oprtunity 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. . 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. nadl: will the gentleman be the only closer? then i'll yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, since 1995 when the amendment was last on the floor, we proved we could balance 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 ov 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 spending during a recession is to increase unemployment, it's to guarantee that every recession becomes a depression. 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 britain. the second point i want to make is that when we talk about balanced budgets in the states, they have a separate budget for opering 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 for 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 unwilling, as our colleagues on the other side are, to raise taxes on the rich. and the fact taxes on the rich are much less than they've ever been which is thbasic 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 made. and if we really want to balance the budget we have to undo most of the tax cuts. we should pal the bument, not 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: mad speaker, the gentleman from new york and i agree on onehing, prosperity is the goal. this i 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 inot 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. that is why dozens of democrats will join us today in enshrining in our constitution something that will require that future congresses balance budget. . >> this house and fell short of the number needed to pass the amendment. overall, 236 republicans voted in favor of it. four republicans voted against the measure. the senate expects to vote before the end of the year.

tomorrow on road to the white house, chicago mayor rahm emanuel is the keynote speaker at the jefferson jackson dinner. you can find coverage starting at 8:30 on c-span, the radio, an online. online. remarks from leon panetta. both stated their commitment to the strike fighter program that involves the u.s., canada, and seven other countries. they spoke at a joint news conference at the annual halifax international the security form. this is about 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 -- canada 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 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, 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 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 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 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. [speaking french] >> perhaps i could give the question. the question was whether the minister mckay was concerned 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 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 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. -- truth. 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 counterinsurgency to a training mission and an assist mission. are you confident that we can switch?

to train and assist? >> i am not familiar with what he said but our commitment is to implement the agreement. that is to continue to work toward the ability to reduce our combat presence by the end of 2014. obviously we are going to go through the campaign that general ally -- allen will outline as we approach that commitment. there is no question there is going to be, as we develop our ability to secure the country and weaken the taliban and get

the afghan army in place, there is going to be a transition that takes place. i will tell you that we are going to complete another tranche of provinces that will go to the afghans for security. we have party completed one group earlier this year. it is going well. we will complete another in december. that will represent over 50 percent of the afghan population that will be involved in these transitions. we are moving in the right direction. we're trying to get the afghan army, the police to assume more of the responsibilities which regards to combat operations. this will take a transition. i would not assign a time frame for that. that is going to depend on general allan to determine how

best to make the transition from a combat to advise and assist. there have been no decisions at this point. >> i just returned from afghanistan a week ago and met with the general. canada has taken a prominent role on that to training. nato has made some clear pronouncements with respect to training and the transition to training that is under way. we are down the road from where we were a year ago. to that extent, the numbers of the security forces have swelled to over 300,000. the focus is now on professionalizing those forces to give them a firm backing to start conducting independent

operations, taking over the control of various provinces. we are at to the at 50 plus mark. there is a desire to meet and exceed the time lines. whether we get there depends on this a focused effort to train afghan security forces. and within that training lexicon is improving literacy, giving them all the skills they need and in part to those skills by american and canadian soldiers and plant them in the background and in the training cycle. it is happening. i am proud of canada's role. our generals worked closely with the afghan training mission to see that this empowerment of security forces is going to

hold. that will be the key. so they can provide security for their own population and to carry on into the future. -- into the future. many of our soldiers have combat experience were hacked -- where they had deployed into the south, with a great deal of pride and appreciation to our forces, they helped in the most difficult part of the country at the most critical time. the afghans have been very quick to knowledge that, and meeting with their interior minister last week, there was a very clear demonstration of appreciation on their part for what canada has done. we're there partnering with our greatest ally, the united

states, working with our nato pluss, we're talking 40 countries. 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 that have been immunized, the memphis structure investment, the long term vision that all of these countries we're working with in the afghans themselves have demonstrated, to stabilize, to be in a position, to ever fall under 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 per capita than we have in our own country. women are not only for dissipating in elections but being elected, there and it --

they're participating in business, there was commerce taking hold in the country, they are moving back to an agrarian society that exports more than just poppy. which winds up as drugs on the streets of north america. they are growing barley and pomegranate. none of that could happen without security. we are all seized with the importance of the continued training mission. there is positives to be reported in that country today. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentleman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> there's a story was told that when obama was given his first budget and there was some 7000

earmarked cent, his first instinct was to veto that budget. he was told that there was no way he could do that. you cannot do that. i think that had he vetoed it, he would have been the tea party. had he signaled his fundamental desire to change the system and change the way the system marks, he could have continued to rally the reform movement that now breaks out literally over the world because of this frustration with the current wave of democracy does not function. >> lawrence lessig on money and its influence on washington on sunday night. >> from minneapolis, the life of hubert humphrey is profiled in "the contenders." [shouting]

>> stay right there. do not move. >> mr. chairman, my fellow americans, my fellow democrats,

i proudly accept the nomination of our party. [applause] this moment, this moment is one of personal pride and gratification. yet one cannot help but reflect the sadness that we feel over the troubles and the violence which have erupted in the streets of this great city. and for the personal injuries

which have occurred. [applause] >> that is hubert humphrey accepting the 1968 democratic nomination for president. hiltonat chicago's hotel. the democrats had gathered for the convention in the midst of the vietnam war while thousands of protesters demonstrated outside. the unsuccessful candidate in 1968, hubert humphrey is the focus of this week's program. we are live from minnesota history center. mick caouette is the documentarian of hubert humphrey's life. we are standing in the middle of an exhibit about the tumultuous year of 1968. i want you to set the stage for people. as 1968 dawned, this country was in an uproar about the vietnam war. set the stage. >> the vietnam war had been

going on for 15 years. it was obvious to everyone that the war was not being won. it reached all the way to the american embassy in saigon. president johnson's approval ratings just plummeted. mccarthy had been in the race in the fall. bobby kennedy was joining the race. it was utter chaos. right after, president johnson resigned, three days later martin luther king was assassinated. the first part of the year was a terrible chaos. >> people were turning on their radios to wake up and there seemed to be another huge story every day. we will try to tell some of that story. we will be here for two hours. as we are here, we will learn more about the history of the time and the biography of senator humphrey. we will begin taking your

telephone call so you can be part of our discussion. what is important for young people to understand is what is different about the wars we fight today is the draft. this was real in the sense for american families. a very different way than the professional army that we have today. can you talk about that? >> the draft was the point at which the protest started. when the draft was instituted. now people have a choice. if they are against the war, they can stay away. in those days, there was no choice. you either went to canada or did something to get out of being drafted. that is what caused the protests. people were not even able to vote. -- but until they were 21, but they were being drafted at 18. that is probably the biggest difference. >> was it fair to say that every american family had a personal connection to this war? >> some have someone who went to the war and someone who was

against it in the same family. in fact, lyndon johnson and robert macnamara, their kids were against it. families were broken over it. much like the civil war, i guess. >> the other thing that people should understand that made this real was television. television was bringing it into people's living rooms every night. when you talk about the effect of that? >> it was wide open because nobody had really done any kind of -- television was not restricted. it was all brand new. nobody in the administration had any control over it. the journalists were just going out there and getting whatever they found. we do not have that now. it is much more controlled on the battlefield. we were saying things than that you would not say now.

people being wounded. -- we were seeing things that you would not see now. people being wounded. it had a profound effect on the country. another reason why people came out against the war because they were seeing it all the time on television. 300 body bags were coming back every week. they were showing the body bags coming back. it had a profound effect. it changed the average person's mind. >> we have to remind people that the war started before lyndon johnson's term. it had been raging for 15 years. lyndon johnson's attitude about the war was what? >> i think he was confused about it for a long time, but it was important to him to win the war. it colored everything that he did. when people tried to talk about any kind of settlement, he would not do it. he was interested in winning the war. once he got into it, he did not have a lot of options. that was the only one he wanted. he had no other options. it affected when he left office,

too. he wanted someone to come into the office to continue this war policy. >> lyndon johnson and hubert humphrey became teammates in 1964, following the assassination of kennedy. lyndon johnson ran in his own right. what was the relationship like? how was this period for senator humphrey? >> the intensity in vietnam started at the same time he became vice president. the tonkin gulf incident and the summer of 1964, there was a resolution in congress that lbj pushed for and it was passed. humphrey signed on to that. he was not yet vice-president. as did eugene mccarthy and others. the convention came later in the summer and humphrey became vice president. he walked into the beginning of johnson's involvement with the war.

campaigned all through the fall. they never really talked about vietnam during the campaign. it was more about barry goldwater being trigger happy. humphrey and johnson were the peace candidates. goldwater was the war candidate. vietnam was not talked about. >> in 64. >> in 1964. >> they were talking more about nuclear annihilation. they won by a landslide. in the spring, in the early part of the year, there was another incident in vietnam. johnson called a cabinet and adviser meeting. he has already decided to bomb north vietnam in retaliation. he asked people around the table what they thought of this. everybody pretty much agreed and humphrey said it was not a good idea. and he backed off. he had written a memo earlier that we should not get involved. this is not a good idea.

