seek to collect taxes from corporations when what i am doing is adding to the administrative costs to corporations so they add the taxes and the administrative costs onto the goods. that makes that individual pay taxes but it also means that jobs go overseas because corporations that are taxed in america are at a disadvantage to the corporations that are overseas. we aren't very good aggregators of america's tax dollars so they have to raise taxes more. that's the envision i see that i lay out to the gentleman from georgia. we have a long way to go before america embraces the concept that i think will solve this problem. i yield back to the gentleman

from georgia. mr. woodall: you asked the all-important question to my friend. why not take the rate to zero? why are we arguing about whether it ought to be 25% or 23%? i just quoted the president of the united states. he said, let's make america the most competitive place in the world to do business. well, if we lowered it to 10%, maybe someone else would lower it to 9%. what if we take it to 0% and i voiced my concern that, well, if you take it to 0%, i, as the american consumer, have to pay all the taxes because corporations won't be paying taxes any more. and what my friend who has years and years, decades and decades of experience in the private sector says is there is no secret drawer where american businesses get the money to pay taxes. i go out, i buy a coca-cola. where does coca-cola get to pay the taxes? they charge it to me in the price of the product. my friend is saying the only

taxpayer in america today is the american consumer. there is no other taxpayer. businesses don't pay taxes. people pay taxes. whether it's the c.e.o. of that business who has a high salary and he pays taxes on his salary, whether it's the consumer of that business who pays in higher price, whether it's the shareholder of that business who pays through lower dividends and lower rates of return. why not take the corporate tax rate to zero and -- mr. king: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i yield to my friend. mr. king: just to explore that further. that is looking at the corporate tax structure, there's corporate income tax and then there are all of the wages paid out in payroll taxes to employees. of course, one of the most regressive we have is the payroll tax. so one might argue, well, those taxes are paid by the corporations, that half of the paint roll, that .065. i've multiplied it so many

times with employees. it is half of the 15.3% in payroll tax. some comes half out of the employer, some comes half out of the employee. it would be wages for the employee because it is a cost of doing business, it's a cost of competitiveness. so when we add into the price of the goods and services provided by corpgs -- and i don't mean just corporations. they can be l.l.c.'s, partnerships, sole propriety toreships, you name it, a business entity that hires employees and/or provides goods and services to retail market or supplies to us. it is built into the price. and a fair amount of research brings us to a number that is generally considered to be about 22% of the retail price of goods and services sold in the united states as the tax component paid by the suppliers that get it into the marketplace and in the end paid by the consumer. so those corporations that move overseas have a different tax structure but those products that come in from overseas have

a 28% marketing advantage over the products produced here in the united states because they don't have the burden of u.s. corporate taxes and that includes the payroll taxes that are part of that taxing structure. so i'd say that if we can remove the taxes from productivity in america we end up with a 28% marketing advantage for u.s.-made products over those made in foreign countries. to the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: and by the way, i want to say one more thing because i would not have picked up a nice georgia company like coca-cola to use them as an example. but then that's just me. i yield back. mr. woodall: they happen to have their corporate headquarters in atlanta. but for how long? but for how long? we talk so much about trying to grow jobs in america. what about trying to keep the jobs that we got? what about just trying to make it a joy to do business in america instead of making it a hassell to do business in america? this is a $10 haircut i got

over the weekend. you probably think i paid a lot more than that for this haircut. if you think about what the gentleman from iowa said about where cost is hidden, where taxes are hidden, i paid $10 for this haircut. but derrick, my barber, he had to pay 15.3% in self-employment taxes. so $1.50 of that $10 went to the federal government self-employment taxes. i suspect he's higher than the 15% tax bracket. let's say he's in the 15% income tax bracket. so out of my $10 haircut he had to take $1.50 right off the government for self-employment. then another $1.50 and send it to the federal government in income taxes so for the $10 he charged me, he's only taking home $7 to feed his wife and kids. so is it a $10 or $7 haircut? what we tell americans is, we're going to lower your tax burden. but what we've done is hide

that tax burden in the cost of everything we buy. if derrick didn't have to pay those $3, he'd be charging me $7 for a haircut and he'd still take $7 home to feed his kids. to have an honest discussion about what kind of spending we ought to do in this place, i think we have to bring all of those hidden taxes out of price. not only does it make us more competitive as you suggest it but it makes us possible for us as americans to have an honest discussion about, is government too too little or is government doing too much? the study suggests, it's about 22% of the cost of everything that we buy on average that is hidden taxes that we think we're getting away with but that we are actually paying at the checkout counter. mr. king: if the gentleman will yield? i'd lip another ant he can dote in this -- antidote in this.

i happened to get get reacquainted with one. i told this story in the congressional record in the past. he saved up his money to buy a box of skittles. so he had his change counted out. 89 cents for a box of skittles. had to reach out to the counter and got his skittles off the shelf and put them up on the counter and he counted out his 89 cents and the checker said, that will be 96 cents. and he said, but the price is 89 cents. and the checker said, but you have to pay the tax. that's the sales tax in iowa. so that's 96 cents, young man. he said, dad, i have to pay taxes on skittles? what a painful experience for an 8-year-old young man. think about what that means if those taxes are transparent. that man will grow up to be conservative. he'll demand one thing, less

taxes, less services. we will want to have more personal and individual responsibility and we're going to let people provide for their own security in a lot of ways and achieve on their own. that is a cultural transformation that comes if you have a transparent tax and if you take the tax and stop punishing productivity and put it on consumption. the gentleman. mr. woodall: i say to my friend, you talk about cultural transformation, i tell you that transformation is actually taking us back to that entrepreneurial, self-reliant experience that america began as as a nation. this business of hiding taxes and try to make people think they're getting something for nothing, that's a relatively new experience in american culture and it has transformed this country. i'm big on saying you have to have skin in the game. to make good decisions you have to have skin in the game. right now 50% of the american population isn't paying any income taxes. they don't think they have skin

in the game. now, they do because they're paying taxes on all these hidden consumption opportunities that you and i are talking about, but they vote as if they're getting something for free. and as a nation, if we're going to make responsible decisions, particularly as it comes to borrowing from our children and our grandchildren, we have to let americans know what are they really paying for the size and scope of government. and that's not to say, i am going to pay less, but it will absolutely bring us away from a culture that believes there's a free lunch and back to a culture that understands that decisions have consequences and that there is no taxpayer in america except for we, the american consumers. mr. king: if the gentleman will yield. history is replete with founding fathers, literary giants at the time, philosophers at the time who continually -- they looked at

the greek democracy and they were appalled at what it had produced. they produced for us a republic instead. but many of them spoke eloquently about what happens. and when the public would realize that a majority of them could vote themselves benefits from the public treasury. some of them said democracy ceases to exist. some of them said it would destroy our republic. i'd guess that most of the people that were providing the wisdom at the time commented on their fear that this country would move towards a majority voting themselves benefits from the public treasury. and so that is one of the reasons that we have a republic instead of a democracy is because those of us who were elected as representatives of the citizens of the republic are to have a higher responsibility than to listen to, let's say people who want the fruits of someone else's labor and don't want to labor themselves. and so we are at the situation now where in the early part of this country there was a policy that you had to be a land

owning male in order -- of age and other qualifications in order to vote because they wanted the public policy to be established by people that had skin in the game. and today we saw a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. failed here on the floor of the house of representatives. i'd like to seen a stronger one but it failed here on the floor of the house. the constitutional amendment with the cap at 18% g.d.p. and the supermajority to raise taxes puts some of that philosophy back in where it requires a supermajority to raise taxes, there's a strength there that brings back some of that philosophy. it helps offset the disadvantage that the working american has today who's paying those taxes, your barber is at a disadvantage because some of the hair that he cuts is people that aren't working. i'd say at least every -- one out of every three heads of hair that your barber cuts is somebody that is in that role of 100 million americans working age not in the work force. many of them are voting themselves benefits from the

public trough. i'd suggest we take the tax off productivity in america. stop punishing production. put it over on consumption. i'm just looking over for a bill number that i can attach myself for because i am drawing a blank and i yield back to the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: i thank i say i have a $10 an hour job. who wants to come to work tore me and and i just gave a powerful presentation about how you could come here and return america to its foundational roots. all the hands go up. and i say now, just to be clear, though, we have to put an $9 income tax on that $10. now who wants to work 80 hours a week for me and all the hands go down. the power to tax is the power to destroy and we use that power

here. with all due respect to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the fair tax that i supported and if you were a strong supporter of, it has detractors on both sides of the aisle, fair tax says we aren't go to go manipulate your behavior through the tax code anymore because the tax code allows us to say if you buy wool sweaters, we will give you a tax credit if you go out and buy le vy jeans, we are going to tax you. we decide who is supposed to win and who is supposed to lose and we punish or reward the american people and the american small business environment through the tax code and what you and i have said in the fair tax, i don't want that power in washington. i give that power back to the american people. you choose what kind of jeans

you want to wear and sweater you want to buy, a golf cart or not. we aren't in the business of picking winners and losers but raising as little revenue as necessary to run this federal government. and that takes power away from this body right here. and it is only those folks who believe that the american people are still smarter than you and i are who want to return that power. mr. king: i appreciate the opportunity to be your partner and i would say to folks that disagree, they are both wrong whether from the left or the right. and the bottom line is this, the fair tax does everything good, that anybody's tax proposal does what is good, does them all and does them all better and i'm happy to take that debate anywhere in this land and i yield back because the gavel is in the air. mr. woodall: i will say to the speaker, if you need more

information, you can find it at www fairtax.org or on my web site. this really does speak to the challenges of america. and i thank the speaker for the time. i thank my friend from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. does the gentleman from iowa have a motion? mr. king: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn, those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

>> he later ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence in american politics on the c-span series "the contenders." live tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> when obama was given the first budget and there were 7000 earmarks, his first instinct was to veto the budget. he was told that there was no way he could do that. had he vetoed that, he would have been the tea party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the system and the way washington works, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that has

broken out all around the world because of the frustration at the way democracy first -- functions. >> money at all -- and its influence on washington sunday on c-span post "q & a." >> john larson spoke with reporters saying democrats were hopeful for a deficit -- deficit reduction package. they have until november 23 to produce $1.20 trillion in cuts. this is a little over 10 minutes. >> before i begin, let me wish and extend on behalf of the entire democratic caucus a happy and joyous thanksgiving season.

i am sure all of you are looking forward to going home for this uniquely american holiday. we just concluded a caucus where our focus continues to be putting america back to work. we received an update from the members of our select committee. we had the opportunity to hear from the president of the national committee to preserve social security and medicare as well. our members still remain hopeful as the clock winds down. hopefully, we can get something that is big, bold, and balanced for the american people. what they mean by big, bold and balanced is putting america back to work. we continue to say that job

creation = deficit-reduction. we continue to believe that is something that we all should be able to come together on. we are proud of the fact that we have been able to introduce the president's plan, continued to bring pressure on the committee to address the issue of job creation, and the caucus held more than 1100 forums and town halls across this country focusing on what americans truly wants. that is the concept and the dignity that can only come from a job. we are hopeful as we go swallowwort this weekend -- as we go forward this weekend and

face a holiday that is uniquely american. we have hope that we can come together and truly embrace something that will put the country back to work, that will preserve and protect what americans value in social security and medicare. with that, let me throw it open to questions you might have. [inaudible] >> i never see failure as the best option. democrats continue to believe that job creation is the best answer.

as you look out and our own cbo has indicated, if we take the unemployment rate of 9.1% to under 7%, it is regarded as full employment for the country. that takes care of more than 1/3 of the deficit. this is something that should be joined by both sides. the other side is saying they do not want to raise revenues. i understand why they get locked into these ideological positions. having people go back to work, you are not raising taxes. they are contributing to their local, state, and municipal coffers. it seems that there is more concerned that credit might somehow go to the president than to the american people. the president has been clear about this. he said two months ago that we do not have 14 months to wait.

two months have passed. we thank people for coming together around the veterans bill, one small portion of what the president has put forward and one small portion of what we can do as the united states congress. [inaudible] >> as someone who was not in favor of the process to begin with, we think things should go through regular order. when has there been a regular order? when you have a closer vote, we know from experience on our side of the aisle, when we watched 497 bills be blocked, what can happen. on the house side there is always the opportunity for a poison-pill amendment. the beauty of this committee is that there would be an up or down vote that would not allow

for cloture or a poison-pill amendment. we felt that would be a great context to bring forth a jobs bill, not only the president's proposal but these republican proposal as well. they are concerned about their legislation that gets held up. eric cantor has introduced a jobs bill. we think those should be heard on the floor. we think the american people should have the full opportunity to get back to work and roll up their sleeves, to get the simple -- simple dignity that can only come from a job. [inaudible] >> we have seen some junctures -- gestures that almost seemed to be slight of hand.

in the movement has got to be categorized as a movement in the right direction. in the pat toomey plant, when you put forward 200 and take away 800, that seems like sleight of hand. anytime anyone speaks about grover norquist flies in and there is a new set of pledges signs. i think there is hope for jobs. [inaudible] >> that they would be available all weekend. we did ask them about their geographical location, but we assume that is the case. i am pretty sure that is the case. [inaudible]

>> the public currently views congress at an all-time low. i do not think it will do much to improve congress's standing. i think it is a false equivalence if it does. people have said, a pox on both your houses. there is a huge difference in defending medicare and social security and a desire to put people back to work versus protecting the nation's wealthiest one percent. not be willing to call upon any new cut medicare and social security. and the blocking of, seemingly, putting the country back to work. i think it is a false

equivalence, but how the american people will take it -- they have seen a lot more. when we had the kind of coverage since early september that the special committee has gotten. i think the american people obviously are more aware. >> [inaudible] >> how much revenue would i like to see? i am sorry. i am sorry. when someone asks the question -- so, let me say, no, what we would like to see is a program that is big, bold, and balanced. by that, i mean we think that by putting the country back to work, more than a third of the revenue needed to lower the deficit comes into play. that is the hugest amount of money coming into our coffers to deal with our deficit.

so, that is what we would like to see first and foremost. then we would like to see a willingness to make sure we're able to preserve the core programs the country relies upon. which is medicare and social security. >> [inaudible] >> whatever it takes to preserve those programs. >> [inaudible] >> i think the white house has stepped in, and i think the president learned a lesson. the president, you know, during the whole debt ceiling debate, as you recall, when four big bold plan. -- went for a big bold plan. and unfortunately had the carpet pulled out from underneath him. this is a problem. congress has a constitutional responsibility to solve its. is part of a deal that was --

by 80 -- it is part of the deal that was constructed. the president has his part to live up to, whether that is to pass or veto the final product based on the discussions that emanated from the debt ceiling. >> [inaudible] >> correct. >> [inaudible] >> well, we know what it means to leon panetta. this would be, of course, very difficult not only for my district, but for the military industrial base across the country. and so, that was long thought to be the motivating factor that would bring people together, the unity around the defense

department and in general, not only this industrial base, but also the men and women who served in all the various programs associated, not only with our men and women in uniform, but defense as well. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know if it will get the two-thirds. i know that -- there were a number of, i think, let me categorize this as initial goodwill efforts that were put forward. and i commend the number of the republicans who were attempting to do that. but i think, with the backdrop of the committee, with the data coming out on social security and medicare without a glide path to get the balance, it makes sense to be a bridge too far for a lot of democrats. thank you very much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the office of detroit mayor dave bing said jobs would be cut next year. he spoke on television wednesday night saying his city is in it -- his city is in "a financial crisis." detroit will face of $45 million cash shortfall by june. this video is about 20 minutes. >> good evening. >> good evening. >> i want to thank our residence for tuning in tonight and the media for allowing me this opportunity to address the challenge we are facing. workers and management face an uncertain future. rather than continuing the

battle, they chose to adapt, accepting new labor agreements, reduced wages and benefits, and changing the way they operated business. tonight, we face the same challenge, and we must make some of those decisions. simply put, our city is in a financial crisis. city governments is broken. that is not new. that is not an opinion. this is fact. i promise when i glanced at this office that i tell you the truth, -- i promised when i got this office that i would tell you the truth. if we continue down this path, we will lose the ability to control our own destiny. for decades, the city has refused to face the fiscal reality. we cannot continue to operate this way.

without change, the city could run out of cash by april with a potential cash shortfall of $45 million by the end of this year. city government has to work with the budget, and like you, we have tightened our belts and are spending and tried to do more with less. we have eliminated approximately 2000 positions since i entered office. with the bills continuing to pile up and core services suffering, it is clear that we have to do more. residents are frustrated, and i understand why. i ride around in our city and i talked to people every day. i received letters. and receive their calls and e- mails. you want a safe city. you want officers on the street. you want ems services that have

the resources to respond quickly when you called during an emergency. you expect street lights to be on to keep you safe from criminals, and do need a bus system you can rely on to get to work, to school, and to the doctor on time. those are all reasonable expectations of city government, and they are expectations that have not been met for far too long. i refuse to do what has been done in the past. i refuse to sugarcoat the situation or continue kicking the can down the road. expecting someone else to solve our problems. i stand before you tonight to outline what we're doing to address your concerns and ask for your support in a separate. -- in this effort. let me make one thing perfectly clear. i do not want an emergency manager making decisions for my city. [applause]

i am your mayor, and i want to continue to lead the city. i am going to show you what we're doing to get budgets up and running. i want to show you what you're doing to turn the lights on and keep our city -- what we're doing to turn the lights on and keep our city say. we are going to push for reforms, tough choices, and the structures we need to control our own destiny. [applause] with less revenue coming in, a service demand is higher than ever. we have to shift efforts and priorities and fundamentally restructure house to the government offers -- operates. public safety is the most important service we provide. i will not allow police and fire to be gutted. [applause]

i will not allow criminals free rein over our city. [applause] we need every police officer we have on the streets fighting crime. i will not eliminate hundreds of our firefighting force. we depend on them to protect us and save our lives every day. [applause] i do not want to cut boots on the street, but we need police and fire to accept that the same 10% cut in salary the rest of the city employees have accepted. together, the police and fire department is comprising 60% of the city budget dollars. adding that savings to the cuts instituted across all city departments will save a total of $13 million this fiscal year.

cutting resources to police and fire is not the answer. our officers need access to technology to lock up criminals and prevent homicides. technology that has been successful in cities across the -- shock collars are technology that have been successful in cities across the country. i am asking the council to approve that contract funded by grants in drug seizure dollars to give our officers the tools they need. [applause] we are making progress on public safety. overall, crime is down more than 10%. however, the most important measure of crime has grown 20% -- a loss of life to homicide. it is an epidemic, and we must do more to keep people say. that is why in august, i called

upon at our national, state, and will cool law enforcement agencies to establish a partnership -- and local law- enforcement agencies to establish a partnership. in less than 24 hours, the partnership led to one of the largest drug busts in the city history. reducing crime is a responsibility shared across the entire city. as a community, let me step up in talking to police when you know something about the crime. it means respecting each other and restoring a sense of community that once made detroit's neighborhoods the envy of cities across this country. [applause] over the last few months, i have heard numerous stories of people who have been left out in the streets and in the dark for hours waiting for buses. too many kids are late for school.

workers wait for their jobs. and other stranded and frustrated. we simply have to do a better job. on the very basis, we need 305 buses on the streets to provide optimal service for residents. over the last three months, we are on average almost 100 buses short of where we need to be. i will not stand here and tell you we have the ability to fix everything in the short term. we have an aging bus fleet, and a higher demand for services than ever for bus service. that said, i recognize the need for immediate action. on october 18, i gave the mechanics' union and d-dot management 30 days to work with us to figure out how to get more buses on the street. based on our discussion and negotiation, i am taking the following actions.

first, effective immediately, i eliminated furlough days for the bus mechanics. [applause] we need every available hand working every day to these vehicles on the street as quickly as possible. [applause] second, effective immediately, i have instructed d-dot to allow mechanics to work around the clock if necessary to fix the boss's. [applause] a 10% wage reduction will remain in effect to offset the cost of the short-term solution. third, detroit police has provided enhanced security on the buses, random checks for passengers and drivers alike. [applause] fourth, effective immediately, i have instructed d-dot to ensure

that parts are available to fix the bosses -- the buses. and fifth, we have begun the process of selecting a new management firm. it is time to bring the best practices of industry experts to manage our fleet. [applause] given our challenges, it would be unrealistic to expect that next month we will have 305 buses running every day. however, i will not settle for anything less than 25 additional buses returning to the street every day between now and march. while this action plan will result in an immediate improvement, the long term transportation issues must be addressed. d-dot currently consumes $100

million of subsidies from our general fund. that cannot continue. we must find ways to provide better service. the department is supposed to receive 47 new energy-efficient buses from the federal stimulus by the end of march, and in 2013 we will also replace an additional 20 buses thanks to an announcement from the obama administration. [applause] the new vehicles are just one piece of the long-term answer. better management is another. cooperation from our workers, city council, and a residence is the final and most important piece of the equation. i will not allow our kids and our seniors to continue waiting in the cold for buses, standing in the dark, vulnerable to

criminals. [applause] this brings me to public lighting. no department need structural investment more than our lighting department. if you do not pay to maintain it, eventually it breaks down, like a car or a house. we need a lighting system that works in detroit. city government lacks the $300 million in require capital investment and the know-how necessary to fix the lights. we must focus on getting the lights on and less on who provides the service. [applause] we have begun discussions with private utilities that can afford to make the necessary investment in lighting. transferring these responsibilities to a private entity is a long-term solution need to provide for a well lit

city. in the short term, the city council approved by a proposal to get 5000 lights back on in the next three months. but me make clear -- this is only a temporary fix. not the long term solution. we cannot fix all the lights out in every neighborhood. our focus right now is repairing lights in residential areas were the majority of our population lives. neo contracted with -- we have contracted with dte, and pld staff is working on fixing the grid system that will replace an additional 2000 lights across the city. given the crisis, fixing lights, getting the buses running, and maintaining public safety requires sacrifices in other areas. we have to make choices. there is no way to avoid that

reality. if we do not, we know the risk. none of us want financial decisions to be made by a state appointed emergency manager. avoiding that state means supporting change and sacrifice that will not be easy. [applause] the city will face of $45 million cash shortfall by the end of this fiscal year if we do not make structural changes. today, i released to the public a new financial report showing in our cash flow and what will happen if we fail to take action. is available for anyone to see with a full explanation -- it is available for anyone to see the full explanation on our website. i encourage our residents to read that report, ask questions, and spark a true dialogue about

our options. this week, and met with our union leadership to discuss with the city needs as it is running out of cash. we presented information and ask for the following -- number one, elimination of the furlough days with implementation of an across-the-board wage cut. number two, changes to existing health care coverage, including a 10% increase in employee contributions to that coverage. #3, pension reforms that will make the city more competitive with other municipal plans, including reductions in excess payouts for the system. #4, perform our work rules that will reduce overtime and streamline -- reform our work rules that will reduce overtime and streamline operations.

and five, additional -- will be necessary given the city's fiscal position. this represents a savings of more than $40 million for the fiscal year. i know that accepting sacrifices difficult for our city employees. has timeat government and again asked for tough concessions in tough fiscal times. residents deserve more been reduced services and high taxes. -- residents deserve more than reduced services and high taxes. [applause] was simply cannot afford to provide the rich benefit packages our employees have enjoyed for decades. this is not an attack on labor or our dedicated employees. the private sector, including

the auto industry, was forced to accept tough cuts just to survive. the terms we are asking for are no different than what most citizens of detroit received at their places of employment. we are asking for the same partnership with city retirees, and we need 20,000 retirees to accept the same pension reforms so the city can save another $8 million in this fiscal year alone. in addition to labor and concessions in strategic work force reduction, we will implement the same 10% reduction in pay for city contractors. effective january 1, we will also implement a tax rate increase for corporations in detroit. if we are asking our unions, are contractors to sacrifice, it is basic fairness for the business

community to contribute as well. [applause] i am also urging government tonight and state legislators to write one of the historic wrongs that contributed to detroit's at the school crisis. in 1990, the city made an agreement with the state to lower income taxes over a period of years in exchange for a guaranteed level of state revenue sharing bonds. while the city followed through on its commitment, saving detroit millions in taxes, the state did back keep its promise. [applause] that loss of more than $220 million in revenue is enough to eliminate our current structural deficit in compensate for the fiscal years $45 million

shortfall. -- and compensate for the fiscal year's $45 million shortfall. [applause] i am requesting the return of those funds to the city of detroit. [cheering] [applause] detroit is critical to this region's economic success. without a strong and urban core surrounding communities, they will also suffer. if we are truly serious about competing as a region, it is time to stand gather and put our collective political will and power into action. [applause] we have to make a choice. if you want to try to succeed, all of us have to put some skin

in the game. if we want better public safety, more lights on, more police on the street, we have to make the changes i have outlined. tonight, i am asking every detroiter and everyone who cares about this city to stand with us to keep detroit our city. [applause] i want you to know that the challenges we are facing, i want you to know what we're doing to address them. i want you to know that i love the city just like you and we need your help like we have never needed it before. [applause] despite our challenges, there are many positive things that are happening in our city. our image is changing for the better.

businesses in the city are investing again. people believe in detroit and want to see us succeed all across the world. we cannot afford to lose the momentum. the apathy that paralyzed detroit for decades ends tonight. [cheers and applause] all of us have something to contribute to this effort. together, we need to move our businesses, our employees, our contractors, and elected officials to do what is right and necessary for detroit to succeed. we must cut pension and medical costs by more than $40 million annually and continue strategic layoffs. we must provide layoff services at a lower cost. tonight, i laid out the steps to avoid the appointment of an

emergency manager. i provided specific actions i had taken to get more buses on the streets and thousands of street lights turn on. i outlined what we're doing to keep the city safe. detroit has always had the will to survive. we must once again stand as a community and work together. addressing this crisis head-on is the only way to save our city. thank you for everything you do for detroit. this is our city and our future. good night and thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> for those to stay above -- for those to say my friends, we are 172 is -- 172 years away. for those who stay -- who say that the civil rights program is an infringement on state rights, i say the time has arrived in america to step into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words nearly 20 years before championing the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the one time senator was vice- president under lyndon johnson and later ran for president and lost. we will look at his influence on the c-span series of " the

contenders." live tonight at 8:00 eastern. >> tomorrow on "washington journal." sam jeweler and amin husan discussed the occupy movement. and then larry pratt on the national right to carry act passage by the house. and after that, jan withers, the national president of mothers against drunk driving speaks on our reports to eliminate from driving in the future. plus, your e-mail, phone calls, and tweets. >> condoleezza rice, a george mcgovern, randall kennedy, and

jim lehrer headline this weekend at the miami book fair international. follow the authors and join in with your e-mail and tweets. you can also watch exclusive miami book fair webcasts on cspan.org. >> religious fundamentalism, tribalism -- these are far more powerful than ideology. we are not immune in this country to these forces, and won the melting pot -- when the melting pot has been out, how you preach multiculturalism? >> find the complete schedule on line at booktv.org. >> michele bachmann attended an editorial board meeting at the

des moines register newspaper. she spoke about water boarding and why she would approve of it as president. the newspaper's editors started the meeting. is a little more than an hour. -- it is a little more than an editor -- is a little more than our. >> good morning. my name is rick green. in here today with the republican presidential candidate from minnesota. we will be spending some time talking about some of the issues that are important not only for the state, but also the country. we know you've been involved in the campaign. thank you for being here. >> thank you. i appreciated. >> what we would like to do is give you an opening statement about the things you're seeing and hearing. >> thank you. i just wanted to say that i am are republican member of

congress, but i am not a congressional candidate. i am a presidential candidate. i am thrilled that i was here at the first caucus state. i came in very late in the race. i am told that no candidate has come in with so little time and won the iowa straw poll. and i am the first woman to ever win the iowa straw poll. we are not resting. we are working very hard. being in the iowa straw poll was a good thing for campaign, because it forced us to be very different early on as a campaign and to the hard work that needs to be done in iowa, on the ground, a meeting people, faced by face, living room by living room, meeting by meeting.

we workedvery pleased as hard as we did. we're continuing to work on that. after that, we went to webster city, iowa, and we will be traveling on today. that is what we're doing. we're doing what needs to be done. meeting with the voters, hearing what needs to be said. we like the schedule and were working very hard. >> [inaudible] >> no one has seen an election like this one. the beautiful part is it is unexpected. we had a chance to win the straw poll. we 1. part of it is i am an extremely hard worker. we worked together, and my

message resonated with the voters in iowa. as we've seen throughout the base, on any given day, they thought this candidate will be the next president. this candidate will be the next president. and is continually changing. if there is anything we have seen, is the validity of the res. it certainly is not locked in cement by any stretch of the imagination. the candidates on the upswing right now, we certainly see that where we are meeting with voters on a regular basis. we are drilling down even deeper, person by person, and we are seeing as new information comes out about the candidates, this is a good process. i will tell you, it is exacting. it is difficult. is one of the most difficult things i've ever done in my life. but it is good. i defend this process because it is out. after all, we are vying to be

the next leader of the free world. the voters need to know who we are. i am getting my body blows. the other candidates are getting their body blows. we need this process. i am grateful for this and i defend this process. >> [inaudible] >> i think early on when my numbers were also very high, people looked at me and my background. in an apologetic social conservative, -- i am and apologetic social conservative, and i have never apologized for the fact that i am pro-life or i am against -- and that i defended religious liberty. i am very happy to take on the issues. >> you have carved out a fairly narrow slice of a fairly narrow slice of the republican party.