both to you politically and for the country, people will not understand it. he brought it up again at the meeting. he spoke up again at this meeting. johnson got angry. humphrey went back and wrote another memo, long and detailed. at that point, he was completely frozen out of any discussion about vietnam. >> we have two videos to show you. the first one is 1964. lyndon johnson had been operating without a vice president. this was after the kennedy assassination. there was a great deal of speculation coming into the convention about who his choice would be. here is a film from the 1964 convention as lyndon johnson announces his choice for vice president. >> the next vice-president of the united states -- my clothes, my long time -- c lose, my long time --

my trusted colleague -- [applause] senator hubert humphrey of minnesota. [applause] >> democrats and most republicans in the senate vote for education legislation, but not senator goldwater. [applause] most democrats and most republicans in the the senate voted to help the united nations and its peacekeeping functions when it was in financial difficulty, but not goldwater. [applause] >> i cannot help but think that particular moment how far we had come, all the hard work and effort, this was a great moment

in my life. >> mr. johnson said in his judgment, mr. humphrey was the best man to be president in case anything happened to him. no longer is the vice presidency just another job. ♪ >> that video is from mick caouette's documentary on hubert humphrey. "if the art of the possible." first of all, the scene of the energetic hubert humphrey addressing the crowd and having the crowd eating out of his hand and the cutaway to lyndon johnson, who did not seem to share the moment. what was happening? >> he did not like the spotlight being taken from him. humphrey was believed to be a better public speaker. he was a little bit upset about humphrey taking the show away.

he was that way. that was lyndon johnson. the goldwater part of that speech was written by a number of people. >> it was written by bill moyers. he wrote that. there was a call and response kind of thing that caught on. that was an early one. >> call and response? >> "not senator goldwater." and then the crowd respond. >> senator humphrey had ambitions for the presidency for quite awhile. he toyed with it in 1952 and made a real bid in 1960. harry was finally at the convention accepting the vice- presidential nomination. you can see how excited he was about the moment. he earned the nickname "the happy warrior." he loved politics, right? >> he loved politics. he was joyful about politics. he believed it was a way to better the country, to change the country.

it was an innocent way. he believed in the american people. he really believed in our system. that was the way for him to change the country. >> another clip, and this was later on in 1974 when hubert humphrey made audiotapes. thosegoing to use some of throughout the program. he talks a bit, and this is just one example, of the relationships you referenced. and how it became very testy between lyndon johnson and hubert humphrey over vietnam. he reflects on some of the ways that lyndon johnson used the powers of the office to keep his vice president under control. let's listen. >> if anybody would ever tell you that johnson was extravagant, it surely was not with this vice president.

many times he would say to me, it was better to take a smaller plane. if you have a plane that is too big, there will be too many people who want to ride with you. you will be encumbered with people that see there is an extra seat that has not been used. from time to time, on short trips, up and down the atlantic seaboard, i would take one of the smaller planes that were available. for our longer trips, we used the jet star. never, in the continental united states, did we use air force one. those were to be only used for overseas trips. at no time was i ever permitted to bring a newspaper man or a person of the media with me on any trip within the united

states. the president forbid it. i respected his command and his wish. i gather he felt that the vice- president should be heard and seen, but not reported upon too much. >> of course, lyndon johnson had been the majority leader in the senate. these two men had a long relationship and served in leadership together. could you talk more about how johnson used the levers of power to control hubert humphrey? >> he had an argument with johnson about vietnam, and johnson froze him out for at least a year. about any talk about vietnam or any foreign policy of rigid foreign-policy, basically. he cut off his privileges. he shortened his staff.

he did not want him speaking out about vietnam. at one point, he tapped his phones. he did a number of things to control humphrey. he did not want him speaking out against vietnam. he did not want him speaking out about anything. he wanted him to keep quiet. he had a way of calling them "my planes" and "my boats." he had a possessive attitude about that. humphrey dealt with it a lot. he would give three or four speeches a week, and he would have to call and get permission for plan for each one. the freeze lasts about a year. >> did hubert humphrey talk about how he reacted to this? he had to been unhappy. >> he was miserable for a long time. johnson was shutting him out of the inner circle. he was on the outside. he was not happy during that time. he wanted to be involved in what was going on.

it was a bad time for him. then he went back to vietnam and things changed in 1966. >> we are going to walk around this exhibit tonight and give you a sense of the exhibit that has been put together. showing the year 1968. a focus on politics. i want to remind you about your participation. in about 10 or 12 minutes, we will start taking calls. here is how you can do it. the television number -- the telephone numbers are on the screen. we really look forward to your comments on 1968, the year in which hubert humphrey was a contender for the president of the united states. why don't you walk along with me and we will go to our next bakir? -- our next stop here? how did you first get

interested in hubert humphrey? >> i grew up here, so he was always in the air when i was a kid. i spent some time working here and saw his archives. for a documentary filmmaker, that is a gold mine. >> hubert humphrey had four children. are they still here? >> his daughter is no longer alive. she died a couple of years ago. his grandson is more involved in politics than the others. the sons are basically in sales. one works for an advertising agency. >> we are at the exhibit about the politics and political life of hubert humphrey. it really was his life. he was not born in minnesota. >> he was born in south dakota. 90 miles from the minnesota border in one of those little railroad towns. he was born in 1911. it was a remarkable little town. his father was the druggist. his mother was methodist, a social gospel.

he got up politics and in his father's drugstore and the social gospel. as bill moyers said, great combination of the preacher and the politician. >> he went to a pharmacy school himself. how did he end up in politics? >> he went to pharmacy school for a job. he always wanted be in politics. he did it for a short time to help his father with the drug store. i do not think he ever really want to be a pharmacist. >> he ended up getting a doctorate as i understand. >> he went to get a master's degree. >> why was he studying politics? >> initially, he was going to get a doctorate and teach. that was his first idea. he was so good at public speaking and so good at communicating, a lot of people convinced him to run. he ended up coming back to minnesota and becoming the mayor of minneapolis.

>> when did he serve as mayor? >> he came back from lsu from grad school. that was in 1940. minnesota had been a republican state and never elected a democrat to the senate. the non-republicans were divided between the democrats and the farmer- labor party. he helped to unite the two parties. he built himself his own political base. the city was corrupt, all kinds of problems with segregation. when he first came, "nation" magazine called it the capital of the anti-semitism in the united states. when he left, he got an award from the national council of christians and jews for what he did. >> is that the nfl still active in politics today?

-- dfl still active in politics today? >> he was the greatest negotiator of the group. >> what does it stand for? from an ideology standpoint? >> at the time, it was a group of farmers and laborers who had differences with more professional democrats. fdr democrats. there was a split their. they just did not like each other and humphrey was one of the people that convinced them they will never win an election if they did not get together. >> he ran for senate when? >> he ran for senate in 1948. >> we will talk a little bit about the speech. i have a clip from 1960, when he first seriously thought about running for president. this is one of those joy of being a politician. let's watch. >> how do you think your race

is going? >> it has been an uphill fight. i think we have been doing quite well. >> what has been the most exciting part of the campaign? >> right now. i just had it. >> thank you, senator. >> this is good fun. politics ought to be fun. >> yes, sir. >> ♪ vote for hubert, hubert humphrey, the president for you and me ♪ >> you see him enjoying life. did he bring this to his politics all the time? >> he would live up our room. -- light of the room. >> it would be 11:00 at night and he would get off of a plane and work until 3:00 in the morning. he would still be like that. >> what were some of his other characteristics? i read that he was known for talking a lot.

>> absolutely. he was also a good listener. people missed that part. he did talk a lot. he would come with a prepared speech and talk for an hour. he knew a lot about a lot of things. he was really intelligent. astounding memory. they estimate that he may not known of debt 5000 people by first name. -- he may have known up to 5000 people by first name. >> what a gift, to be able to remember names. >> he could remember their name, the family's name, what they did for a living. remarkable memory. >> we will start taking some calls. and then we will learn more about his political philosophy. first up is ohio. >> it is a wonderful program to be participating in. >> thank you. >> you mentioned 1948. i remember hearing an actor

named ronald reagan who endorsed hubert humphrey in 1948 for the u.s. senate. when you think about it, were they on the opposite end of the spectrum? even though they were both democrats at that time. i want to find out what hubert humphrey's relationship was with barry goldwater in the senate versus what their private life was like? did hubert humphrey and jack kennedy get along very well when they were running against each other in 1960? in 1956, when they vied for the vice-presidential nomination to run with adlai stevenson? >> thank you so much. take those in order. his relationship with ronald reagan? >> he was a lifelong friend of ronald reagan. ronald reagan was pretty much

the same politics back in those days. he was the head of the actors' union. he was a democrat and he had the same philosophy. ronald reagan changed, but humphrey remained the same. but they did remain friends. a great respect for each other. >> goldwater? >> they were even better friends. aboutst tora i've heard their friendship. they were giving speeches in iowa on the back of a hay wagon. they ripped each other apart. later on, someone saw them having dinner together. there were good, good friends. >> before we talk about kennedy, talk about the united states senate. people recognize the names from history books today. was there bipartisanship? did people work across the aisle? >> there was a lot of camaraderie.

humphrey was friends with a lot of republicans. it was more cordial and there was more camaraderie than there is now. i am not in the senate now, but they were very close. >> jfk and their relationship? >> in the early years, they voted together on many of the same bills. humphrey helped him with farm legislation because he knew nothing about it. their relationship changed dramatically in 1960. during the primaries and then the elections. >> in what way? >> they have these debates in the primaries in wisconsin and west virginia. they got to know each other that way. when kennedy became president, humphrey gave him many of his ideas to use in the administration. he was the idea factory in the

kennedy administration. the peace corps was one of his ideas. >> let's take a call from indianapolis. gerry, you are on the air. >> how are you doing? i love your show. i have a question. back in 1948, humphrey spent time with martin luther king -- >> we will spend quite a bit of time talking about the civil- rights movement. what we get into that part? this is from your film. hubert humphrey talks about his view of the world and his brand of liberalism. let's listen. >> [no audio]