how do you reach out and bring it out -- >> every stop that went to almost every day, i would do almost six stops a day doing the straw poll, and almost every stop, someone would come up to me afterwards and say, michele, i voted for barack obama, but i am voting for you. we saw that stop after stop after stop. and the that is exactly what we're going to see. in this election more than any other, people are not interested in republican or democrat. it is who was the person. who was the candidate? there's a very strong bipartisan agreement that there is a big decline in the economy. they want someone who can be unifier. i can be in a fire.

that is what i have done. in the first republican -- i am the first republican woman to go to the capitol of minnesota. i am proud of that distinction. i did not do that by tap dancing. i was 50 years old when i went to congress. i am 55 now. i have been very forthright about my positions. i mean what i say. i say what i mean. i do not dance around a. i am very forthright. i think that kind of frankness is what people are looking for. i am a former federal tax lawyer. i get back. my husband and i started a business from scratch. we get the travails of the small business person. i also sat on the financial services committee. i think i have the right

solutions to turn the economy around. i also have the background and the benefit of serving on the house intelligence committee, which is dealing with this information. now that issue was rising. it was not rising before the campaign, but the issue of dealing with national security is rising because of the iaea report that came out last week, dealing with the threat of a nuclear weapon on the part of iran. i think that will continue to be front and center and it needs to be. united states is in a more vulnerable position than it has been before. a lot of that has to do with the super committee. here again, i was the lone voice in the wilderness of washington, d.c. last summer, one of the only voices to said we had the revenue to pay the interest on the debt. i said, let's do that. let's not see our credit rating go down. how we're going

to cut a significant portion out of the budget. it will be painful to make the cuts, but we need to do that, because we cannot borrow at the level we are borrowing. and i was a lone voice. but here we are. restock our credit rating -- we saw our credit rating downgraded. and here we are kicking the can. we're nowhere near a deal. if we of a train wreck, this is what is going to happen. there will be massive tax increases. they will hurt job creation. or we will see massive cuts to our military. will absorb about $400 billion in cuts this summer. now we are looking at absorbing another $600 billion. need to look no further than defense secretary panetta who said to john mccain that if the super committee prevails, or it does not prevail, however it works out, the $600 billion in

automatic cuts, if that happens, we're looking at taking the armed forces back down to troop levels of 1940. we look at 1914 levels, and our air force at the lowest level of aircraft. this is the worst possible time, because the economy is flat on its back, and you've got the military cut at the same time? it does not take much imagination to figure out what that means for our bond ability in terms of national security. it would not be a good scenario. >> obviously you of covered a lot of ground here, but we talked about the -- you have talked -- obviously you have covered a lot of ground here, but we talked about the debt limit. what you think the impact would of been on the credit rating if we had not raised the debt ceiling? >> i think it was ron. let me give you the context. the data came into the united

states congress, we were in debt $8.76 trillion in debt. we have gone in little over four years from $8.76 trillion and we will be at $16 trillion in four years. that is doubling the national debt. with never spent at this level. look at the contrast. -- we have never spent at this level. last month in october, the deficit was $203 billion, just for one month. it is the velocity of spending, the velocity of debt accumulation. it is so much so that what works out -- for family of four, that

is $2,300. what families are seeing is that congress spends money faster than people can pay it out. >> [inaudible] >> the net effect is saying we will pay the interest on the debt. that is what standard and poor's and moody's said. can you finance your debt? >> [inaudible] >> pardon? >> how much per year? >> the interest on the debt -- i do not know what it is now, but i know what will be doubling in 10 years. and if it will be at a level, let me correct that -- we will be spending more money on interest in the debt in 10 years and we are on the military. >> that is my question. if you pay the interest on the debt, and the things that we have to pay for -- social

security, etc. -- then everything else will run away the next day? >> what we needed to do was not avoid reform. that is what every administration does, including republicans. this is not just republicans and democrats. that is what we have to do. we have to reform the programs we have today. when i was born here in iowa, we did not have medicare. it was not until i was a 10 year-old the we had medicare. in that time, weaver program now that is a good 45 -- we have a program of as a good 45 years of age and it is time to have reform. those numbers on spending are not going to stay at a plateau. they are going to escalate. >> what does medicare reform look like under your -- >> i like the direction that paul ryan has suggested, which is look at how we're subsidizing

health insurance. is not just for senior citizens. i want to change health care for all americans. today, we have what is essentially socialized medicine with obamacare. i want to end the monopoly insurance companies have on every state and i want to make sure every american, every eye one has any insurance plan they want anywhere in the united states with no minimum requirements and pay for that policy with iran taxpayer money, whether is the premium or the deductible -- with their own taxpayer money, whether it's the premium or the deductible. i went to a true medical malpractice liability reform, because that goes to the cost issue. i would like to offer a liability shield to any doctor or nurse or drug company or clinic or hospital that wants to offer care, free care to poor people. when i was a little girl, my mom

would tickets to the doctor, and it would say, well, we do not run to the dr.. but they would make us, and a doctor's visit was $5. we would go and see the doctor, but the doctor also saw people who could not pay. but he did not charge people who truly could not afford. and he knew if someone was abusing the system are not. but today, it is different. you have people who sue you. doctors are in a very different position. if we want to encourage people to offer care free to people who through no fault of their own cannot afford it, we should. we should do that through a real -- through reliability shield. that is the main problem. president obama said every household would save $20 million a year -- $2,500 a year if we went with obamadear. -- obamacare.

my plan addresses cost. >> [inaudible] are there any parts that you think should remain, that are valid? >> absolutely not. i brought 4500 americans to washington, d.c. to fight against obamacare. it will be more expensive than anyone dreams that it will be. just when we do not need a new entitlement program, we're getting 1. number one, we cannot afford the cost. number two, we're seeing the effect on doctors. i will give you an example. i was doing a town hall. a position stood up. a very tall guy. he stood up and said, michelle, let me tell you what happens to make. the irs in fat -- the irs in forces -- enforces obamacare.

i had a woman and i had to get a number for her. guess how long i had to wait while she was in my office. 2 hours and 15 minutes. he said that he was so frustrated. "this is what obamacare is going to mean for me." it was not just him waiting. it was that all the other patients. i want to get rid of obamacare. i was the first member of congress to introduce a repeal of obamacare. and i want to put in place a plan that actually addresses the cost issue [inaudible] . ] -- addresses because tissue. >> [inaudible] how does that nonexistent tax break in that person's case work for him under your plan? >> absolutely helps them because now they can buy the cheapest

possible plan they can get. i think what a lot of people will do is buy catastrophic health insurance plans, and what we will be seen under my plan as we will be encouraging new, for example, metaclinics to grow up. so, a child is in the soccer game, and they can be seen immediately by a dr.. -- by a doctor. no one even knows about health care costs any more. what i want to do is be able to introduce the free-market and health care. >> [inaudible] has always been government

health care? >> no. >> when you work for the irs? >> also, what we purchased on our own. individuals cannot deduct health insurance on income tax. businesses can, but not people, and that is wrong. i introduced the bill in congress that is called the health care freedom of choice act, and that would allow americans to purchase health insurance policy and deduct it on their income tax. they should be able to do that, just like a company can. it for tax -- >> how does this protect people that insurance companies will not sell to? people with pre-existing conditions? >> the marketplace knows how to best the german cost. right now government is determining the cost of health care. market needs to make that determination.

it is not the people have to go without health care. insurance is one thing. health care is another. high risk pools are something various states of come up with. there are always going to be people that have chronic conditions or pre-existing conditions, and that is what limits the state's. the states of come up with high risk plans. that is what they've done in the past. i am not sure of the number, but i think it is 30-some states have a high-risk pools. they put together subsidies so people can pay what would be a normal price for health insurance, and in the state comes in and pays the difference. if that is what they need to do, i encourage that. but again, we want to offer charitable organizations or doctors or clinics to offer care to people who are indigent or in a difficult place.

the thing is, health care will be provided, the question really is, what is the cheapest way, the most cost-effective way to get the highest quality care? with the greatest number of people to get the highest quality care at the lowest possible price? that is not what we're getting. with government been be cheap purchaser of health care in the united states. -- being the cheap purchaser of health care in united states. we're not getting a good value for our dollar. one thing we do know is that obamacare will break the bank. that is not michele bachmann saying that. that is kathleen sebelius kaine @. -- saying that. there is not enough money. they admit there's not enough money.

in order to make the numbers work over a 10-year period, they have to of all the revenues up front and the expenditures coming later. that is the only way they could make it work. and we try to expose what a fraud this is, that obamacare never be able to pay for itself and of course it will not, but we saw the stunning amount of power government has. there are over 1000 pages of rules and regulations. it is not just of bill. this is a bill that will never finish being written. that is why ubs came out with a study, and they said the number- one reason employers are not hiring is because of obamacare. employers know that every employee he they hire will have a $2,000 price under ed. -- on their head.

what government will do is every time it needs more revenue, it will dial-up the amount that employers have to peg. employers are very reluctant to hire employees right now, because they know the costs are exponential, dealing with health care. >> do you think vaccines are dangerous and did you vaccine your children? >> sure we vaccinated are on children. they had measles, mumps, and rubella and tv and all the baby shots they had to wrap. they had them, and i had them when i was a baby. we have seen a marked difference in the number of vaccinations that children used to laugh and more and more are being purged all the time. that is really a decision parents need to make. that was the point i was making in the debate. this is a decision not for the governor to make, not to use his executive authority, which gov. perry didn't he abuse of

authority, but this is -- which gov. perry did admit he did use that authority, but this is the decision parents need to make. is the idea of a politician -- it is the idea of a politician paying of political donors with mandates or government contracts. at the federal level, the biggest scandal we hear about now is with selling drug -- solyndra. this happens all the time and it is scandalous. no politician should be paying off their political donors. >> [inaudible] >> well, i am not a doctor. i am not a scientist. i am not making that point. my point was about the abuse of powers and also crony capitalism. >> in a question about the nuclear lessons report. -- i have a question about the

nuclear lessons report. how would you deal with that issue? >> number one, going back to when president obama came into play, it was naive at best and foolish at worst for the president to meet with iran with no preconditions. that was unprecedented. this was a nation that had violated one issue after another with the iaea. there were all sorts of problems with the ron. and iran has said repeatedly -- there were all sorts of problems with iran. and iran has said repeatedly once they have a nuclear weapon they would use it. but the president sat down. that was done with no pre- existing conditions. what the president gave iran was the luxury of time. time to continue unabated to develop a nuclear weapon. this is extremely serious. is the number-one threat that

faces the nation. not only our nation, but other nations across the world. we know what iran will do. they will share the information, technology, and power of the nuclear weapon not only with themselves. they will share it with syria. which is a courier for them, a proxy for organizations like hezbollah and hamas, and they will share it with so don. president obama made what i believe is the wrong decision in the treaty with russia last december. we're seeing a denuclearization of the world' while basket case nations are getting nuked up. we will be seeing these nuclear

arsenals. i do not think it will lead to peace. alternately with a one -- but ultimately, what i want to see is not only peace for the united states, but he sang in the middle east region and around the world. and to be a world of peace, i think the united states has to be a good global leader. we're not perfect. yet made a lot of mistakes, but i think we want to make sure the united states is in a position of strength. >> to achieve peace in the middle east with iran as a nuclear power -- >> that is very difficult, isn't it? >> now what are you going to do? >> [inaudible] >> there will be likely three scenarios. iran may make a strike. israel will make a strike. or the u.s. would make a strike. i would hope it would not be the west that would make the strike. hopefully no one would make that strike. but iran has not gotten a signal

from anyone that they have something to lose if they go forward. if they continue to develop, not only enriched uranium, but also the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon. they have continued to go forward unabated in a manner that has put not only the united states at risk, but the rest of the world at risk. >> but what is the signal that needs to be sent? what needs to be done vis a vis iran right now? >> right now, president obama has taken this off the table, which is extremely foolish in my opinion. we need to isolate iran. >> [inaudible] >> we have done nothing. >> there are no sanctions in place? >> i am not saying anything meaningful.

the meaningful sanctions are with the iranian central banking community where they would not have access to funds. we could shut them down in a heartbeat if we could stop the money flowing to iran. if they could not sell overseas oil and have a banking system to do that, they would be done. and president obama has been unwilling to do that to iran. i think that is tragic. >> and you are? >> he has failed to bring the russians or the chinese to the table. instead, he was diverted with libya. i came out immediately and said that i was opposed to what the president was doing in libya, not because i am a fan of gaddafi, or was a fan of the adoptee, but at that point, libya was not posing -- or was a fan of gaddafi, but at that point, libya was not posing a

threat to the united states. secretary of defense gates said there was no american national interest or mission in libya. why are we going into a country where there is no national interest or mission? it was wrong for the united states to be there. >> were we in that country? >> wewe unilaterally began the bombing. president obama made that decision when congress was still in session. he moved forward. congress was there. he did not consult congress. he said he did not have to. i think he did. unilaterally, we were there. only after the united states began the bombing did we joined up with nato. let's not forget who provided the number one source of funding for nato. we provide that money. defense secretary gates came out just before he resigned and said

nato needs to start paying their own freight. we have been providing the defense for europe. that needs to end. europe needs to stand on their own two feet. we are far too bank extended beyond what we should be. we cannot afford that. i am not one who says we cannot cut back on the debt. let me tell you one area. we have a problem when it comes to procurement. there is a military industrial complex in washington, d.c. the issue of procurement is scandalous. today, we have a cost plus fee basis. we pay based on how long it takes to develop a weapon. we pay more money based upon how much time it was. we need to have a fixed price

system where we will pay you x amount for this weapon and that is its. you figure it out and get it developed. we are being played all the time on procurement. there is something else that could be reformed. i do not want to cut back on benefits for service people, but tricare is also something that needs to be reformed. >> you said you supported waterboarding and you had no problem with that. it is the notion of torture being acceptable consistent with your general faith and values? >> i do not accept the premise that that is tortured. i do not accept that as a premise. it is called an enhanced interrogation technique we have used to bring about information. i would go back to the example

of harry truman. he was asked about his decision to drop the bomb on japan. that was a terrible decision he had to make. he said if i have to kill 1000 japanese to save one american life, i will. he made that decision. if i, as president of the united states, had someone who was a terrorist -- waterboarding was done on the admitted mastermind of 9/11. we did extract useful information from him that helped prevent other incidents. if i had knowledge that we could use something like waterboarding to be able to save the american people, would i use that? yes, i would. waterboarding does not kill anyone. is it uncomfortable? yes, it is uncomfortable. elsewhere more concerned that we would prevent aircraft from going into the twin towers and

taking out 3000 american lives than i am about the comfort level of a terrorist and much -- and what that means to them. this is done under monitored conditions. i do not deny that it is uncomfortable. the person is not going to lose their life or be permanently injured or permanently impaired by this. it is done on unique and strict circumstances. here is the other problem. what is president obama doing today? we no longer have cia interrogators. cia interrogators are no longer able to deal with enemy combatants. all we have is the army field manual. we publish its online. any tear-gas can see what is going to happen to them when they are captured. they know exactly what we are going to do to them. -- any terrorist can see what is

going to happen to them when they are captured. there is no respect for the united states because they know what is going to happen. we no longer have a place to put them in jail once we capture them. there are ships, but that is not a long-term solution. we are using the army field manual. when are we going to recognize we are at war? we are at war with an enemy that means business. our enemies seize that we are at war. they are acting like we -- our enemy sees that we are at war. we are at war with an enemy that wants to see us defeated and dead. so much so that we saw iran tried an international assassination plot on u.s. soil. they wanted to carry this out at a restaurant that would be filled with members of congress

and hundreds of innocent americans. there is no compunction about killing all of these innocent americans here in washington, d.c., our nation's capitol. >> waterboarding is being done as an interrogation technique to determine if people are terrorists, people who are suspected. >> klm is admitted terrorists and mastermind of 9/11. those determinations need to be made by the president and those who are in that hierarchy grid of authority. not everyone is waterboarded. it is an extraordinary technique. all i am is saying is that a president needs to have at present it -- that technique on the table. >> would you willingly submit to

it to see what it was like? >> i think it would be absurd to have the president of the united states submit to waterboarding. there are those who do it so that they can talk about it and speak about it afterwards. let's look at the context. the united states of america was attacked in an act of war. we lost 3000 innocent americans. flight 93 went down over pennsylvania and innocent lives were lost. the pentagon had a plane flew into it and we lost hundreds of innocent lives there. i think it is ugly. as president of united states and as commander at -- commander in chief, i will do what i have to do to keep america safe. we are probably less safe than we were when president obama came into office. we are looking at the specter of

a nuclear iran. >> how do you respond to john mccain who argues that, by using torture, we have been made less safe as a result? >> i have the deepest admiration and respect for john mccain. he is a true american hero. he and i would disagree on this issue. i see it as an enhanced interrogation technique that should be something available to the president of the united states. could it be abused, undoubtedly. the president needs to employ this and it needs to be in that tool box. that is where we disagree. i do not believe this has made us less safe. we are more say if we are able to get the best intelligence and the best information. we are also seeing a different

type of war. the level of threats we are looking at today are not as much geopolitical nation states suited up on battlefields. it is not much like that. we have that element. we are dealing with threats to date through interrogation. it can be done through the tension, rendition, interrogation. we need to have the interrogation. we also need the tension. i would continue and keep open guantanamo bay. we have to have somewhere to have people who are in detention. and also our special forces. our special forces proved themselves with bin laden. we need to make sure we have the resources so we have special forces. it is a different kind of enemy. it is a different kind of war. we need to be able to adapt to that threat. >> are there areas where you

think president obama has done a good job? >> he made the right decision to take out osama bin laden. i took out ron paul during the last debate. i disagreed with him. he thought it was wrong for the president to have made the decision to take out bin laden and to take out anwar al-awlaki . he was the chief recruiter. he recruited major hassan, who was responsible for the ft. hood massacre and the christmas day bomber who wanted to take out an airliner over the city of detroit. he recruited the times square bomber who was not successful. he said, before a federal judge, that we are at war and we will continue to be at war. he was active and involved in recruitment. it was right that president obama made those decisions.

i also commended the president when he chose not to have a new helicopter built. the procurement process is broken. he understood that and i appreciate him for doing that. it is not that every decision of president obama makes is wrong. they are not. he makes decisions i agree with. the general direction he has taken the country has been a disaster. there are some decisions he made that were right. i thank him for that. i do not believe he deserves to have a second term. he does not have the formula for turning the economy around. he has weakened the united states and made us more vulnerable. >> what is your formula for turning the economy around? >> my formula for turning the economy around is found at mich

elebachmann.com. i am more committed than any other candidate for a full repeal of obamacare. i am committed to a full repeal of dodd-frank. let me add this on dodd-frank. it mandated 400 rules. 26 of those rules have been written so far. just the rules that have been written will require a 11 million man hours. just by way of comparison, building the empire state building required 7 million man hours. this is the level of cost we are going to have added to the economy. it will not act. it will subtract from the economy. i will be appealed those two pieces of legislation. for four years i have been

working on legalizing american energy production. that is 1.4 million jobs we could create to increase american domestic supply by 50%. i want to see a sketch back to where gasoline was per gallon when barack obama -- see us back to where gasoline was per gallon when barack obama was elected. >> you have been a foster parent. >> can i talk about my tax plan? i want to repeal $1.80 trillion in job killing regulations. i want to deal with immigration. i will build a fence on the border. i want to deal with welfare benefits to illegal aliens and make english the official language of the country.

i want to abolish the united states tax code. i want to have a flat tax system. it will recognize that people who make more need to pay more. they need to not pay any less than people at the middle and lower income levels. that is what herman cain and rick perry's plans do. they have people in the middle and lower income levels pay more. i also want to make sure that the same rules apply to everyone. i also want to make sure everyone pays something. this is a departure for all of the candidates. even if it is only $10 a year, that maybe all that people can afford. i am in favor of doing away from the current income tax credit. that takes millions of people

off of the tax rolls and sends them a check every year. something happens to people's mindsets when 40% of the american people pay zero in income tax and everyone else pays the rest. >> some pay nothing. how about corporations? >> that is what is wrong. paidwhirlpool corporation pa minus 11%. >> you would eliminate tax credits to corporations and give them money from the treasury? >> by abolishing the tax code, that would deal with businesses as well. the combined effective rate of

the federal and state tax burden is about 40%. that is the only thing you need to know about why we are seeing jobs leave the united states. a lot of countries have 25% tax rates and they are falling. we are at 35%. that is why a businessman can say i bought a piece of equipment for $1 billion. -- $1 million. when i put that piece of equipment up there, it is the jobs that go with it. we have got to be competitive. we have got to be competitive in the world. we are stifling ourselves and deluding ourselves if we are embracing a dependency culture that looks like greece and if we are being uncompetitive like the old western european nations we used to laugh at.

when we are doing that, we are disadvantaging ourselves. we need to change the mind-set in the united states that everybody gets something. growing up in iowa, there were a couple of adages my parents told me. one was, no one owes you a living. not everybody can work. there are people who are physically disabled or mentally disabled. nobody begrudges anybody for that. nobody owes you a living is a pretty good idea what added. something else my parents taught me was an honest today's work pay.n honest day's >> does that mean delaminating welfare programs totally? >> it means taking a look at what lyndon johnson put into place in the 1960's. i went to go through the great society programs and a lot of them need to be ended.

the states need to make a decision about whether they want them or not. in 1964, food stamps came in and they have escalated since then. the same with a lot of programs that came in the mid-1960's. when the federal government spends $3.60 trillion in a year and only takes in $1.20 trillion, we are in trouble. that is not just one year. that is a year after year after year. a part of that is dismantling the modern welfare state. that is not part of the constitutional government. i want to get back to the constitutional government. with those programs, the states can decide if they want to do that. we cannot afford it at the federal level anymore. >> i want to talk to you about your five years in congress. can you talk to us about

legislative successes you at had that prepare you for the white house? >> i had been in the minority until this january. nancy pelosi was not interested in advancing my pro-growth agenda. she should have. we would be in a much better place today if she had embraced that pro-growth agenda. i have been a strong advocate for energy. i have worked hard to bring 40,000 americans to washington, d.c. to fight against obamacare. i worked hard against dodd- frank. i worked hard to put fannie mae and freddie mac into receivership. i oppose the automobile task force. i opposed the tarp bailout. i was a leader behind closed doors with the bush administration. we worked across the aisle and we brought down the first vote on the $700 billion wall street

bailouts. we did not prevail on the second one. i tried in the best way i could. elsewhere working together with republicans and democrats. we are hoping to get a bridge built between wisconsin and minnesota. we think we might get there for an historic first. i am praising president obama for that. it looks like the obama administration is getting behind it. i just got off of the phone with the secretary of transportation and interior and senators frank and amy klobuchar. it is possible to get something done and to work together as republicans and democrats. is looking forward to it. >> as the only woman in this race and one of the few running -- who has ever run for president, how do you feel you have been treated by the press, the public, and the other candidates? >> the public has been wonderful. people in iowa have been bent --

have been fantastic. i want to give thanks to my parents for instilling that in me. i have three brothers and no sisters. i was treated just like my brothers. that is the best preparation for politics in negro can have -- to grow up with three brothers. -- for politics any girl can half, to grow up with three brothers. they have been gracious and kind. we have our differences. we do not see each other because when we go to events, we are talking to people. when we go to debate, we line up behind the curtain and we go on stage. we do not spend a lot of time together. everyone has been nice, gracious, and civil. we are reticent about pointing out differences. he asked about the press. everyone wishes they could be treated better by the press.

it also grateful for the fact that the media has covered our events. as long as there report what happens at any event, -- at an event, we are happy. i have never lied about the price -- never whined about the price. we are grateful that they are reporting. almost anyone can be a journalist today if you have a phone camera. you can make history. with the advent of the internet, anyone can see what is going on at any given minute. even in the 2012 race, is different from the 2008 race. twitter was used in 2008. much more so now. people are more familiar with it. it is interesting the level of

expectation the public and the media has. everything is an immediate response. we can converse on every issue instantaneously as it happens. that is difficult to be able to do, to be conversant on every topic. it is a good process. it is good for us to go through. i started our conversation today. one of the most difficult exercises i have ever gone through. i extend it to the hill. the job of the presidency will be extraordinarily difficult. it will take everything out of a person and then some. it is important for a person to go through this and to learn to be better all the time. i appreciate that. i have made mistakes and i want to be better in this process. i appreciate how tough this is. we want the best candidate has been -- as the next president of

the united states. obviously, i have an opinion on back --on that. -- on that. >> how do you feel about sarah palin? >> i like governor palin. she has made great contributions. i am grateful to everything she has contributed. she has placed trails by being our first female vice presidential candidate on the republican side. she took a lot of abuse during the course of the time when she was a candidate. i appreciate her for her willingness to stand up and serve her country. >> i think that is going to be it. congresswoman bachmann, thank you for being with us. >> they did not get a chance to ask a question down there. you should ask them how they feel about how they are being treated by the media. >> in the debate the other night, he criticized the 30,000

troop surge. it should have been a 40,000 troops surge. what the is think the answer- -- what the think of the surge? >> it was wrong for the president to dither. the commanders could have bought on the eastern portion of afghanistan and on the southern portion. that is where the problem was to defeat the taliban. that was not possible when president obama made his decision. he failed to fulfil the requests that were made. the decision had to be made to focus on the south. we saw success down there nonetheless. the troops did a good job. better conditions on the ground.

the problem is that when we could not deal with the problem quickly on both fronts, it lent the amount of time the united states had to stay in that area. my practice is that i would like to get in, get the job done, get out, get home. now the president has said that he will be pulling it out by september of next year. that is less than one year from now. when the president sent those 30,000 troops, it was not just $30,000. he also announced the date we would be leaving. that is almost insisting you are going to lose this effort. you do not hear the president talk about winning or victory. isn't that why we sent troops, to win and to have victory? we won be peace in iraq. he is determined to lose its in iraq. we will by pulling all our

troops out by the end of this year. the kurds have been doing the same thing. iran will be coming into iraq. i have been saying to the president that it needs to go back to the negotiating table and demands that iraq -- a welcome -- iraq, a wealthy country, should pay us back. when it comes to afghanistan, at this point, the president has made a tough situation almost impossible. now that the troops are coming out, what afghani would be enlisted to help us knowing that they are going to be left with the taliban? the taliban is going to stay there. they lived there.

if they enlisted to help us, they are a target. they do not see it as a victory. the united states has let down our allies. we have invigorated our enemies. that is the failure of the president's policy. he is choosing to fail in iraq. he is choosing to fail in afghanistan. we cannot have this over with and see afghanistan stand on their own by the end of september. he is making a deliberate decision. there is a problem with the haqqani network in the east. we cannot possibly hold the south and deal with the east when the president is pulling troop levels out. i intend not to be the nominee, but the next president of the united states.

the president is taking his orders from general axelrod. he is listening to general axelrod. he is listening to general david plouf. everything is about his general election. that is about the lowest of the lull, for it commander in chief to make military decisions based on the election calendar rather than what is in the best interest of the united states. after all, that is what needs to be the number one issue of the commander in chief.