>> we do not have that clip. we are getting it ready. help us understand what informed this? >> to answer the question, the civil-rights was in him from the time he was born. it was not new to hubert humphrey. lyndon johnson had to deal more with the idea of the issue of race and getting elected. it was quite different for him. humphrey felt and believed deeply what he was up against. what he did in that speech, lyndon johnson called the most courageous political act in the 20th century. he could have destroyed the democratic party. he could have destroyed truman and his own career. he really believed in civil- rights. >> the caller was asking about humphrey's commitment compared to the other two. to lyndon johnson and to john kennedy.

can you make a value judgment? >> johnson was more in line with humphrey. kennedy was a reluctant civil- rights person that he came to later. bobby came to it even more. it was an issue for humphrey from the beginning. and it was an issue for johnson for many years, too. humphrey was involved with the african-american community. he did know a lot of the leaders. he did none no monolithic thing in 1948, that early. but he knew other leaders. -- he did not know martin luther king in 1948, that early. but he knew other leaders. >> let's listen to cynthia in iowa. >> good evening. i was a member of the television news team in iowa, but i happened to be in washington, d.c., reporting the day we withdrew from vietnam. i had the pleasure of interviewing hubert humphrey on

that very day. i asked him how we felt about losing the vietnam war. he said he, too, was a casualty of the vietnam war. he was quite emotional and had a tear in his eye. i wondered if you could talk more about his vietnam policy. >> the two trips he made to vietnam while he was vice- president -- the first trip was scheduled for him. it was not a prescribed trip with all the stops planned for him. -- it was up proscribed trip with all the stops planned for him. he was watched pretty closely. he saw only the good side of the war. the second time, he decided to go out on his own. he went to hospitals, talked to people. at that point, he quit cheerleading the war. he found out about the corruption in the south vietnamese government. all the other things going on what the war. he realized it was lost. he came back from the second trip knowing that the war needed to be over.

he was boxed in. but he had been speaking out for the war for the last year. lyndon johnson was not going to let him speak against the war. he was in a bad situation. that conflict lasted all the way through 1968. >> the two great issues in his political career were civil rights and the vietnam war. the 1948 speech really launched him on to the national stage. we're going to listen to that speech to the convention in philadelphia in 1948. we will be joined by another guest will me come back. juan williams, the author of a number of books that deal with civil rights and american history. to the 1948 clip now. >> mr. chairman, fellow democrats, fellow americans, i realize that in speaking on behalf of the minority report on civil rights that i am dealing with a charged issue. an issue which has been confused by emotionalism on all

sides of the fence. i must rise at this time to support the minority report, the report that spells out our democracy. a report that the people of this country can and will understand and a report that they will enthusiastically acclaim on the great issue of civil rights. [applause] to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, i say to them, we are 172 years late. [applause] after all, i have been the destroyer of the democratic party, the enemy of the south. "the niggerlover." i never felt so lonesome and so

unwanted in all my life as i did in those first few weeks and months as a united states senator. >> that second clip was hubert humphrey reflecting on what it was like coming to washington in 1949 after his big speech in the 1948 convention. juan williams, welcome to our conversation. how important in the history of civil rights was hubert humphrey? >> that 1948 speech was truly a landmark. that is the moment at which you see organized politics behind -- get behind what we think of as the modern 20th-century civil- rights movement. the democratic party shed some much of the paralysis. been reliant on the dixiecrats. remember, the south dominated the democratic party politically. you see someone rise up in the democratic party in the form of this very public convention. his voice is heard nationwide at the convention. he is saying to people across the land, this is an

abomination. this is not what the democratic party, not what the american people should be standing for. he is speaking in terms of national morality. and they call to justice. he does it as a cost. many of the dixiecrat leaders walked out of the convention. it has a tremendous consequence that will fall like dominoes throughout american history. >> name some of those who walked out of the convention. >> i am trying to think. thurmond would be the big one. you had eastland, you had some of the other governors and members of the senate who were right there. >> how risky was it for hubert humphrey to put his neck out on the line for civil rights? was it as controversial here at home? getting your talking about after he became senator.

>> know, when he was running. >> he was still mayor, but he was a candidate. >> to speak out for civil rights, was that considered -- >> it resonated here fine. he came back as a hero here. in other parts of the country, it was a real problem. >> was there any risk for truman? >> absolutely. >> how did truman feel about it? >> when he first started the speech, truman called him a pipsqueak. he was really upset about it. he thought he had ruined the election for him. he was upset. truman condemned him for it. he learned later on that it had helped him. he turned it around and used it to get the african-american vote in the north. and that helped him win. >> want inflamed his commitment to civil rights? where does it come from? >> nobody knows. he got it from his father, but where did his father get it in the middle of south dakota?

his father raised him to believe that people are people. and they had their own form of color blindness. it was remarkable. there were no african americans in the small town he was in. one catholic family, one jewish family who both had crosses burned on their lawns. no one can come up with a reason. it certainly was there. >> let's go to another call. andrea from new york. -- andrew from new york. >> good evening. how are you doing? >> your question? >> i was hoping that you could comment on the relationship between senator robert kennedy and hubert humphrey and how it developed from 1960 to 1968 when they were vying for the democratic presidential nomination? >> ok.

>> the rfk relationship started in 1960. he did not have much of a relationship with him before that. it did not start off well. the cause of the way that humphrey was treated in the primaries by the kennedys. he learned to like robert kennedy. he campaigned for kennedy in 1966 when he ran for the senate. in 1968, they had a meeting. they agreed that if humphrey got the nomination, kennedy would support him. if kennedy got the nomination, humphrey would support him. he was a party person. bobby kennedy, and so was your comfort. -- humphrey. >> next up is ron from washington. >> i would like to jump forward to the 1968 campaign. can you elaborate -- my recollection is that president johnson tried to scuttle

humphries effort. that was one of the closest popular elections in history. it is my recollection that it -- the bombing pause, if they had been started a month earlier, it might have made the crucial difference. can you elaborate on that? thank you. >> did lyndon johnson tried to scuttle his bid for the white house? >> he did not help him very much. he did these kinds of things were he had nixon at the ranch and then hubert humphrey had the ranch. he would tell humphrey that no press could be there. part of the belief among historians is that johnson believed that humphrey might end the war and make him look bad. nnixon played a few dirty tricks, and so he came out for humphrey at that point. he thought it might lose taxes

at the end. -- he might lose texas at the end. he was really late in the campaign when he started working for humphrey. >> i want to bring the story back to civil rights. civil-rights legislation is being pushed forward. tell that story. >> humphrey's involvement is as the democratic whip. you have lbj as president. basically the inheritor of kennedy's @ certification to get civil rights legislation passed. kennedy, there was some doubt about his commitment, was he willing to pay the price in terms of the southerners that would oppose it? after the assassination, johnson had a commitment to get this done in honor to president kennedy. >> does he make humphrey the

point man? >> humphrey becomes the point man in the senate. mike mansfield is the majority leader, a democrat. but it was humphrey, the man who has been persistent in terms of calling for civil rights and justice as part of the democratic agenda. he takes up the cause in the senate. he is up against it because the rules were different then. you could filibuster to no end. i believe the numbers were something like 67 votes required in order to end the filibuster. if you look through history, there are few points at which you get enough votes to end a filibuster. it is almost unheard of. it takes a great deal of effort by hubert humphrey to hold off a republican effort to prolong the filibuster. he was finally able to do it.

what is interesting is the legislation cannot even be put through the normal channels. if you put it through the judiciary committee, it would go through senator eastland. it is kind of an extra judicial process being put in place. and in the bill gets its overwhelming passage. >> what were the opponents to civil rights constitutional arguments? >> we have a right to run our business. we have a right to allow whoever we want in. the constitution allows us to do that. that was one of the main arguments. there were a number of them. the dixiecrats, the southern democrats were the biggest obstacle for him. he had a number of republicans

that were on his side. there were a coalition of republicans and democrats that made it happen. there was no way you're going to change any of their minds. it was an interesting group. the opposition was conservative republicans. barry goldwater was against the civil rights bill. and the dixiecrats, those were his obstacles. >> the drama of this filibuster coming down to the wire. we have another clip. this is hubert humphrey and strom thurmond debating the 1964 civil-rights bill. two clips back-to-back. let's watch the debate. >> we know that fellow americans who happen to be negro have been denied equal access.

to places of public accommodation. denied in their travels a chance for a place to rest and to eat. >> if it is not public accommodations. it is invasion of private property. in the city of birmingham, alabama, there was an ordinance that said if you're going to have a restaurant and you were going to permit a negro to come in, you have a seven-foot wall down the middle of the restaurant. dividing the flight from the colored. how foolish this is. >> isn't that an invasion of private property? >> we live in a country of freedom. under our constitution, a man has a right to use his own public property. sec said. these bills create no jobs. so who jobs are these negro's

going to take, the white man's jobs or the negro's jobs? >> we must as individual citizens speak out against prejudice and discrimination. we must be willing to accept the fact that every american is entitled to equal rights under the constitution and under the law. no less than that. >> the most difficult task that i have as the floor leader of the civil-rights bill is just being there. having to watch every move and make sure that we have 51 senators. present or readily available. one of the tactics of the opposition is to call for repeated quorums. it means we have to produce 51 senators to answer the roll. >> that story, always to have 51 supporters of the legislation on the floor. how did you organize people? >> he had teams. that would rotate. if they didn't get a quorum, the senate would be shut down.