>> in less than seven weeks, folks in iowa will be headed to -- we will be sitting here talking about our endorsement. why should you are in our endorsement? >> i believe in the values iowans hold. they want a president who understands the economy and knows what to do to turn it around. i have that background as a self-made individual. our family went below poverty at one point. i had to work my way through college to establish myself. i know what it is to be middle- class and to be below poverty. i know what it is to come out of that. i have that american values that no one owes you a living. your word is your bond. those are important iowa values.

i was taught those by my family and seven generations of my family that has lived in iowa since the 1850's. i have the practical knowledge as someone who started a business from scratch and runs it profitably today. i have the business acumen. i have the background of a tax lawyer and as someone who sat on -- i thought delayed a coherent plan that makes sense. i put that on my web site. i know what needs to be done. i can bring people together to make it happen. i cut my teeth on education reform. you were asking me about foster children. my husband and i have been married 33 years. we have five biological children and 23 foster children. they are grown and gone now. i got involved with politics because i was a mother.

i was concerned with what i found my foster children bringing home in a back pack. i started to get involved. i lead an education reform movement in minnesota. i gave five years of my life to education reform. a husband and i started the first k-12 tartar school in the united states. our school was focused on -- charter school in the united states. our school was focused on at risk kids. we became the first state, perhaps the only state, that repealed the federal education standard. we put in place -- that was my effort that i lead. we put into place academic standards. when i grew up in iowa, i attended public schools.

i had such a good education growing up in iowa public schools. then i went to minnesota and there were good schools up there as well. i was shocked by what my foster children were bringing home in a backpack. i was extremely blessed by the schools i had gone to. i will give you one example. my 11th grade foster child brought home posters of coloring books. if anyone needs a leg up in life, is a foster child. in my own family, we had gone below poverty. a mother said to me when we lost everything that there was one thing that could never be taken away from you. that is your education, so study. i studied. i paid attention and did well in school. that helped me make it in life. i wanted our fortune -- our foster children to have that opportunity. in 11th grade, they are

coloring? they are not going to have the best opportunities. it would hurt business people like my husband and i because we would have people who want jobs and are not well-trained. it would hurt productivity. what is really remarkable is that it was minnesota. a democrat state. i thought this was not a partisan issue. i never once said if i was a conservative or not. i went all over my state and gave talks about education. because of me going around the state, people put pressure on their own senator and their own house member to get rid of this education program called the profile of learning. and they did. i was serving as a minority in the minnesota senate. we got rid of this program. everyone said it would never happen. education is the number one budget item in any state's

budget. we got rid of it. it is pollyanna to think you can fight city hall. i really believe we can be peeled obamacare. it is going to take a miracle to do it. i think we can get rid of obamacare because people hate it. i see we can do it on a national level. it is not that i am against health care for people, certainly not for pork people. i want them to have it. we can deliver better health care at better prices directly to people. if there is anything medicare has shown us is that there is fraud, blatant fraud. we have to weed out that fraud we will get in the obamacare. we want to make sure people get the finest health care. the greatest quality health care for the greatest number of people for the lowest possible

price. as the definition of a free market. >> congresswoman, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for coming in. i know you are so busy. >> we may not agree, but thank you for having me. i really appreciate it. >> general axelrod, huh? >> that is going to get me in trouble. >> i have to be back here editing. >> ok. good to see you. you are welcome. thank you. bye-bye. >> seeing more videos of the

candidates at c-span's web site for campaign 2012. from recent events to the earliest parts of their campaigns. we comments from candidates and political reporters. link to c-span's media partners in the early primary and caucus states. all at c-span -- c-span.org/ campaign2012. >> to those who say we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them that we are 172 years too late. for those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on state's writes, i say the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to get out of the shadows of state's writes -- rights and

march into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey champions the 1964 civil-rights bill into law. he was vice-president under lyndon johnson and ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence on american politics on "the contenders" tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tomorrow, on "washington journal attack -- "washington journal," the passage of this week's right to carry at by the u.s. house. the bill allows people who hold concealed weapon permit to carry

weapons across state lines. and the national president of mothers against drunk driving talks about a recent report to eliminate drug driving. plus your e-mails and phone calls. "washington journal" every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> every weekend on american history td, the people and events that document the american story -- american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. david gergen and the balanced budget act and spending cuts and taxes. and a suny professor on the emancipation during the civil war.

>> defense secretary leon panetta held a joint news conference earlier today with his canadian counterpart at the annual halifax international security forum in nova scotia. this is 25 minutes. >> thank you for joining us here. i want to begin by welcoming and extending my thanks to my counterpart, the united states defense secretary leon panetta, who joins us on the eve of the opening of the international security forum hosted here in halifax. i want to tell you how grateful we are for your presence.

we have had a chance to discuss salient issues for both of our countries, issues that relate to our collective continental defense. i am talking about subject matters like the f-35 strike fighter program and the procurement of this 21st century aircraft to protect north america and to continue to be interoperable and work together in international missions as we have seen most recently in the mission, unified protector in libya. we also had the chance to discuss, in the broader concept, continental security and our collected interest in working together through norad and our collective efforts, both in libya and the ongoing efforts in afghanistan and canada

assuming a more prominent role on the training site. the world that we have assumed with 900 plus canadian trainers in and around kabul. these are figures prominent in the transition of responsibility for security for the afghan people and the afghan government. can that and the u.s. are working closely in a defense relationship and partnership here in north america and around the globe. our collective efforts around global security are extremely important and are a high priority for canada. it is a great honor to host secretary panetta here in halifax at the international security conference. olver to you, leon. >> thank you to you. it is a tremendous honor for me to have the opportunity to be

here on the minister's home turf in nova scotia. i know how important it is to remain close to your constituency. on that basis, i would invite you to come to my constituency in monterey, california. that is another beautiful part of the world as well. this is my first trip to can see as secretary of defense. i have had the opportunity to come here a number of times in other capacities, both as a member of congress and ask chief of staff to president clinton and as cia director and now as secretary of defense. i believe deeply that this is a special relationship. a special relationship between our two countries. we share more than a border with

our canadian allies. we share a common history. we share common values and we share a common approach. to advance in our security interests. all of this has led to a defense relationship that we enjoy today, one of the strongest defense relationships we have in the world. we share a vision for extending peace and prosperity through a broad alliance structure, both as nato allies and as advocates for an enduring multilateral engagement both here and in north america and around the globe. today, we had a chance to discuss a number of ways to expand that cooperation in tackling some of the most pressing challenges that we

face, not only around the world, but here in the western hemisphere. we talked about working to improve our coordination in this area as well, dealing with tracking -- trafficking of narcotics and weapons and the ability to secure borders. one of the key ways to approach these problems is by fostering regional security forums such as the conference of the defense ministers of the americas and building the capacities of our neighbors to counter these threats. i look forward to working with peter to expand that cooperation. we also discussed the nato summit will be having in chicago. obviously, they will -- there will be a full agenda there. our efforts there will be to declare an interim capability for nato's european territorial

mission defense and further ways to strengthen the trans atlantic alliance we enjoy. for more than 50 years, we have been partnered together on homeland defense through norad. the headquarters i had a chance to visit and it is incredible to see americans and canadians standing side-by-side in that operations center. it is a singular signal that canada and the united states spent together when it comes to the security of our countries. along those lines, i did see press reports that indicated that somehow we were not committed to the f-35. let me make very clear that the united states is committed to be

-- the f-35 and a cooperative relationship with our canadian friends. it will be the future in helping us with the security challenges we face. our troops have stood shoulder to shoulder here and in afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world. in libya, we had the chance to work together to give libya back to the libyan people and try to protect those people from a brutal regime. just as our men and women in uniform have partnered so well effectively, minister mckay have strengthened a warm relationship between our two countries. we had the opportunity to meet two months ago in washington and

we saw each other at the nato ministerial. we looked forward to continuing a dialogue that will strengthen that cooperation and relationship. as i did in washington and i want to do here, i want to thank canada, in particular, for the contributions in afghanistan. you have 150 canadian heroes who paid the ultimate price. in libya, where i met the canadian general, someone who is incredibly capable and instrumental in leading those successful operations, all of that reflects the fact that we fight together and we believe -- we bleed together as one. it is looking forward to participating in the security forum this afternoon. let me extend my thanks to the

people of canada, to the warm hospitality they have provided me in the visit. i have had cousins who have come through canada. it is part of my italian heritage. canada is a special place for me. together, we are a powerful voice, the united states and canada. we represent a powerful voice for peace, freedom, democracy, and security. mr. minister, you have my commitment that i will do whatever i can to insure that we continue to strengthen that boys in this hemisphere and the world. >> to begin questions, we will start with reuters. >> good morning, mr. secretary. given the u.s.'s assurances that

the u.s. will reduce its military posture in the u.s., what kind of cuts are being considered for the u.s. military in europe? is this something that will come up in your talks here in halifax? thank you. >> in reviewing the budget that we are dealing with and the budget requirements on savings we have been given, the total number is about $450 billion plus that the congress has asked us to reduce the defense budget by over the next 10 years. we have begun an extensive process within the defense department to review all of the areas involved. there are 3 or four guidelines that are extremely important to me. number 1, the united states will protect the strongest military in the world.

we will continue to remain the best military in the world. two, i do not want to hollow out the force. cuts have been made across the board we can in every area of defense. we are not going to do that. deals with looking at a series of areas where we can try to achieve savings. those areas include deficiencies and procurement reform. they include the area of compensation. it also includes force reductions. all of those areas are being looked at. we have made no decisions as to what areas we will make the reductions in. i think it is fair to say that everything is on the table. we will do nothing without consulting with our allies so that they are aware of the decisions we make. there is no question we will be a small, agile, flexible, and

more deplore -- deployable forces so that we can meet the challenges of the future. that is kind of the broad strategy guideline we will use. with regard to every area, including europe, our goal is to make sure we are able to maintain a relationship that allows us to provide security in the pacific and the middle east , and also the mediterranean area as well. perhaps i could give the question. the question was whether the minister mckay was concerned about being -- about the f-35

program because of possible cuts in the united states. [speaking in french]

>> minister mackay was just saying that secretary panetta was clarified because to the defense budget. canada's intention is to proceed with the procurement process. there are pressures, but we believe this is a critical military asset for the protection of north america. we are confident about the future of the program. we believe it is absolutely necessary to keep it in place. the u.s. also intends to continue the process.

there are agreements with nine other partners. >> i am with cbc news. secretary panetta, you said you are committed for the -- to the f-35 program. do you think you can get funding for it. and for minister mackay, what is canada's backup plan. >> on the first part of that, i believe we will get funding for the f-35 fighter plane. this is the plane of the future. it will provide the technology and the capabilities for the future. we need to have this. it is true for us. it is true for our partners and four others who are going to

work with us and participate with us in the development of the f-35. let me say that as we go through the budget decisions we have to make, there are areas where we will look for savings. we will look for procurement reform. we will also have to look at areas where we continue to invest in the future. the f-35 is one of those areas where we will continue to invest in the future. >> those are comments in line with the discussion defense secretary panetta and i had two months ago, that the united states commitment to this program is firm. this is the reason that canada has chosen this aircraft. it is because of the technology aboard the f-35.

it is the ability to dominate and owned the airspace over continental america. there is no fifth generation aircraft other than f-35 available to canada and the united states. other than all of the hypothetical and negative discussions about this program, they are just noise. this program is going ahead. budgetary pressures a point to lead to speculation. we are dealing with our budget as all countries are dealing with this budget. we are not wavering on our commitment to this program. there are pillars in every department. this is one of those pillars. there is a direct link between our national sovereignty and our

ability to protect our air space. our commitment to norad and our nato commitment. let me refresh everyone's memory on how canada played such a critical role in the success of the libyan mission. because of fighter aircraft and the enter opera ability of aircraft. -- the interoperability of the aircraft. the stealth capability and the many other features of that aircraft are what make it an important part of north american protection and our ability to reach out and contribute internationally as we saw recently in libya and as we continue to see in the missions like afghanistan. other nato countries are looking at this aircraft as well. we have a group that are clearly already committed, including the united kingdom and including australia and others.

>> we only have time for two more questions. i see canadian press and the wall street journal. >> secretary panetta, there have been rumors that you are not happy with the size of canada's purchase. is there any truth to that? >> there is no truce. canada has to make decisions whether these are necessary. i trust the ability of canada and the ability of the minister to make the right decisions about what they need. we will support that. >> a question for both of you on afghanistan. we know the nato meeting is coming in may in chicago. you are looking to lay out what the transition will look like. general amos of the marines is quoted as saying he is confident we can shift from counter

insurgency to a train and -- counterinsurgency to a training mission and an assist mission. >> i am not familiar with what he said. we will implement the agreement that was gone. -- at lisbon. to continue to work to reduce our combat presence by the end of 2014. obviously, we are going to go through the campaign that general allan will outline as we approached that commitment. there is no question there is going to be, as we develop our

ability to secure that country, to weaken the taliban, to get the afghan army and police in place, there is going to be a transition that takes place. as a matter of fact, i would tell you that we are going to complete another raunch of provinces that will go to the afghans for security and governance. we have secured one group earlier this year. that is going well. we will complete another in december. that will represent over 50% of the afghan population that will be involved in these transitions. we are moving in the right direction. as we do that, we are trying to get the afghan army, the afghan police to assume more responsibilities with regards to combat operations. this is going to take a transition period. i would not assign a particular date or time frame for that. that is going to depend an awful

lot on general allan and is working with them to determine how best to make the transition from a combat role to an advisement role. there have been no decisions regarding a time frame at this point. >> i just returned from afghanistan under a week ago. i met with general allan and his staff. canada has assumed a prominent role in that training. you will recall that nato has made some very clear pronouncements with respect to training and the transition to training that is well under way. we are significantly down the road from where we were one year ago. to that extent, the numbers of the afghan national security force, both police and military, has swelled to over 300,000 current. the focus is on professionalizing and enabling those forces.

to give them the firm backing they need to start conducting independent operations, taking over the control of his various provinces, which is done in a stage fashion, and as secretary panetta said, we are at the 50 plus mark now. there is a desire to meet and exceed time lines. whether we get there will depend on this very focused effort to train afghan security forces. within that training lexicon is improving literacy. giving them all of the skills that they need and importing those skills by american and canadian soldiers to implant them for the -- to implant them firmly into the background and training cycle of afghan security forces. and it is happening in. i am proud of canada's role. we worked very closely in with that afghan training mission to see that this enabling and

empowerment of security forces is going to hold. that will be the key. so that they can secure their own borders, provide security for their own villages and populations, and carry on well into the future. canada has a lot to bring to this effort. many of the soldiers who are taking part in this training mission have combat experience where they had deployed on previous missions in the south province where, i say with a great deal of pride and appreciation to our forces, they held the fort in the most difficult part of the country at the most critical time. the afghans have been quick to acknowledge that. the meeting with their ministers last week, there was a very clear demonstration of appreciation on their part or what canada has done.