it would work in the favor of the anti-civil rights people. they were able to bring only two or three people. they had this rotating basis. they did things like drive to baseball games and take a senator out of a baseball game. they did all kinds of things. they had a list and they had a schedule for senators. it was well done. that's the moments when it did not work. -- they had some moments when it did not work. they had to get people from outside the senate. >> was the opposition largely regional? >> you had goldwater, for example. he is a westerner. he was from arizona. his opposition was libertarian. this is a free country, a matter of private property. you should not be telling a man what to do.

you see much of this gets reflected in strom thurmond's language. he is not speaking in terms of racism. he is saying this is a violation of my rights as an american to make personal choices and freedom. humphrey is saying, this is ridiculous. this is not a genuine argument. what you are doing is perpetrating the worst kind of racism. that becomes the argument. it is interesting to go back and listen to that clip. we have such arguments today about the jobs in our country. you can hear strom thurmond saying, this legislation does not produce jobs. takeys that negro's will the white man's jobs. clearly, he was comfortable saying this. it had some effect in that era. it is not as if he was speaking

into a void. to the contrary, it was generating a political response and strong opposition to the civil rights legislation. >> let's take a call from west virginia. >> i am so glad you called me. this is wonderful. i haven't spoken but to one of the sons of senator humphrey. and last well, since he died over the years. i am the fellow who sang the hubert humphrey songs. i have such a wonderful love for him. over the years, he took me everywhere. i sang everything. he taught me politics. he had great respect for me because i came from a family -- my father worked railroad, my grandfather worked the coal mines. hubert humphrey heard me sing on a radio station in 1960.

he gave me $25 a day to travel with them. teddy white became one of my best friends. teddy taught me a lot, and everyone in minnesota that i have met throughout america, the henry fondas and the president and vice-president, people all over this country. i am 77 years old. i did records for capitol records for years. i'm doing the stories about pat feels and the mccoys, my mother's family. hubert humphrey was, to me, like my father. >> thank you so much for that personal story. do you know the songs? >> i will not sing them, but i know them.

he traveled with him all the time. he was with him very closely. he is one person i had lost in this whole search for interviews. i am glad he is alive and well. >> 77 years old. thank you for calling in and adding that personal touch. we have to get one more relationship established. he developed a friendship with martin luther king? >> he had a relationship with king around legislation. if you look inside the reaction of the black community, there were lots of people who were militants who did see the value -- who did not see the value of this legislation. king is saying, this is a necessary step. if you go back to the great march on washington in 1963, in large measure, it is to say to the congress, pass the civil rights act. humphrey if one of the great

supporters of this. he is at the march on washington. he is someone who is emphatic in his support. even as you get people saying, we should not have a march on washington. they're just trying to pressure us politically. humphrey thought it was a good and necessary step. >> at the early stages of the filibuster, he met with martin luther king. he said to him, i want you to know that we are on the same page. his policy was to treat them with respect. use the humphrey way rather than the johnson way. if i say things to them bomb public that they -- that you do not like, i am just saying this because we want this bill to get passed. >> we can hardly do justice to his career before he ran for president. at least to get some sense of

his work on the national stage in 1968, he decided to run for president. we did not establish this, but lyndon johnson made the decision early in 1968 that he would not seek the office. that is setting the stage. at that point, how many democratic contenders are thinking about challenging lyndon johnson? >> bobby kennedy. and eugene mccarthy. >> and they were anti-war candidates? >> yes, they were. >> when did johnson announced? >> early in 1968. >> was that a surprise to the nation? >> it was a shock to humphrey. he showed up at humphrey's apartment. i have two endings. i am not going to tell you which one.

you should listen to the speech. he had not decided yet. humphrey was in mexico. he was called out to watch this broadcast. he announced that he was leaving the office. because of the chaos, they thought they heard that he was immediately leaving office. which would have made humphrey president. there was all this commotion. they realized he was leaving at the end of his term. it was a complete shock to him, and the country. >> susan, as you asked about who was running against him, it really was mccarthy. he is the one that was in new hampshire. he was taking on johnson. johnson is not actively campaigning, but he had people all around. mccarthy is the anti- establishment, anti-johnson candidate. he has support from people who were superstars. we still know barbra streisand. they were people who were anti-

vietnam war. all of the college students are emphatic about mccarthy. gene mccarthy does surprisingly well in new hampshire. it legitimizes the idea that johnson is vulnerable. that is after mccarthy's success is when you start to see robert kennedy willing to jump in. people are questioning why he is jumping into bloc mccarthy's momentum. that sets the table. even as hubert humphrey is thinking that he is trying to pull back on the war, he is pressured by the fact that he is loyal to the man who gave him the vice presidency, lyndon johnson. it is one of those wonderful political stories. hubert humphrey is a good guy. he is not going to put lyndon johnson in a position where it johnson feels that he is being undercut by his number 2.

but at the same time, and as you discussed earlier, johnson is a totally dismissive of humphrey. especially his contribution or desire -- this war is not the right war. >> let's get to another call. this is larry in sherman oaks, california. >> i am a big fan of humphrey. for many years, it took me quite a while to accept the fact that he was never going to be president. even after his passing. i was able to channel that into putting up my on humphrey website. in 1998, i visited the humphrey institute. we looked and the catalogs and did not see any items surrounding middle east war. i would have thought humphrey would have made some speeches or interviews or something. i did not see anything. that surprised me. >> was he involved in middle

east policy? did he speak out on it? >> i do not think that was at the forefront. there was too much else on his plate. i do not remember seeing anything either. i have been through all of his archives. >> the early primaries and lyndon johnson's announcement sent things into warp speed. it>> it is hard to summarize it. you have riots in cities like washington, d.c., chicago, kansas city. it becomes a national moment of crisis. you had people fearful that there was going to be a large- scale racial war in the country.

the unrest that surrounded the vietnam war is still present, but now it becomes a background. remember, king was an opponent of the vietnam war. he said it was an unjust war. why are black and white boys dying in this war? there were people who were trying to join the civil rights movement with the anti-war movement. king, who had not been political, is becoming more political. there are people inside the civil rights movement who recognize that johnson has been supportive in terms of civil rights. why are you, dr. king, challenging this administration? king says he feels a moral imperative to say that this is

part of an injustice that is being perpetrated by america. america is on the wrong side of world history in pursuing the war effort. he is out there speaking against it. a year before he is assassinated, he is at the riverside church in new york making a speech that gets a lot of attention. he is at the national cathedral in washington, d.c., speaking against the war. it becomes part of the energy that surrounds him. it puts him in a position of being an opponent of the johnson administration. >> syracuse, new york, this is ralph. >> thank you for "the contenders." i have a quick comment and a quick question. i have a video at home.

it was hubert humphrey speaking at a gathering. it was towards the end of his life and he is still smiling. he knew it was almost at the end. he had a great quote at the end of this speech. "i would rather live 50 years like a tiger than a hundred years like a chicken." i want to move up to 1968. i met a guy about 20 years ago that he worked on the humphrey campaign in 1968. he said he came on after working on the campaign and he was at the hotel. he was looking out at this park. the news came on and said there was a humphrey protest in the park. he called humphrey the next day and he said there is nothing we can do about it. nixon was doing it to try to link humphrey to anti-war protesters.

ever wondering if you've heard a story like this? thank you very much. >> people were paid to cause trouble. it is hard to document. it probably happened. there is no way to know for sure. >> how important were they to the civil rights movement? >> on the civil rights front, they were slow to come along. they were trying to get the labor unions in this country to understand the importance of racial equity. he was part of that fdr legacy.

the head of the afl-cio there. it becomes a controlling situation where they wanted to be able to have some levels of control of release of all sorts afford. >> we are going to take a call here and then we have a lot of history. robert kennedy assassinated in los angeles. but some to call from dean in cleveland.

he was a vice president. you can imagine what was happening in 1968. he sat down and stayed in town for a couple of hours with our mayor turned out to be a mayor for 51 years. his name was john klein. i also got drafted the following year. it is just a pleasure -- the series you are running here. thank you for having me.

>> we are live from the minnesota history museum in st. paul right by a beautiful building sturdy have a special exhibit on 1968. we are using that as our backdrop's to talk about the campaign of 1968. one of his major bids, the what he actually got the nod. he made a major contribution to american history. in june, the california primary to be gunned down was robert kennedy. >> it set him way back. that is really the beginning of his numbers sliding. earlier in the year, in the early primary season he was ahead 10 points by over every candidate. after robert kennedy was shot, it looked like the democratic party was falling apart.