we are their partnering with our greatest ally, the united states, working with our nato allies, we are talking 40 + countries that are still involved in this effort. it is a monumental effort. when you consider where afghanistan is today compared to just a few short years ago, security is, of course, the most critical piece. when you look at the number of children now attending school, the number of children who have been immunized, the infrastructure, the long-term vision that all of these countries that we are working with, and the afghans themselves, have demonstrated. to stabilize, to be in a position to ever fall into the control of a terrorist organization like the taliban, we have made enormous steps in that regard. they have more women sitting in the parliament of afghanistan than we have in our own country. women are not only but his

batting in elections, they are being elected. there are participating in business and entrepreneurial ventures. commerce is starting to take hold in the country. they're moving back to an agrarian society that exports more than just coffee. that winds up in the form of drugs in north america. they are now borrowing beets, barley, pomegranate. none of that can happen without security. we are seized with the importance of the continued training mission and continued security-building. there is great and positive progress to report in that country today. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentleman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> following the news conference, secretary panetta spoke at the annual halifax

national security forum in nova scotia. he talked about the importance of alliances to meet today's global surge carried challenges -- global security challenges. it is 40 minutes. >> members of the u.s. congress, members of the armed forces, veterans, distinguished guests, family and friends, welcome to the third international halifax international security forum. it is an honor for me to welcome you to this beautiful city of halifax. it is a glorious autumn day. a big, blue sky outside. this is the city that is the heart of canada's atlantic gave way. we refer to it as canada's ocean playground and, in the summer months, it is a warm and inviting place. that is true every day in halifax. you are part of an interesting and powerful time in our nation's history, in world

history. you are in a part of canada that has always been a part of convergence for different peoples and cultures. nearly 1 million immigrants began their voyage to north america here, at pier 21, now canada's national immigration museum. this is a city home to canada's east coast navy, the royal canadian navy, and the largest military base in canada and. halifax also has the enviable reputation as a hub of knowledge, being home to canada's finest universities, where the leaders of tomorrow debate cutting edge issues. i know we have some students with us today. all of these elements make halifax the prevent you to hold an international security forum. a unique event where key leaders and policy makers and thinkers and practitioners come together to share their insights on the global security and defense challenges of the 21st

century. those of you who attended previous forums already know that this is an exceptional, one-of-a-kind event. i see a lot of familiar faces today. i welcome you all back. for new participants, you are in for a tremendous experience. our team has put together a unique gathering in a unique gathering place. they deserve a lot of praise. peter, i want to thank you personally. you and our team at the national defense have done an amazing job of shaping and organizing this 2011 form. i also want to welcome foreign affairs magazine to the halifax form as the official media sponsor. we are honored to partner with foreign affairs, whose outstanding leading edge analysis, global reach, and influential leadership and leadership has done so much to think -- to shake policy-making.

our conference comes at a dramatic year of democratic change. when we convene here last year, some may have signaled that the middle east and north africa where ready for popular uprising. who among us would have ever predicted that the desperate actions of a young tunisia, mohammed, who committed suicide against the bureaucracy, would be the catalyst of the entire region, bringing down regimes that were in power for decades and triggering others to propose political reforms that would have been unthinkable just a few months ago. last month in tunisia, citizens voted in free elections for the first time in their country's history. similarly, in egypt, we expect democratic elections to begin within the month after the

collapse of the maroc -- mubarak regime. this wave of change also reached libya. in october, after months of fighting, the national transitional council has been able to declare that country free. we also need to take time to consider the important lessons offered by these recent events. they show us that ordinary people, once globalized, will brave and violent oppression, even at the risk of their own lives, to defend their ideas, their aspirations, and their human dignity. perhaps more importantly, these events highlight what i believe is one of the key features of the 21st century international system. it's fluidity. during past uprisings, whether it be the prague spring, the hungarian uprising, canon software, it took weeks for communication to spread by word

of mouth, pamphlets, or shortwave radio across the masses carried this year in egypt, it took 18 days for protesters organized by twitter and facebook to completely a regime that had been entrenched for over 40 years. technology is changing. in this more globalize world, significant events in one country can rapidly have consequences cascading around the entire world. interestingly, some analysts are telling us that our governments are not well adapted to reach out or react to these new convergences. and the unpredictability of the international system. these same analysts are predicting that there will be a decline of liberal democracies as a social and political model and of their influence in the world. this analysis is certainly

provocative, even trendy. in my view, it is premature and probably misguided. as the arab uprising indicate, democratic ideals still resonate strongly and stir passion around the world. when hundreds of thousands of egyptians occupied car rear square -- tahrir square, there were demanding accountability, transparency, hair nets, and the role of opportunity. there were demanding representative government. some of the same analysts who predicted the decline of liberal democratic values or pointing a critical finger at the middle east. they suggest that egypt, libya, tunisia will not be able to overcome their difficult history and the transition to more modern and democratic governments. those who are expecting failure based on regional, historical,

or cultural dynamics should remember that democracy is not a spontaneous creation. think about the history of our societies. and the historical processes still under way that started with an ideal. and in the past centuries has evolved through milestones such as the abolition of slavery, two world wars, decolonization, and the fight for universal suffrage. it is easy for skeptics to say that other nations will not be able to overcome the obstacles that they face in building their democratic countries. this underestimates the in a determination of all people everywhere to be the masters of their own destinies, to be citizens, not subjects. in my view, this is underestimating the determination of the human spirit. it is also underestimating the capacity of our democracy is to adapt to new circumstances, to modernize, to be a force for

good in the world. how can we better position ourselves to respond to the transformation of our allies world. in my view, the answer to this question lies in the way that we do business. the business of international engagement. over the past decade, we have learned in per -- learned important lessons in afghanistan. we learned that if we are going to be effective partners from countries in their transition from takeoff -- from test to conflict -- from chaos and conflict to stability, we have to break the barriers that exist between our various departments and agencies and ensure that our military, diplomatic, intelligence, police, and development efforts are geared toward the objectives we want to achieve. in canada, we refer to this as the whole of government approach. nato has a different approach --

has a different term in terms of a comprehensive approach. whenever we call it, we need to continue to develop a coherent strategy to deal with these issues. we need this in post-conflict situation like afghanistan but also, we need to manage the new dynamics, such as the opportunities and risks that are emerging from arab uprisings and coordinating our efforts to maximize our effectiveness becomes even more important given the fiscal situation we face. in the current context, we do not have the luxury of throwing more money at our defense and security institutions so that they can adapt to the new circumstances. quite the contractor -- quite the contrary. in most of our countries, we are working with your resources available to tackle the complex challenges. that is why it is so critical that we define how we can do defense and security differently. we must find ways to be more

productive, more agile, more nimble. most of us struggle to decide how. that is the raison d'etre of this form. to bring people together to discuss these issues and learn from each other. we should capitalize on this wonderful opportunity provided by this form and the great program that has been put together for us by the organizers. to ask tough questions the will help us find solutions to common challenges. let me propose a few -- our first plenary this afternoon will be about 911 and its consequences. most in the last decade have been hard at work dealing with the consequences of this seminal event. as all our governments develop strategies to protect our citizens from the radical forms of terrorism and as many of us

got engaged in a difficult and heavy lifting the was the rebuilding of afghanistan, 10 years after september 11, we have to contemplate -- did we put enough effort in preparing ourselves from the new dangers, such as those posed by cyber warfare? do we pay enough attention to another threats, such as those proposed by masses -- by weapons of mass destruction in iran? if china is bound to become a superpower, how might we adapt to this reality? how can we ensure that our democratic ideals can survive in a world where another successful, far more autocratic system, is emerging? these are a few of the issues and questions that we will have the opportunity to discuss and to wrestle with in the next few days. as you, this is a very interesting and challenging program. with some extraordinary people, including the man i have the pleasure to introduce. the united states secretary of

defense, leon panetta. this morning, the secretary and i had the chance and we shared some of our views on the challenges facing north america and our elected continental defense. and what we can do to confront these challenges. we discussed global security issues, critical enablers, infrastructure and procurement, and a number of critical issues carried we did it all in 45 minutes. i cannot say we solve it all, but we had a free-falling construct -- a free-following conversation. the breath of his knowledge and experience and all that he brings to his role as secretary of defense, i am very pleased that he is able to join us here in halifax and share his thoughts on the pertinent issues of which we are all seized. i cannot think of anyone more suited to open this year's halifax international security

forum in 2011. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the podium secretary leon panetta. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much peter mackay and thank you for the opportunity to be able to participate in this forum. my fellow defense ministers who are here, members of congress, members of parliament, distinguished members of the military that are here, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honor to be here. i truly appreciate this invitation. it gives me a chance to be able to share with you some of the challenges that obviously, we all face. this halifax international security forum is a preeminent

forum to be able to present these remarks and be able to engage in the challenges that peter outlined. this is my first visit to canada as secretary of defense, but it is by no means the first visit to canada for me. i have had the opportunity to visit here in a number of past capacity is and i have always enjoyed the opportunity to come to canada. this is a great partner, a great neighbor, a great friend. it is always good to be here. as peter knows, and as many of you know, i am very proud of my italian heritage. as the son of immigrants who came to a place that was the center of the immigration, it is indeed moving for me to be able to be here. what you may not realize is that john cabot, the export -- the

explorer who has some credit with being the first european, after the vikings, to set foot on the north american mainland, was also italian. his given name was giovanni capoto. he landed somewhere where we are today around 1497. so peter and the rest of our hosts here today, i hope you will not mind if i join all of you in welcoming you to halifax. [laughter] as giovanni capoto would have said, benvenuto. i come here with respect for the relationship between our nations. it was a little over 40 years

ago that someone who inspired me to get into public service, john f. kennedy, travel to ottawa on his first trip outside the united states as president. i still remember very vividly his famous description of the bonds between the united states and canada delivered in a speech before parliament. he said and i quote, "geography has made us neighbors. history has made us friends. economics has made as partners. and necessity has made us allies." "those who nature at so joined

together, put no us under the day the respect i have for this relationship has only grown as i have gotten to work with canadian leaders throughout my time as a member of congress, as white house chief of staff under president clinton, as director of the cia, and now in my current position as defense secretary. we are in a very real way part of one family. one family that is mutually dependent on one another on this north american continent. that mutual dependence extends to issues of security, the subject of this conference, and also the focus of the same speech that president kennedy gave before the canadian parliament, delivered at the height of the cold war tensions

confronting the world. kennedy reminded his canadian audience that "no free nation can stand alone to meet the threat of those who make themselves our adversaries." although the world has changed in so many ways, this message resonates as strongly today as it did in 1961. so too does the basic framework president kennedy offered that day for meeting our security challenges, the security challenges of that era. the common challenges demand common action.

today, 50 years ago, common action necessitates strong leadership, all of us. to forge strong alliances in this hemisphere, across the atlantic, and around the globe. with that in mind, i would like to discuss today the priority the united states is placing on strengthening our alliances and partnerships for the 21st century. as we near a turning point after a decade of war and adapt to a new set of challenges and priorities. as we in the united states confronts the fiscal realities of limited resources, we believe that we have the

opportunity to establish a force for the future that, while smaller, is agile, flexible, deployable, and technologically equipped to confront the threats of the future. it must be complemented by the full range of america's national security capabilities. strong intelligence, strong diplomacy, a strong economy, strong technology, developments in cyber capabilities, using that great experience we have gained from 10 years of war to be innovative, to be creative about the kind of force that we need for the future. but it must also be called -- it

must also be complemented by strong alliances. partnerships, regional efforts of cooperation all have to be part of the answer. the u.s. alliance system remains the bedrock of our approach to security across the globe. and in during strategic advantage and force multiplier that no rival possesses. the reality is that the united states military, alone, cannot be all things to all nations. we will maintain our excellence. we will maintain our excellence. we will maintain our leadership.

but in the effort to maintain our excellence and our leadership, we also have to meet our security commitments around the world. in doing that, we must and we will sharpen the application of our resources. better deploy our forces in the world. and share our burdens more effectively with our partners. frankly, all of our allies need to do the same. it will be even more essential, as we confront new and more

complex security challenges, in the years ahead, to be able to build strong alliances and a strong partnerships from terrorism, the nuclear proliferation, from cyber attacks, to the threats we face often. all of these challenges do not recognize national boundaries. and cannot be addressed effectively by any one nation alone. such transnational threats he meant a shared response. -- demand a shared response. i have made it a priority to build and maintain partnerships across the globe. it is a theme i reiterated extensively during the international travel that i made

last month in europe, in asia, and in the middle east. it has thus loomed large in our strategic review of the department of defense. this review is an effort not only to grapple with new budgetary realities, but also to adapt the force to better confront current and future security challenges. as we look at our global alliances, none has been more successful than nato. i consider that a real tribute to the decades of investment in capabilities and joint training and the determination of leaders, from the trans-atlantic community, many of whom are here today. revitalizing nato has been a centerpiece of the obama administration's efforts to

build stronger alliances and a stronger partnerships. as this alliance has expanded, from a foundational focus on collective territorial defense to include expeditionary, out of area operations, we have seen the payoff. we have seen the payoff in afghanistan. where 49 countries, 49 countries have come together, largely under a nato umbrella, expanding both blood and treasure, to prevent al qaeda from ever again being able to use afghanistan as a safe haven. to all of our isap partners, we are grateful for your sacrifice and for your steadfast partnership. here in halifax, i want to pay particular tribute to canada's decade-long effort in

afghanistan. your distinguished military has performed in one of the most dangerous parts of the country, performed in an outstanding manner. the caliban heartland of canada are -- the taliban heartland of kandahar. we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the 150 falling canadian heroes, brave men and women who have paid the ultimate price and whose names are etched in black granite act kandahar airfield. alongside the united states, canada's operations proved critical to our success. during my visit to europe last month, i had the opportunity to visit allied joint forces

headquarters in naples. i received a thorough briefing on the operation from canadian air force general charlie bouchard, who ably orchestrated the daily efforts of nato. he was tough, he was able, he took no prisoners. it is not too strong to say that his leadership prove vital to our eventual success in that mission. i want to thank him personally and publicly for his courage and stewardship. as we look to forge a stronger nato that draws on our experiences in afghanistan and libya, the united states will continue to play a decisive role in safeguarding the shared interests of our nato partners. part of doing so is enabling

allies and partners to contribute their share to the common defense. to do that, however, the alliance needs to develop new capabilities to keep pace with emerging threats, even in an era of fiscal austerity. as i said in brussels last month, these challenging economic times cannot be an excuse for walking away from our security responsibilities. i refuse to believe that we have to choose between fiscal responsibility and national security. instead, we must commit to ensuring that nato addresses key shortfalls in areas such as intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, precision strike munitions, and a real

refueling and lift capabilities. to fill these gaps, allied nations will need to pool their declining defense dollars to more efficiently and effectively, as general rasmussen has outlined in his smart defense initiative. we are looking to make more progress on this front when our leaders gather next year in chicago. modernizing nato also means ensuring that investments are focused on the most likely future threats. in particular, the challenge posed by countries like iran, who are developing intermediate range missiles capable of targeting europe. the united states has been leading the way on nato's efforts to establish missile

defense. most recently when we announced that the united states would deploy ships to the mediterranean. we are also hoping that missile defense will provide nato and russia and avenue for its most meaningful cooperation yet, presenting an opportunity for former adversaries to firmly turned a page on the past and deal meaningfully and effectively with the real threats that emanate out of the middle east. our progress on missile defense is a tangible sign of how far we have come in modernizing the nato alliance. it is also a sign of our determination to sustain a capable and effective nato and to live up to our collective security commitments on the continent of europe.