when he got back on his feet in july, he was already behind nixon. then came the republican convention. >> what stands out to my mind is we were talking a moment ago about the king assassination. robert kennedy gives an amazing speech that so many people still remember in indianapolis on the night of the king assassination. there was rioting all over the country. there is racial anger and unease. he talks about the king assassination in terms of his own brother's assassination. all we can do to try to ease the pain. the patience that is required. just a few months later, here he is laying dead in los angeles. i think the sense is that america's leaders are being killed. people who are the idealists. people who are to carry on the

grand traditions of liberalism, people challenging the establishment are being eliminated. there is a sadness and despair in the american body politic at the moment. it is hard to capture the extent of it. sometimes we have arguments today about polarization that people always said, if you were here in 1968 you will understand how bad things could have been. it felt like the country was coming apart. we do not know the forces of evil at work and why so many great american leaders are being killed at this moment. don't forget president johnson's approval numbers are in the low 30's. he can't even come out at a major event. he will not be able to go to the democratic convention. it really is an incredible moment in 1968. hubert humphrey was there. you talk about the happy warrior. he wants to stand up with

people and say, there is reason to hope america can do it. he is seen as an establishment figure because of his association with the incumbent lyndon johnson. >> our cities are burning, kids are rioting, leaders are being burned out. people are trying to bring america to the next stage. we're going to go to the next stage as well. we are going to walk down an aisle. we will listen to a call. our next stop will be about the opposition that's gathering with george wallace and also the republicans. listen to jim from new york. >> hello. how are you? >> we are great. what is your question? >> let me first say how much i am enjoying the program. i appreciate it. my question really deals with the first draft lottery, which i believe was either in 1967 or 1968. i do have great recollection of

being eligible for that. i had a very low number which upset everyone in my family. what was hubert humphrey's position relative to the whole concept of the lottery? what did he do in that issue? >> i do not know if i ever heard hubert humphrey say anything about the lottery. i do know later on he worked to raise the voting age because he thought it was unfair people were being drafted at 18 and could not vote until they were 21. later on his life he had different ideas. he probably felt the draft itself was probably not such a good idea. at the time i do not know if he said anything about it. >> the summer of 1968 and the country is in disarray. the assassination of both king and kennedy. on the republican side, richard

nixon who had also been in the senate and former vice president wanted to be president as well. what was his campaign's reaction to all of the turmoil? how are they positioning their man? >> the principal response from richard nixon was law and order. he wanted to restore law and order in the streets and get the counterculture -- all of the young people and their antiwar efforts and protesting on campus -- he wanted to get that under control. he appealed to a group of the silent majority in american politics who felt they were being put upon by all of these young people, some of which you had supported mccarthy. richard nixon in this period is a guy who himself has concerns about the war.

he has questions about it. he positions himself as a staunch supporter of the military and the war as a counter to some of the democrats -- democratic efforts into separate himself from the johnson forces. >> hubert humphrey still suffering from being loyal to his president. the two candidates were able to distinguish themselves. but let me just say, it is interesting if you look on the republican side, it is not only richard nixon running but you have romney. >>the father of the current candidate for president. >> romney was trying to position himself as anti-war. it leads us to what we will remember in george romney's presidential run, he says he has been brainwashed by the general and political leaders about what is going on in vietnam. it alienated some of the silent majority base.

they wanted to see the war continued and to win the war. romney thought that he could outflank nixon by be in the anti-war republican. turned out he hurt himself with his base and he was never able to challenge richard nixon after that. then you have people like rockefeller in that mix. guess who, ronald reagan is in that mix. ronald reagan is the strongest conservative as opposed to richard nixon at the miami convention. it ultimately, it comes down to reagan and rockefeller knocking each other out and allowing richard nixon to have a clear path to the nomination. >> let's take a call from fred. >> hello. i wanted to mention one of my stories about hubert humphrey when he was the mayor of minneapolis.

the mayor's office overlooked the bell telephone companies across the street. he saw them taking in mattresses. he saw them taking in food. taking in food to prepare for a long strike. they had already emptied the building and all of that stuff. the strike. hubert humphrey was always a great friend of the working people. that is my comment. >> thank you for telling the story. let's move right on to another call from nancy in virginia. >> i was 14 years old in 1968. i was visiting in washington.

my older cousin was a hubert humphrey supporter. i was always proud of that. i wanted to add since i heard on msnbc earlier that the occupy movement is coming to d.c. in december. i was wondering what your guests could offer in recognizing paid provocateurs. i know that dr. king was for non-violence in knoxville, tennessee. all of the 99%ers i approve of is nonviolent. thank you. >> he studied at the highlander school as did rosa parks and others involved with the civil rights movement. initially, it is there to help people with union activities fighting against coal miners and teach them how to organize. those tactics expanded to civil rights protest and the like,

obviously in the case that dr. king and rosa parks become so well known for. extending that to the lessons she would take to something like occupy, remember when king is assassinated, he was attending to lead a poor people's campaign. the poor people's campaign was going to be on the national mall right in front of the u.s. congress and the capital and the ideas dr. king expressed was he wanted to share the leaders of the free world that there was still poverty including in appalachia. also in the big cities. he was going to build shanty huts right there on the mall. talk about an occupy movement. there is a direct analogy to that.

there was a fear that this was going to attract all kinds of anarchist elements. that is what we're seeing in occupy. >> we have a clip from a little bit later during the general election. talks about the fact there was no debates during the general election. a lot of discussion was of whether there would be. here is richard nixon talking about not debating. >> i happen to be of the opinion we need a debate in this country. i think you and hubert humphrey -- >> i think mr. hubert humphrey as having a great time debating himself. >> you are prejudiced, mr. nixon. if you do not want to debate with the third-party candidate whose name shall not be mentioned, why don't you get your friends in the house of representatives to pass a special law permitting you and

mr. hubert humphrey to debate. >> have you ever looked at the membership on that committee? it is always amusing to be when people said, why don't i get the republicans to do something of a debate. let's remember that the senate is 2-1 democratic. the house is 3-2 democratic. anytime that hubert humphrey with his influence on his side wants a debate, i would think he would be able to get the democrats to pass it. i think that my power in terms of what i can get the republican members in the house to do is greatly overestimated. democrats as well as republicans are in favor of a 3- man debate. that is the problem as you know it. they are not opposing the debate. they are sitting with wallace getting 21% of the poll -- i am sorry. i should not have mentioned his name. with wallace getting 21% of the poll, they are insisting that they cannot go back to their constituents and laws that provide him an equal chance. >> if you got your friends and mr. humphrey got his friends, you would have enough friends to bring this thing on. >> i do not think he has that many friends. [laughter]

>> richard nixon talking about the 1968 campaign. the focus of our discussion is hubert humphrey, democratic candidates for president unsuccessful in 1968. we will take a call from jim. >> great show. hello. >> we can hear you. go ahead. >> i have a purely speculative question i want to ask to mick dealing with the power of celebrities in 1968 that supported mainly kennedy and mccarthy and as to the announcements of a bombing halt possibilities many of them came flocking back to humphrey. many participated in an election telethon. many of these stars were there

like frank sinatra, paul newman, steve allen, sonny and cher. there was a poll taken the next day on election day saying humphrey would win. my question is do you think that if these stars and this telethon taking questions on air, that humphrey might have pulled it off if they would have come to him earlier in the fall in 1968? >> it probably would have helped if he had come earlier in the year and joined the humphrey campaign. nothing else was going on at that time besides the telephone. they thought they had peace in vietnam the weekend before his poll ratings just kept going up.

he almost passed nixon in most polls because peace in vietnam would have won him the presidency. richard nixon convinced the south vietnam's leader to not come to the peace talks because richard nixon would give him a better deal with president. this is documented all over the place. he backed out of peace talks. our allies backed out of the peace talks. many people think that is what lost the election at the end. >> right behind you is a campaign poster for george wallace. when did he come into the race and what block did he represent? >> he represents southerners who were alienated not only by hubert humphrey but by the student protesters. he is representing working- class people even in the northern cities who i think are frustrated with the entire climate. they think there is a lack of law and order. they think the minorities and the blacks are out of control. they think nobody is listening

to them. this is the archie bunker element. that is who wallace comes to represent. it is a substantial feeling because a lot of people would have been democrats -- they argue in people or seven as per ed they are not in line with what has become of the democratic party in terms of mccarthy, they're just not there. wallace formed to their feelings. >> in the interest of time we have to fast forward to the story. the republicans meet in 1968. democrats convene at the outset of chicago. the party had serious fraction about the war.

chicago was what kind of scene? >> where do you begin with chicago? humphrey tried to get the entire convention moved to miami because he knew it was coming. johnson would not do it because he was so close with daley and he promised daley there would be a convention there. there were all kinds of strikes. there were cab strikes there were baracades up. they expected 15,000 protesters. it was chaos. he was worried about threats to his family. there have been threats to kidnap his wife. he arrived at the convention without a peace plank. johnson squashed it right at the end. he ended up coming to the convention. >> did he have the nomination in hand when he got there? >> people were nominated in different ways. it was not by primaries, it was by the delegates. he had the most delegates by way of lyndon johnson. he had some sway with the delegates that would nominate him for president.

>> that is a critical moment in terms of political history. humphrey is the last nominee who gets the nomination not through the primary process. you get people but the other big city leaders and union leaders to get behind humphrey almost out of anger at the counterculture movement and the anti-war movement. daley is not only beating up on protesters in the street, he is beating up on media inside the convention. it is a horrible scene. in terms of the american public that is watching this, a huge turn off. >> richard daley was determined to have law and order. >> the police were there and the national guard are all on the streets. they are whipping heads. it is a really horrible scene.

humphry is put in a position of saying he stands with the bosses against people who are breaking down law and order civilization. the anarchist in the streets and the drugs that are being featured and the free sex. he is trying to appeal to the silent majority in saying he stands for law and order. democrats are not an out of control party. it is ironic. hubert humphrey is a guy who was not a great supporter of the war. he was an idealist. in this moment he becomes a representative of the big city mayor union boss, lbj bullying hardball politics. >> mike is watching us from honolulu. >> i really enjoy your program. i am 69 years old now and i remember in 1961 i was in high school.

i worked for kennedy. he was running against hubert humphrey. humphrey had a little campaign slogan or a campaign jingle to the tune of "give me that old- time religion." kennedy was catholic. i remember that. of course, we go back to 1968 and i was married it then. i voted for hubert humphrey. my question for the author is this. was there this animosity between the humphrey camp and the kennedy camp because of his anti-catholic campaign in 1960? thank you. >> i assume he means was it still there in 1968.