including our responsibilities under article 5. we must also constantly assesse the forms of engagement that are most appropriate in light of the capabilities of our allies and the threats that we face. these are the discussions that we are having at the department as part of our strategy and global posture review. discussions that are forcing us to be very disciplined in setting priorities so that we maintain our global leadership role while making our fiscal responsibilities to the american taxpayer. let me be clear at the outset that the united states will always ensure that we maintain the right mix of forces and capabilities, including those stationed in europe, prepared to

meet the full range of security challenges, acting in concert with our allies, including instability on its periphery and unforeseen developments. at the same time, we must build on our success. with the transatlantic alliance and further enhance our collective security by building and during and capable 21st century security architecture in other critical regions of the globe. beginning right here in this part of the world. working with canada, we are encouraging new partnerships. in this -- in the pacific but also in the western hemisphere, recognizing that regional challenges right here in our own hemisphere, from transnational criminal organizations to natural disasters, requires

stronger regional institutions that can deliver regional solutions. we remain committed to strong bilateral partnerships with canada and mexico and we are also working with canada to find more opportunities for our three countries to partner together in this hemisphere. another important mechanism is the conference of defense ministers of the americas, which has turned into a valuable forum for discussion and collaboration on key defense and security issues. as we look across the globe, two regions stand out as being home to particularly vexing challenge s. it is apparent to all that the asia-pacific region will be a principal force behind world

economic growth, with lines of commerce and trade that are constantly expanding and security challenges that are growing in complexity. in the middle east, another region crucial to the global economy and u.s. interests, we have seen dramatic changes as a result of the arab spring. we have seen continuing violence, continuing extremism, continuing instability, and the threat from tirane continues to pose challenges -- the threat from iran continues to pose challenges. as the u.s. draw down its forces in iraq and afghanistan, we have to maintain a strong presence in the middle east and work closely with our allies and partners to bolster a multilateral cooperation from threats

emanating from al qaeda, from iraq, and elsewhere. given the nature of global security challenges and the interests that are at stake, we need to build multilateral structures that will enable all of our allies and all of our partners to better cooperate to counter common threats. that includes encouraging canada and our european allies to join us in meeting common challenges, whether it is in the asian pacific or the middle east war throughout the western hemisphere, and enabling them to do so through nato when a writ. as we examine our geographic priorities, it is important to remember that we can and we will do more than one thing at a

time. u.s. security commitments are not 0 some -- zero sum. even as we enhanced our position in the pacific, we will not surrender our power as a global power and leader. as a country with global interests and responsibilities, and with a military with unique global strength and reach, america will remain committed to global security. in particular, we will continue to defend our shared interests in free and open commerce, the rule law, freedom of movement across the global commons of aeromancy and space and cyberspace. which is ultimately the bedrock of our security and our prosperity and that of our allies. american and canadian

leadership have built a system of global security alliances and partnerships that have safeguarded and advanced the cause of liberty and prosperity and security for decades. as we move forward, as we make the tough decisions needed to ensure a better life for our children and our grandchildren, we will not back away from these alliances and these partnerships. indeed, they are key to our ability to provide that strong defense for the future. we will strengthen them and in so doing, we will strengthen our two great nations so that we know even greater prosperity and security in the century that lies ahead. in the words of john kennedy, "

no free nation can stand alone to meet the threat of those who would make themselves our adversaries." we stand together as friends, as neighbors, as partners, as allies. that bond is the essential key to security in the 21st century. thank you. [applause] >> and to those who say that we are rushing the issue of civil rights, i say we are 172 years late. to those who say that this civil rights program is an

infringement on state rights, i say the time has arrived in america for the democratic party to step out of the shadows of states rights and what forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. >> hubert humphrey spoke those words nearly 20 years before stepping the 1964 civil rights bill into law. the mayor of minneapolis and longtime senator was vice- president under lyndon johnson and ran for president in 1968 and lost. we will look at his influence on american politics this week. from the minnesota historical society, live tonight at 8:00 eastern. the c-span.org home page is now easier to use. it features 11 video choices, making it easier for you to watch today's events, live and recorded. you can watch our most popular

programs and we have added a handy channel finder so you can quickly find where to watch our three c-span networks on a satellite or cable systems across the country. >> the house completed debate on a bill that would provide a balanced budget amendment to the u.s. constitution. it failed to get the two-thirds necessary for passage. the vote was 261-165. approximately 290 would be needed for passage. we will show you a 40-minute portion of the debate, which ran over three hours this morning. first up, florida republican congressman alan west. utes. mr. west: thank you, mr. speaker, and i want to thank my colleague from virginia and i want to rise and support h.j.res. 2 which is the balanced budget amendment. the united states of america

has just topped $15 trillion in debt. $4.4 trillion of nedebt has been added. in greece we see a debt to g.d.p. ratio of 128%. mr. speaker, in italy it's 120% debt to g.d.p. ratio. the united states of america is now at 101% debt to g.d.p. ratio. it's about time we start to take a decision. are we going to be fiscally discipline? are we going to have fiscal responsibility? are we going to continue to bankrupt the future of our children and grandchildren because we were sent herto be elected officials, sent here to be leaders and we were afraid to make tough decisions? historically we won't make tough decisions. i have been here 11 months but i have to tell you we have to do something different. it has to start now or else what d i say, mr. speaker, to my two daughters, 18 and 14? am i going to say that i didn't have the courage to stand here today to make the tough decisions in order for them to have a bright and prosperous

future in the united states of america? in fiscal year 2011 we saw a 6.5% increase in revenue in the united states of america. ye we still had a $1.3 trillion we follows on the heels of a $1.42 trillion and $1.29 trillion deficit. now is time for a balanced budget amendment. if not now then when? when we hit $20 triion in debt? mr. speaker, i think that each and every one of us here today when we cast our vote there needs be that little yellow why next to our names, because if it's a -- yellow y next to our names because if it's a red n we are telling the american people we're not willing to stand up, we areot making ourselves fiscally responsible. i think that's absolutely apprehensible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair notes that the gentleman from virginia has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york has 13 minutes remaining.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield to mr. johnson, a member of the house veterans' fairs committee and a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: it's amazi we stilkeep talking about the bush-era tax cuts. those sam tax cuts are today's current tax laws which have been affirmed by this congress, this sflat and signed into law by -- senate and signed into law by this president. so why we keep blaming financial woes on president bush is beyond me. but let's make one thing perfectly clear. the american people are not taxed too little. the problem is that washington spends too much. this has been going on for years and it needs to stop now.

we need a balanced budget amendment. because washington has clearly indicated its inability to discipline itself. this balanced budget amendment offers congress and the president a very clear choice. either stand with the already overtaxed american families and small businesses who have to balance their budgets on a daily basis or stand with the washington establishment that always demands more of the american people, more of their hard-earned tax dollars without any accountability with how they spend their money. american famies have to stick to a budget every month, so why should the federal government be any different? we can't keep mortgaging our children's future to china. it's time to take a stand, mr. speaker. the tax and spend and then blame the american people for not paying their, quote, fair share game, must end and it can end today. passing the balanced budget amendment will help bring this country back to economic

prosperity and end this game. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i recognize the geleman from illinois f unanimous consent statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter of national orgazations opposing the balanced budget amendment. mr. jackson: they include the children welfare league of america, the children's defense fund, the children's dental health project, the disability rights education and defense fund, division of early childhood of the council for exceptional children, the easter seals, every child matters education fund, families u.s.a., the form for youth investment, the foster family base treatment association, horizons for homeless children, the national association for adults with special learning needs, the national association for education of young children, the national association of elementary school principals, the national association of

private special education centers, the national association of school ychologists, the national association of secondary school principals, the national black child development institute, the national partnership for women and milies, the national school boards association, school association of america, youth build u.s.a., the ywca, the aids alliance for children, youth and family, the alliance for educational excellence, the association of education service agencies. i ask unanimous consent, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? mr. nadler: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield the gentleman from illinois four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mr. jackson: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i like my good friend from virginia to engage me in a dialogue on a series of questions. the most important question to be raised with respect to the

b.b.a. at least for me, and i believe most americans, is how does the balanced budt amendment narrow certain gaps that are obvious in our society? the first gap, mr. chairman, is the social gap between racial minorities and the majority population. how does the balanced budget amendment narrow that gap? mr. goodlatte: the balanced budget amendment is ir to all because all it simply says is that for all time the people of this country want their government to live within their means, not just right now, but in the future as well. right now we're not anywhere near living within our means. $1.3 trillion deficit each of the last three years. mr. jackson: respectfully, mr. chairman, reclaiming my time. it does not reduce the gap between racial minorities and the majority population. my next question -- there's a gender gap in our society. women earned 76 cents to the dollar of what men earn in our

society. how does the balanced budget amendment close the gap between what women earn in our society and what men earn in our society? mr. goodlatte: if you don't balance the budget and you continue to pile up enormous debt, women, chdren, minorities, all will suffer in the future because our economy will shrink just like greece's economy is shrinking right now because they can't meet their obligations. and to answer the gentleman's question, i think it's best to turn to the people themselves. mr. jackson: respectfully, mr. chairman, reclaiming my time. the balanced budget amendment doesn't close the gap for women who earn 76 cents to the dollar of what men make because only the federal government in the 50 states can close the gap between what women earn in our society and what men earn in our soety. how does the balanced budget amendment close the economic gap between the rich and the poor in our society? i'd be happy to yield to my friend fro virginia. mr. goodlatte: sure. i say that the rich pay far,

far more than other people too and they should, but this balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between how you balance it, whether it's by increasing revenues, whether it's by economic growth or whether it's by tax increases. mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. the failure of the balanced budget amendment not making any distinction between the rich and the poor is part of the fall is i and the problem with the balanced budget amendment -- fallacy and the problem with the balanced budget amendment. we are here as representatives of the people to close profound gaps that exist between our constituents and a society. we're supposed to be one america. we're supposed to be all-american. we are supposed to be one people eplur bus uniimgoing somewhere. but what i'm hearing from the gentleman is theaps will not close. goode -- >> will the geleman yield? mr. jackson: i'll yield.

thank you, mr. majority, controlling the time. infrastructure gap, upgrades to roads and communities that have been left behind, bridges, ports, levees and sewer systems, how does a balanced budget amendment propose to close the infrastructure gaps that exist in our society where as the states themselves failed to do so? mr. goodlatte: ifou don't have the resources because you spent it on other things you won't have the infrastructure. mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. i must assume there is no goal of the balanced budget amendment to close the -- mr. goodlatte: will the gentleman yield? mr. jackson: yes. mr. goodlatte: a growing economy results from living within your means and then using those -- mr. jackson: reclaiming my time. it is obvious that the balanced budget amendment does not narrow the economic, social, gender and generational gap and infrastructural gaps in our country. mr. speaker, vote down the b.b.a. give the american people a reason to believe that the

federal government can close the gaps that exist within our society. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. jackson: i'd be happy to yield back the balance. thank you, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself a minute to say to the gentleman that the balanced budget amendment also will not deliver a pennant to the chicago cubs. let me also say this, let me also say this, in talking about those groups that the gentleman is rightly concerned aut how they will do in the future, cn asked them what they thought a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution and 75% of women said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 72% of nonwhite voters said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 79% of our senior citizens said they favored a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 79% of those who earn less than $50,000 a year said they favor a balanced budget amendment to the united stas constitution.

and the same is true whether you look at urban areas, suburban areas, rural areas or any geographic region of our country. they support a balanced budget amendment. i'd be happy to yield. mr. jackson: what would a balanced budget amendment do for the chicago white sox? i am a south cider. mr. goodlatte: i am a boston fan. we have a ys to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: since the gentleman has admitted to the balanced budget amendment would not deliver the pep nant to the white sox or red sox or the cubs or i suppose the yankees, there is no argument for the balanced budget amendment. i reserve at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's now my pleasure to yield two wints to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, who is the chief deputy whip and member of the ways and means committee, mr. roskam. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time -- two minutes. the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, madam

speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. there is a level of anxiety that we are sensing back at home as people are looking at washington, d.c., for solutions and there is various tails -- tales going on right now in terms of what the joint select committee will be able to produce. the fact of the matter is we don't know what the yield is going to be of that negotiation. that's still ongoing. and we'll be dealing with that next week. but we know what we can do right now, madam speaker. we can create a buoyancy and a sense of clarity and a sense of cohesiveness to seize upon a bipartisan moment. a moment that the country came close to in 1995, it came within a whisker of passing the balanced budget amendment and sending it out to the states. over 70 house democrats in 1995, including several of the current leaders, voted in favor of that amendment, and now re we are and we have that opportunity to do the same thing, although to

do it suessfully. this is not about donkeys and elephants. thiss ulmately about us coming together as a congress in a thoughtful way that says one thing tthe united states and that is, we can govern wisely, we can governorthrightly, we can live within our means, and we can do what the overwhelming majority, madam speaker, of the american public wants us to do, and that is to balance our budget. i urge both sides of the aisle, and to come down here in a short period of time and vote aye. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, a member of the house energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. latta: thank you, madam

speaker. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding. i had the privilege for six years of serving the county commissioner of ohio and 11 years to serve in the general assembly. during that time we saw good times and we saw bad times in the economy. but the bad times our constitution told us and the state of ohio that we had to balance our books to make sure that we didn't overspend. that's what this house to do -- has to do and this country has to do. for over 50 years and only in balance six times during that period of time? that's horrendous. it's kind of interesting because i was at a town hall talking one day and one of my farmers came up and asked this question, he said i don't understand what the problem is in washington what's the president want to spend? i told him. about $3.8 trillion. he said how much have you got? i told him how much what we thought the revenue was going to be for the year. he said it's simple. all you got to do is subtract your revenues from what you want to spend and that's all he get

to spend is just that revenue. you don't spend over the top of it. people back home understand it because people backome sit around their kitchen tables and dining room tables and they get their pencils and papers out and figure out how much they can spend. it's not complicated. but we've got to start thinking about this because we are going to -- in debt now $15 trillion. when i have to look at my kids' faces and kids down the street and go to schools and talk to these young children, who they are going to ask me in 10, 15 years what did you do to us not for us? and it's time that this congress act and pass this balanced budget amendment. we have been talking about it for years. we have that opportunity today. i thank the gentleman for bringing it forth. and i can't tell you i wish i could vote for it more than once today. we must pass this today. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: madam speaker, on

that i yield four minutes to the distinguished whip, the gentleman from maryland. the speaker prtempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. i spoke yesterday on this issue. my good friend, mr. goodlatte, and i have talked a number of times about this. in 1995 as i said yesterday i voted for an amendment very similar to this, almost exactly alike. and i had a confidence at that point in time that in an emergency 3/5 of us would come together and vote to do that which the country needed to keep it stable and safe. regrettably over the 16 years i have lost that confidence. i have lost that confidence this year. where, frankly, on the majority

side of the aisle we would not have passed a c.r. to keep the government opened once. we wouldn't have passed it a second time. and very frankly had we had to rely on the votes solely of the majority side, as we have in the past on my side, we would not -- we would have defaulted on our debt. that is not a good context in which to adopt an amendment that puts the country at risk if 3/5 are not available. to act in an emergency. as a resuli will not vote for this. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. we are engaged at this very day in an effort to try to come to agreement on how we balance the budget. and very frankly we only need 51%. and 51% is not there.