i do not think so. i think it was gone at that point. the things that john kennedy did to hubert humphrey in the 1960 campaign paled in comparison. he basically bought that election in west virginia. >> we have a clip we did not show from 1960. i am going to take a call. we have jfk talking about hubert humphrey from 1960 to help show some of the relationship. let's get to john in tennessee. >> hubert humphrey and mccarthy were close friends for many years as fellow dfl'ers. at the end of a terrible convention in chicago, mccarthy told humphrey he would come out and support him soon. i think the assumption was something like september. mccarthy never did. that was a terrible burden for

humphrey. probably mccarthy could have swung enough votes to get humphrey elected. i am just wondering whether our experts share that view or whether they have some other view. >> thank you. >> we interviewed walter mondale and he said if mccarthy would have come out on the stage at the convention and said humphrey is not our best candidate and we are against the war. if we need to vote for him instead of richard nixon, they would have won the election. they had a couple weeks before the convention where is that he would come out for him by mid september. he never did. they were talking constantlyall throughout the campaign trying to get mccarthy to come on board with humphrey. he would not do it. he left the country for a while. nobody knows why. >> if you have joined us along the way, mick caouette has done

a documentary. we will show you the cover along the way. many clips we are showing are from his research. this is from 1960 talking about his relationship with hubert humphrey and his influence on his presidential campaign. >> this week i had the opportunity to debate with mr. richard nixon. i feel i should reveal that i have a great advantage in that debate. i am not referring to anyone's makeup man. [applause] the advantage i had was mr. nixon had adjusted debated with kruschev. i debated with hubert humphrey and that gave me an edge. >> debating with hubert humphrey gave him an edge. greg, you are on. welcome to the conversation.

hello? >> hello. i was just -- this kind of relates to what you were talking about earlier. humphrey and lbj's relationship, why would he have to attack his own over vietnam? >> why did lbj attack hubert humphrey? because lbj wanted to win the war and he did not want anyone telling him -- getting off of it. he wanted people to do what he told them to do.

humphrey had reservations about the war and he knew it. he had been a free spirit his whole career and suddenly he was in a situation where he had to be controlled. johnson really cost and some damage. >> i think basically he was protecting his own legacy. >> we are going to close out our conversation with a clip of the 1968 national guardsmen who were students themselves in the street holding back a student protesters. this is hubert humphrey in a clip from the convention as he accepts the nomination. >> where there is hatred, let me show love. where there is injury, pardon. where there is doubt, faiths.

where there is despair, hope. where there is darkness, light. those are the words of a saint. may those of us with less purity listen to them well and may america tonight resolve that never, never again shall we see what we have seen. [applause] >> i was heartbroken. all at once there was this total disarray. what do i do under these circumstances? >> that was a clip directly

from the documentary about hubert humphrey reflecting on the terrible turmoil at the 1968 convention. we have about 35 minutes left. we are going to move along to the next part of the exhibit and it takes some seats and round out our discussion of the life and career, continue taking telephone calls. as we do, we will show you some of the humphrey commercials of the 1968 presidential campaign. we'll see you in a couple of minutes. [no audio] >> democrats have paved the way for them to get good summer jobs. you have more money today for little luxuries because democrats worked hard to push into a higher minimum wage. you do not have to worry about supporting your mother today

and she not worry about being a burden on you thanks to social security and medicare. quite an accomplishment, you know it. you only heard one minutes worth. what have the democrats ever done for you and yours? think about it. >> paid for by it citizens for humphrey-muskie. >> the vice-president of the united states. >> we have seen the terrible results of violence for this country. it would be intolerable if a handful of violent people -- and that is what it is, just a handful -- could harden us to needed change. i have seen a violence that perverts the spirit of the america. i saw it at the republican convention in 1964. when governor rockefeller were shouted down. i saw it in indianapolis when -- minneapolis when a man i

disagree with, wallace was heckled into silence. happened to me in philadelphia. we should give notice to this violent few. there are americans that are willing to sacrifice for change but they want to do it without being threatened and want to do it peacefully. they are the nonviolent majority. black and white who are for change without violence. these are the people whose voice i want to be. >> the preceding was a pre recorded political announcement paid for by citizens for humphrey. >> mr. richard nixon, where you stand on federal aid education? where you stand on expanded medicare? where do you stand on aid to higher education? mr. nixon, where do you stand on the program? where do you stand? i must say -- >> you know something, richard nixon has not won an election on his own in 18 years. let's keep a good thing going.

>> those were campaign commercials for the 1968 campaign as we talk about hubert h. humphrey, feature contender in our series on 14 men who lost the election but changed history. we are live from the minnesota history center. this is a special exhibit they are doing in 1968 which i am told will travel to other cities. >> chicago for sure, and i believe atlanta or charlotte as well. >> chicago is certainly appropriate as we talk about this. >> it is time to talk about the fall campaign. juan williams on my left and mick caouette on my right. both have written a number of books about the civil rights era. in the fall campaign, we have wallace, nixon, and hubert humphrey all fighting for the white house. we had riots in the spring, did they continue? >> there was some rioting that

persisted. it was not of the major kind of smoke in the sky variety that we saw earlier in the year. the racial tension was palpable throughout the country. it is interesting the way that nixon presented himself was as someone who was going to restore order in the big cities. this also had a strong appeal to people who felt this civil rights movement had sold chaos. -- sowed chaos. it is way beyond a just a matter of the quality. it is creating instability in the country. combined with the anti-vietnam war sentiment, you get richard nixon as the guy who is a man of stability, law, and order. a man who said, we can win in the vietnam even though we will know he goes on to be somebody to start the pullout from vietnam. he understands he is appealing

to the silent majority and that is what his campaign is it out. >> hubert humphrey comes out on vietnam still tied to lyndon johnson's policy? >> probably worse. lyndon johnson has funding he is holding onto. the democratic national committee has no money. he has no money. he has to borrow money to start his campaign. no tv ads. the promotion whatsoever. he is 20 points down in the polls. that is how he starts his campaign. >> how does it play out? >> he runs into -- it continues like that until the end of september. he is booed offstage in seattle from protesters. it continues and nothing changes. then he gives a speech in late september on september 30 and solid city where he -- he had --

in salt lake city where he has all little left to lose at that point. little left to lose at that point. he makes a break with johnson in a real subtle way where a call for a bombing halt and bring the troops home. things change instantly. he gets something like $1 billion in cash come into him. -- $1 million comment. people side as a chance. the next place he went, it is humphrey we are for you. >> here is a scene from those months. a popular refrain he met from protesters -- dump the hump. >> i proceeded to go out the main door walking with students and protesters on each side of the sidewalk pushing and shoving and cursing. there were throwing everything they could it to harass me. one of the things that were doing is throwing cans of urine at me and my party. it was a terrible ordeal. i walked every step.

i did no running. i got to my car. i waved back at the students and we started to drive away. >> i believe that the republican candidate owes it to the people to come out of the shadows. [chanting] >> dup the hump! dump the hump! dump the hump! dump the hump! [unintelligible]

>> what you heard and saw was hubert humphrey reminiscing about a visit to stanford university and scenes from events in seattle and boston. this is shirley from dallas. >> i first heard of you for humphrey when i was in my 20's. he was the mayor of minneapolis. he was on a program called "town meeting of the air." he made a speech in favor of civil rights and similar to what he did in 1948. since then he was always my political hero. i would like to ask a question. was he not active in the anti- nuclear weapons toward the end of his career? i would like to hear more about that. >> earlier in his career, he was actually the force behind the disarmament agency.

and the test ban treaty. he could not get in the middle of the 1950's -- he could not get the senate and congress because of the cold war to talk about disarmament and talk about negotiating with russians. he started a subcommittee and set this up by himself. the treaty was signed by president kennedy who turned to humphrey and said, this is yours and i hope it works. >> we talk about the general election in 1968. george wallace is there. george wallace's vice presidential candidate is lemay. he suggests that the united states might use nuclear weapons in vietnam. people are alarmed by this. people have not forgotten what happened in terms of the a-bomb. it just is an example of how

extreme and harsh in this year was and how the 1968 campaign is about war and its bets and social change taking place in the country. we talk about the civil-rights movement and the idea of assassinations. there is also a feminism movement, campuses are on fire. young people are just angry. the draft is going on. there is great discontent over this period. that has become -- this perido where we are going to seek the change coming out of the primary progress. after that, no longer is it the case thatthe big union bosses and the mayors are dictating everything. you will see the need for the democratic party to come back together and it does not do so for a very long time. it receives a trajectory and which the south becomes republican. >> he mentioned vice presidential nominees. hubert humphrey shows muskie.

how did that allies come together? >> he had known him for quite a while. everyone wanted a southern candidate to pull the south. he said, i want somebody who will be a good president if something happens to me. assassinations were very fresh. the vice president as a heartbeats away. he wanted someone he liked and was stable. did not help him much politically. he was not thinking along those lines. i should say as well that he also spoke to nelson rockefeller about being his vice president. crossing party lines which would have been pretty remarkable. nelson rockefeller gave it 24 hours and said he could not do it. they were friends. rockefeller did not have any special liking for nixon. >> the next telephone call is from virginia. >> hello. i am enjoying the series. i was intrigued about the

comment earlier that humphrey was the originator of the idea for the peace corps and a lot of other ideas for kennedy. i wonder if kennedy ever gave him credit for those ideas and what some of the other ideas of his work. >> i think pretty much publicly, he gave him credit for food for peace program. i have a speech where he did that. i do not know what he said about the peace corps. i think he might have said that humphrey helped them -- these are humphrey ideas some of these ideas. he took them on the 1960 campaign. when he lost the primary to jfk, he said i want to get my ideas into this administration. he worked on them. >> hubert humphrey was 57 years old. he was born in 1911. in 1968 he was 57 years old. how did he present himself as a

candidate? we have all of this change going on in society. was he conventional? >> extremely conventional. we talk a little bit about the difficulty he had portraying himself as an opponent of the war. he was born in 1911. he is not a counterculture and die. there is no way he will be standing around in a dashiki or with long hair and be credible. he is trying to say that he understands the need for stability and law and order even though he is not a law-and- order candidate. he is in a suit and tie and he has difficulty even with the kind of poetics that robert kennedy had employed when king was assassinated. that is not huber humphrey. hubert humphrey is a great speaker. but how you speak -- you have people screaming at you and they see you as an operator for

lyndon johnson who is on popular. he is an a political vice. >> it is impossible for him to present himself as anything. it was done for him. he did not have much of a chance to beat himself. interestingly enough, he was the revolutionary in 1948. he was in the other role in 1948 and he became part of the establishment he attacked in 1948. >> a lot of change from 1948 to 1968. next telephone call. >> hello. i worked for hubert humphrey. my husband in the 1960's was his press secretary. i worked for muriel humphrey. i was her press secretary. >> oh, my goodness.

>> we were involved in his 1960 campaign. we were with him for all of 1968. we were at the democratic convention and the horror and tragedy of what was unfolding. i have the experience of escorting muriel humphrey and their children through the basement of the convention center with tear-gas seeping all around us as we were going into the convention hall on the evening that he would get the democratic nomination. on that night from the hotel room at the conrad hilton, we were with him as he stood there looking out the window at the violence and the terrible tragedy unfolding in grant park. the atmosphere in the room was almost of a funeral.

humphrey was the saddest man you could ever imagine on the night that he had achieved his greatest political victory to be the democratic presidential candidate. this was a man whose ideals and integrity carried through his whole life and in his personal life when you knew him at home or with him privately he was the same person with the same passion. the same conviction for civil rights, for working americans, for the concerns of world peace that you heard in his public statements. i do not think we have had somebody with his gift in the years since.

>> pat, our time is short. are we doing your boss justice tonight? is there one aspect of his political career you think it is important for our viewers to hear about? >> i think you are doing a beautiful job on him. you have touched on so many things. i was happy that he was being given some credit for the tremendous array of ideas and programs that he actually generated and then championed during the kennedy administration. >> thank you for your call. what is your family name? >> my last name is correct that. -- griffith.

>> my husband wrote a biography of hubert humphrey in 1963 called "humphrey: a candid biography." >> thank you so much for being a part of our program. we have just 15 minutes late. -- left. we still have a long life of cuba humphrey to cover. let's talk about election night. where did he watched the returns? >> i think he was in the lemon 10 hotel in minneapolis. >> what were the results like? >> they really thought they had a chance at the end. an illinois, ohio, and a couple of other states came in at the very end. they were very close. and they were head for a while. he basically went to bed thinking he probably was not going to win and what he woke up found out he did not. >> it was very close. ohio, illinois, and in california which all voted richard nixon. they all go to nixon by a lot. -- they do not go to nixon by a lot.

it is very, very close. i think it is just a of a percentage point difference in terms of absolute percentage of votes in the national election. >> a close popular vote. the electoral college vote 301 for richard nixon, 191 for humphrey. george wallace got 46 electoral votes. who did george wallace take votes away from? >> that is a good argument. i think if you think about the fact that the south was still mostly democratic and they are reacting to civil-rights efforts, i think those would have been available for a democrat who was operating at the behest of the democratic machine. the union bosses, the mayors, the wealthy in the country. that was gone. the had fallen apart. they were trying to pull together for a country as part of lbj's machine. lbj was not actively supporting. he did not let the money go. he did not make the effort to

try to give those people a reason to vote for humphrey. if i look back on it, i take is those were democratic votes. we've not talked about african americans were coming into the process. what happened if king lives? does king get more involved at this point? as king say that he is for humphrey? he might have. did king possibly launch a third-party effort? i do not know. that would have changed the dynamic market lead. >> what was the african-american turn out like in 1968? >> it was pretty good. i do not know the exact numbers. this was right in the aftermath. you get the voting rights act in 1965 and the civil rights act of 1964. much more in the north and west. in the south there is still intimidation going on. but blacks are turning out in numbers. >> i would say the block of states or southern states, alabama, mississippi, georgia. if you look at it a different

way, if they had a choice of only nixon or humphrey, they might have gone to nixon. it is hard to know where those votes really came from. >> wallace also took louisiana, arkansas, mississippi, and georgia. let's take a call. hi, jim. >> i would like to mention that in 1968 when johnson made his speech and he stepped down that two days before on friday, march 29 -- which i have to correct your guest on the date. on march 29, mr. humphrey agreed to speak at i school. the speech was scheduled for three weeks later. on sunday, march 31 is when johnson made his speech.

i always wondered since that event whether he had a clue on that friday because he scheduled some other speeches later in april on the same date that johnson was going to step down or he was simply anticipating that the possibility may exist. because of that speech, i was able to sit in the front row of his announcement speech on april 27 at the hotel along with the other students that helped invite him. i was also at the capitol the day the civil rights act was passed in 1964. i feel like i will always have somewhat of a privilege from a front-row seat in parts of his life. finally, i would like to make a comment that most of the

progress of legislation and programs that evolved during the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's were a result of hubert humphrey's forward agenda. it seemed at that point when he ran for president in 1968, those who he supported with legislation turned on him and he suddenly became outdated or a little bit too conservative in their eyes. the progressives for civil rights did not view him as a strong advocate, anti-war party did not consider him a strong advocate. >> ok, jim. we are going to jump in because i think our guests made that exact point earlier. he was a great influence but when it came time for his campaign -- >> he had his signature or

hands on over 1000 bills for 10 years. the problem 1968 was there was only one issue and all of the rest were forgotten. it was only vietnam. all of that was lost unfortunately. >> richard nixon won. the war waged on for a couple other years. what about humphrey's life after this? >> nixon did not say he was going to end the war. he said he was going to win the war. >> that plan that he had. >> the secret plan. >> he had a secret plan. that was the effort to appeal to the silent majority. the problem for humphrey again, we talk about how he is trapped in being lbj vice-president and lbj is feeling he needs to win this war. he is also trapped with the larger argument with nixon were

he wants to say, i am for stability. i am not for things going out of control. this is at the same time nixon really says he is a law-and- order candidate. humphrey can never be that because nixon has the space occupied. even as humphrey is trying, he is alienating people who would be his supporters. >> i will take a call. this is gavin from new york. >> hello. you touched upon this earlier. if george wallace had been out of the 1968 presidential race, would you have seen the outcome be in even closer than it was? in all of your opinions, who would it have been closer for? would it have been humphrey on the top where would it have put more ahead? thank you. >> do you have any more to say on that? brought't know what it

from perspective. -- i do not know why, but from my perspective, i think wallace beat humphrey. i think a lot of working-class union folks who had some allegiances to the democratic party going back to fdr, i think they peeled off. they went with wallace. i do not know if they would have done to the republican party and to nixon. >> we see that in the north. i think the south -- if wallace was not in the race in the south, nixon might have gotten those votes. >> did hubert humphrey give up his aspirations after his defeat in 1968? >> he came close to trying in 1972 but then he backed out to mcgovern. he decided not to do it. he began bid to be -- he began to be look forward that point. -- be ill at that point. >> but he did go back to the senate? >> in 1970 he took mccarthy's

seat in the senate. his popularity had dropped and he left politics and humphry took it. it was one of the largest landslides of his senatorial career. he served there until 1978 until he died. >> how was his second stand? -- stint. was a freshman and treated that way. he was treated like someone who is just starting. he got no respect but he find it -- but he found his way and passed a couple of different major legislation bills during that time. he got back into it. >> website a call from michigan. we are talking about hubert humphrey. what is your question? >> he served during the mccarthy era. what was his relationship with joe mccarthy? did mccarthy go after him because he was so liberal? >> that is a complicated question.

he tried to pass something called the communist control act where he tried to make it illegal to the communist. in some part because he was trying to make joe mccarthy bring the truth out and force his hand. he would have to prove somebody was a communist and it would have been illegal and he could not been quite so blase about how the attack people. he would have to incriminate them. he did not like joe mccarthy or his tactics carry it he did not like anything about what he did. but he was a democrat. >> hubert humphrey was very ill with cancer. what kind of cancer did he have? >> and bladder cancer. >> he ended up dying in 1978. in the time before he died, he was brought back to the capital

for what seemed to be an unusual tribute. >> never happened before. it was the first time. it was the first time congress and the senate met for someone who was not elected president. it had never happened before. they basically honored his work. he died two months later. the spirit was there. senator paul simon spoke. >> he invited richard nixon to come back for his funeral in the capitol building. >> he had not been back since watergate. he said he did not think any president should not be allowed in the city of. hubert humphrey said it was his dying wish. so richard nixon came back to the city. >> the premise of this series is people who were not successful in their presidential bid but change american history.