but we have balanced the budget and we balanced it without an amendment. we balanced it in 1998, 1999, 2000, 01. my republican colleagues rightfully say, well, we offered those budgets. yes, they did. but i will tell you i have no doubt, not a single doubt, that if the surpluses that were created by those budgets had been available in 1998 and bill clinton had not said, save social security first, that what we would have done is cut revenues deeply and had deficits during those four years. you may disagree. but i have no doubt based upon the philosophy that i have heard since 1981 from my republican friends that that would have been the case. i sa yesterday that what we

need is not a balanced budget amenent, what we need is a balanced budget. how do we get to a balanced budget? i don't know his name and i apologize for that, but my friend who was the county commissioner, mr. latta, mr. latta pointed out he was the county commissioner. now, i bet as county commissioner he probably had to pay for what he bought. and he gave the analogy if you got x coming in and you got -- that's what you spend. not x plus y. the fact of the matter is, his party has spent x plus y, plus z, plus a, plus b, plus c. and has run a deficit for every single year they had the presidency during the last 30 years i have been in the congress. without fail. now, what happened to bring us a

balanced budget? first of all we had two parties responsible. i don't think we could have done it with just one party, my party or your party. we had two parties responsible. and we constrained one another. and then we had an extraordinary growth in our economy. that's what brought us a balanced budget. but we also adopted in 1990, again in 1993, and in 1997, and i tell my good friend the sponsor of this, sometimes he voted for pay-go, and sometimes he did not. and your party abandoned the principle of paying for what you bought in 2001. may i have one additional minute? mr. nadler: the gentleman yielded an additional minute. mr. hoyer: of abandoning that pay-go responsibility you could cut revenues very deeply and not pay for it. no cut spending. it takes no courage, i suggest to my friends, to cut taxes.

none whatsoever. erybody's happy. paying for bills is a lot tougher. requires a lot more courage. a lot more responsibility. but you jettisoned statutory pay-go in 2000 and you went on a spending binge. not only did you blow a hole in the deficit, but you also blew a hole in the economy. and we saw the worst job creation of any administration since herber hoover. -- herbert hoover, because the economy rightfully was not confident that we would manage our finances correctly. what we need, ladies and gentlemen, in this house is a balanced budget. not a balanced budget amendment. let us summon the courage, the will, and the ability to work together immediately in this

committee, this select committee on deficit reduction, but let us do it day after day after day. and when the issues come before you, have the courage to either vote against spending or vote for the revenues to pay for the cars you wanted to buy. i thank the gentlelady for the time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask members to avoid references in the second person. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself a minute to respond to the distinguished minority whip and to point out this chart. the gentleman is quite right when he talks about profligacy when there has been republican congresses, although i would point out to the gentleman that when we were in the majority and we had president bill clinton and we had those four balanced budgets, he voted for one but not three otrs of them, but we did not cut taxes then. taxes were cut, taxes were cut

after the attack on this country, september 11, 2001, to stimulate the economy. now, we got roundly criticized for the deficits that ran up during that time. and this chart shows that in 2004 -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. goodlatte: in 2004 we had a $400 billion dicit. it was the highest deficit in american history, and it was part of the reason why we lost our majority later on. and in 2007, as the deficit stepped down each of the interceding years, in 2007 the gentleman became the majority leader and the the gentlewoman from california became the speaker of the house, and look what happened to our deficits. ever since the congress writes budgets, the congress doesn't balance budgets. both parties are to blame. in the last 50 years six balanced budgets in 50 years. 37 of those years democrats.

they only balanced it twice. this is a bipartisan balanced budget amendment that the gentleman voted for once before. he should join us today and set the future on a differt track. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: the gentleman i tell you has no time to yield. mr. goodlatte: i don't. i have all these people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield 30 seconds to the distinguished whip. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: and he says about voting for butts. i didn't agree with some of the priorities in our budgets. that's accurate. and he's correct. we didn't cut taxes. but he's incorrect as to when you cut taxes. you cut taxes in april. mont before 9/11. and you gave away a lot of money and you didn't pay for it. you didn't cut spending in order to pay for it. in your budgets that you offered. furthermore, what the gentleman

doesn't point out is in 1993, to a person, you voted against a program which was designed to pay our bills. to a person. and you said it would destroy the economy. we had theest economy and the largest budget surpluses we have had the administration is the only administration in your lifetime that ended in -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. . mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this point i am delighted to yield two minutes to mr. barton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i'd ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. barton: and i thank the gentlelady from alabama for her chairmanship of this historic debate and i thank the gentleman from virginia for his leadership and his willingness to yield me time. madam speaker, in 1985, in

january, i held up my right hand, held my 2-year-old daughter in my left hand standing right out here in front of the podium, took the oath to be the congressman of the sixth congssional district of texas. as soon as i was sworn in i signed my first bill and put it right over there in the hopper, the tax limitation balanced budget amendment. the deficit, the total federal debt that year was around -- i mean, the total public debt was less than $5 trlion. in january of 1995, i took the oath of office and then led the debate on the contract with america balanced budget amendment. we actually had two votes that day. one on the tax limitation balanced budget amendment which got about 260-something votes, and then we came back and voted on a balanced budget amendment without the tax limitation

provision and it passed and went to the senate. the public debt that day was a little under $8 trillion. well, today, the public debt is $15 trillion. $10 trillion than in january of 1985 and $8 trillion or $7 trillion more than in january of 1995. how many years do we have to stand here and bemoan the fact that we need more courage or more this or more that and then pile up more public debt? the annual deficit this year, the deficit in one year is more than the total federal budget was in 1985. the total budget. now, i want to thank mr. goodlatte for bringing this bill forward. i want to thank the republican adership for putting it on the floor.

we owe $15 trillion, madam speaker, and we're going to borrow another $1.5 trillion. let's stop the madness. let's vote for th amendment and send it to the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i yield -- i'm sorry -- i yield -- i ask that the gentleman be granted time for unanimous consent statement. be recognized for unanimous consent statement. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: yes, thank you, madam speaker. i have a unanimous consent request to submit the following two documents into the record. one is from the international association of firefighters, the her from the aarp, both of which express their opposition to this ill-founded measure before us, house resolution 2. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the request is granted. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from massachusetts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. markey: we do noteed a constitutional amendment. we need a supercommittee congressional commitment now. to the republicans, do it now. call president obama now. tell him tax breaks for the billionaires on the table. tell them defense spending, on the table. tell him tax breaks for oil companies, on the table. the president says he'll put the social programs on the table. you don't have to go back 200 years to amend the constitution. you just have to next week, next wednesday say we want to do it now. we who are here will do it now. we will balance the budget by putting all of our programs on the table. do it now. do it now, republicans. don't pretend and hide behind a constituonal amendment when you can do it now. you can be the founding

fathers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: noting that the republicans on the supercommitteeave put a proposal on the table and democrats have not, i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo, a member the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. man sdemruleo: madam speaker, there are over -- mr. manzullo: madam speaker, there are over 10,000 federal programs and counting. no one really quite knows how many there are. i do most of my work in congress on manufacturing. and for 12 years i've been working on a chart to identity fight every agency, every bureau that is involved somehow in manufacturing. and it continues to grow and grow and grow. my object was to -- objective was to fi a way with a common

portal via the internet to see. it's not possible. that's the problem with this government. a person says i have a program for this and for that. you know what, it's time to start eliminating programs around here. it'sime to just keep those programs that are absolutely necessary, and the best way to do that is to have the fiscal restraint imposed by a balanced budget amendment. you can't go to the back room and cover this program and that program. we need to come to the realization that washington doesn't have the answer for everything. and the best way to cut back on these 10,000 programs is to ha the discipline of a balanced budget amendment so that the members of the house and the members of the senate can realize, you really can't spend more than what you take

in. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has four minutes remaining, and the gentleman from new york has -- 3/4. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womb ack, who is a -- mr. womack, who is a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. womack: madam speaker, it's payday, they are going to get a check from theiemployer if ey are lucky enough to have a job. before cashing that check, they know exactly where it's going. these people have likely already come to the realization that there are a lot more needs, a lot more things they'd like to have or do but there's just so much money. i find it incredible that my

friends on the other side of e aisle believe this federa government should not have to go through the same process of discerning between what they want and what they need and what they can afford, like the rest of america. in the 10-plus months i've been here, i consider this vote the most important vote i will have cast because it's the vote that has the most impact on the future of my grandson. it is sad that congress does not have the discipline to live within its means, and i strongly believe the only way to constrain an undisciplined congress is to enshrine its obligation in the constitution. an overwhelming majority of americans believe that the balanced budget amendment, as proposed today, is the right way forward for america. i thank my friend, mr. goodlatte, for his leadership on the issue, and i urge its passage, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i'll research. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, who is a a member of the house financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mulvaney: the debate is it isn't 1985. i wish it were. imagine if we could accomplish this 15 years ago. we have only paed a budget four times in the last 50 years. that doesn't pass the laugh test. i heard from the honorable minority leader that this was not the right time to pass this amendment because somehow this body was too partisan, too partisan to pass a bill to pass an amendment to the constitution that will take partisanship out of the equation and force us to balance a budget. these are all extraordinarily

weak argument, madam speaker, and they are weak because they do not go to the heart of the matter of why you'd be against this amendment. the only reason to be against this amendment, the only true argument to be against this amendment is you want to spend money we don't have. and there are people in this chamber who believe that is the way they keep their jobs. that if we continue to run up debt, if we continue spend money we don't have is somehow back in their district will encourage their voters to send them back to this chamber. madam chair woman, i believe there are more important things than our jobs. there are more important things than simply remaining a member of congress. more so than any amendment, any bill that we will take up this year, this amendment is the opportunity that we have to send to the -- send the message to people ba home that we are willing to do what is right, that we're willing to stand up for them and to give them the opportunity to change the constitution of the united states in a way that they see fit. thank you, madam chair woman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, we have one speaker remaining so we'll reserve as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: will the gentleman be the only closer? then i'll yield myself e balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, since 1995 when the amendment was last on theloor, we proved we could balance the budget without a balanced budget amendment. but the balanced budget amendment is not the highest goal. the highest goal is prosperity, a full employment economy, and that requires a balanced budget over the business cycle. it requires that in good times we balance the budget and pay down the -- we have a surplus and pay down the deficit. but that in recession you should have a deficit to spur the economy and spend money to spur the economy and get out of the recession. to try to balance the budget by cutting spendinguring a recession is to increase unemplment, it's to guarantee that everyecsion becomes a deession. just look at what's happening in germany which is in pretty

good shape until they elected a government that enacted austerity, tried to balance a budget, their economy is tanking. the same thing in great britai the second point i want to make is that when we talk about balanced budgets in the states, they have a separate budget for operating expenses and capital budgets. here this balanced budget amendment would say we should never borrow money for everything. the federal government should never borrow anything. that's insanity economically. that means we have no money r our bridges, roads, etc. third, this amendment would say if we couldn't reach agreement, if we couldn't pass a balanced budget, the courts would have to decide which taxes to raise taxes and which programs to cut. we should not be giving the courts such power to make such decisions. finally, social security, medicare, these are not debts. they're obligations to the

federal government. a balanced budget amendment would put them on the -- would put them at risk. we would have to cut back social security, cut medicare, cut all these things if we passed the balanced budget amendment. if we were uilling, as our colleagues on the other side are, to raise taxes on the rich. and the fact taxes on the rich are much less th theye ever been which is the basic causes of the deficits that we're running now. the balanced budget amendment would not balance the budget. we would still have the stalemate between republicans who want no taxes on the rich and want draconian cuts on lower and middle-income programs and those on our side of the aisle who disagree with that. if you can't reach agreement on those things now in the supercommittee, what makes you think you would reach agreement just because you had a requirement on the books that said you should? it would end up in court. the balanced budget amendment is simply a stop to say we are

doing something about a balanced budget when we are unwilling to make the decisions to balance a budget. we showed during the clinton administration those decisions could be made. and if we really want to balancthe budget we have to undo most of the tax cuts. we suld pal the bument, n pass an amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. gooled goode madam speaker, the gentleman from -- mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, the gentleman from new york and i agree on one thing, prosperity is the goal. this is not the way to prosperity. 50 years with six balanced budgets has led to a $15 trillion debt that we have right now. that's not prosperity. the largest debtor nation on earth is not prosperity. the $50,000 per american citizen in debt is not prosperity. but the $60 trillion in future obligations that we have yielding this result is definitely not prosperity for our children and grandchildren.

that is why we need the discipline that a balanced budget amendment to the constitution provides. that is why this is a bipartisan vote. thats why dozens of democrats will join us today in enshrining in our constitution something that will require that future congresses balance a budget. . >> the house went on to a final passage vote where it failed to 61-165. -- 261-165. the legislation was mandated as part of the debt deal signed in august. the house is out of session next week for the thanksgiving recess. the chamber plans to return tuesday, november 29, at 2:00 for legislative business. we will have live coverage here on c-span.

>> every weekend, on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. david began his political career in 1971. three years later, he would write president nixon's letter of resignation. from lectures and history, univ. of albany professor on emancipation during the civil war. look for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history. >> up next, "the contenders." people who have run for president and lost, but changed political history. tonight, the campaign of hubert humphrey. later,