how did he change american history? >> you think about major social movements of the 20th century, and the civil-rights movement, and hubert humphrey seems to stand at the top of that order in terms of people who held elected office and put themselves out as advocates, some might say on the right side of history. he was well ahead of the curve in terms of pushing the democratic party, was in politics in the direction of passing the civil rights act, the voting rights act, and so much change in this country when it comes to race relations. if you think about it in political terms, if you think about barack obama and the united states today, that does not happen with some of the changes -- without some of the changes that come as a result of the democratic party primary process. here is hubert humphrey who comes in and he is the last selection by the party bosses and the machine in the

aftermath. in the aftermath of his defeat in 1968, you have allocation of delegates based on primaries and processed. that is part of the legacy of hubert humphrey's. there are all kinds of other social programs. we think about the end of the new deal. . -- end of the new deal period. social programs that were the work of hubert humphrey's fertile mind. >> mick, i am going to apologize you but we have run out of time. i am going to encourage people to find your documentary. it is widely available where you buy your videos. hubert humphrey died back in minneapolis at lake wood cemetery. his tombstone has this

inscription on it -- "i have enjoyed my life, its disappointments outweighed by its pleasures. i have loved my country in some ways that some people consider her sentimental and out of style. i still do and i remain an optimist without joy and without apology about american democracy." we will show you a video from the unusual session from the house chambers. when hubert humphrey, months before his death, was invited back for a tribute and celebration of his long political and legislative career. thank you for being with us. [applause] >> hubert, old friend, we ask

you here so we could tell you we love you in. [applause] >> knowing full well the dangers of what i am about to do, i yield as much time as he wishes to consume to the senior senator from minnesota. [laughter] [applause] >> and i know where i'm standing. i am standing where the president of the united states this is state of the union address. my goodness. how i have longed for that opportunity. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> "the contenders" features profiles of key figures who ran for president but lost. our coverage continues next friday. we will take your calls about the presidential campaign of george wallace. the series airs live friday nights at 8:00 eastern friday nights on c-span. you can see tonight's program again at 11:00 p.m. eastern. more information online. you can find the schedule of the series of biographies of the candidates, historians appraisals and speeches at c- span.org/thecontenders. tomorrow on "road to the white house," rahm emanuel is the keynote speaker at the jefferson-jackson dinner in in the morning, iowa. live coverage at 8:30 eastern on

c-span, c-span radio, and c-span or -- cspan.org. next, remarks from leon panetta and peter mckay. both stated their support for the f-35 program. they spoke at a joint news conference at the annual halifax international security forum in nova scotia. this is about 25 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the united states secretary of defense, leon panetta, and peter mckay.

>> like you for joining us here. i want to begin by both welcoming and extending my thanks to my counterpart in 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 had a great bilateral this morning, a chance to discuss some salient issues for both of our country's, is used that relate to our collective continental defense. i am talking about subject matters such as the f-35 joint strike fighter program and our mutual interest in the procurement of this 21st century aircraft to protect north america, continue to be interoperable and work together in international missions as we

of seen most recently in the mission unified protector in libya. we also had the chance to discuss, in the broader concept, continental security, our collective interest in working together through norad, the joint permanent board of defense, and our collective efforts, both in yemen -- both in the libya and the ongoing efforts in afghanistan. canada assuming a more chronicle on the training side, with the recent promotion of a major- general mike day, the role that we have assumed their with 900 + canadian trainers in and around the capital figures very prominent in the transition of irresponsibility for security to the afghan people and the afghan government. canada and the u.s. are working closely and the defense

relationships and partnerships in north america but certainly around the globe. our collective efforts around global security are extremely important. it is a high priority for kent and the -- a high priority for canada. that is why i am honored to post defense secretary leon panetta. >> thank you care much -- thank you very much. it is a tremendous honor for me to have the opportunity to be here on the minister's home turf of nova scotia. as a former member of the u.s. congress, i know how important it is to maintain a close connection to your constituency. on that basis, i would invite you to come to my constituency in monterey, calif., when you get a chance. another beautiful part of the world as well. this is my first trip to canada 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 as chief of staff to president clinton, as a cia director, and now as secretary of defense. i believe very deeply that this is a special relationship. in a very special relationship between our two countries. we share more than a border. with our canadian allies. we share a common history, we shared common values, and we share a common approach to advancing our security interest. all of this has led to a defense relationship that we enjoy today, one of the strongest defense relationships that we have in the world. we share a vision for extending

peace and prosperity through a very 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 in the western hemisphere. we talked about working to improve our ordination in this area as well, dealing with the trafficking of narcotics, weapons, people, the ability to try to secure borders, etc. one of the key ways to approach these problems is by fostering regional security forums such as

the conference of defense ministers of the americas and by building the capacity of our neighbors to counter these kind of threats. i look forward to working with peter mackay in trying to expand their cooperation. we also discussed the nato summit that we will be having in chicago. obviously, there will be a full agenda there. our efforts there will be to declare the interim capabilities for nato's european territory missile defense, the next steps on afghanistan, and for other ways to strengthen the transatlantic alliance that we enjoy. for more than 50 years, we have been partnered together on the 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 the

operations center. it is a singular single -- a singular signal that the united states and canada stand together when it comes to the securities of our countries. along those lines, i saw press reports that indicated that somehow we were not committed to the f-35. let me make it clear that the united states is committed to the development of the f-35 and to a cooperative relationship with the f-35 with our canadian friends. it will be an essential factor that will help in norad and will be the future in helping us with the security challenges we face. our troops have stood shoulder- to-shoulder, not only here but 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 together so effectively, minister mackay and i have, i think, continued and strengthened a warm relationship between our countries when it comes to security carry we have had the opportunity to meet two months ago in washington and we saw each other at the nato ministerial. we have continued a dialogue that will hopefully strengthened that cooperation and relationship. as i did in washington, and i want to do here, i want to think canada. for the contributions in afghanistan, in particular. you have had 150 canadian heroes who paid the ultimate price.

in libya, where i met the canadian general bouchard, someone who is incredibly capable and instrumental in leading those successful operations, all of that reflects the fact that we fight together and we deleted together -- and we bleed together as one. i am looking for it to to spreading in the security forum this afternoon. let me extend my thanks to the people of canada for the warm hospitality that have provided me. i have had cousins who have come to canada as part of my italian heritage for it for me, canada is a special place. together, we are a powerful force. the united states and canada. we represent a very powerful voice for peace, for freedom, for democracy, and for security.

and mr. minister, you have my commitment that i would do whatever i can to ensure that we continue to strengthen that voice, not only in this hemisphere, but in the world. the cougar much triet -- thank you very much. >> to begin questions, we will start with reuters. >> given uss assurances that the united states and one not reduce its military posture in asia or the middle east, what kind of cuts are being considered for the u.s. military in europe and is it something that will come up in talks in halifax? >> in reviewing the budget that we are dealing with and the budget requirements on savings that we have been given, the total number is about $450

billion plus that the congress has has asked us to reduce the defense budget by over next 10 years. we have begun an extensive process within the defense department to review all of the areas involved in europe. there are three or four guidelines that are important to me. number one, the united states will protect the best military and the world. we are the strongest in the world and we intend to remain the best military in the world. number two, i do not want to hollow out the force, which is something that has happened with past cuts were cuts have been made across the board, weakening every area of defense for it will not do that. thirdly, that leaves me to looking at a series of areas where we can try to achieve savings. those areas include deficiencies, procurement reform, they include the area of compensation and they also include structure reductions.

all of those areas are being looked at. we have made no decisions as to what areas we will, in fact, make be the reductions. i think it is fair to say that everything is on the table. we would do nothing without consulting with our allies so that they are aware of the decisions we make. there is no question we are going to be a smaller, agile, flexible, more deployable force. our hope is to have a technological edge so that we can meet the challenges of the future. that is kind of a broad strategy guideline that we are going to use heriot with regards to every area, including europe, our goal is to make sure that we are able to maintain a relationship that allows us to provide security not only in the pacific and middle east, but also with regards to the mediterranean are arena as well.

>> [speaking french] >> the question was whether minister mackay is concerned about the f-35 program because of possible cuts in the united states. >> [speaking frnech -- french] [speaking french]

[speaking french] >> he was just saying that minister panetta has clarify the situation with the respect to

the u.s. intent to make budget cuts to the defense budget. with respect to your specific question, canada's intention is to proceed with the procurement process heriot there are pressures, but we believe this is an absolutely critical military asset for the protection of north america. we are very confident about the future of the program and we believe it is absolutely necessary to keep it in place. of course, the u.s. also intends to continue the process. there are agreements not only with lockheed martin but with nine other partners. >> i am a glyn with cbc news area i have a joint question for it secretary panetta, you said you are committed to the f-35 program. the thing we will be able to get funding for it? in my back up question for peter mackay is if there aren't funding programs -- funding problems and the program

founders, what is the backup plan for canada? >> i feel very confident that we will get funding for the f-35 program. this is the fighter plane for the future. in some ways, we have no alternative. this is the plan that is going to be able to provide the technology, the capabilities for the future. we need to have this. it is true for us, not true for our partners -- and true for our partners and others who are going to work together in the development of the f-35 for it. as we go through the budget decisions we have to make, obviously, as i said, there are areas we will look for savings. procurement reform and other areas. we also have to look areas where we continue to invest in the future. and the f-35 is one of the areas where we will continue to invest

in the future. >> given those comments, and those are comments that are very much in line with the discussion defense secretary panetta and i had two months ago at the pentagon, the united states commitment to this program is firm, is fast. this is the very reason that canada has chosen this aircraft. it is because of the eye- watering technology aboard the ss 35. the ability to dominate and owned the airspace over continental north america. there is no fifth generation aircraft other than the f-35 available to canada and the united states. all of the hypothetical discussions, and quite- discussions, quite frankly, about this program, are really just clatter and noisy. this program is going ahead.

clearly, budgetary pressures are going to lead to speculation. we are dealing with our budgets, as all countries are dealing with their budget. we are not wavering on our commitment to this program. there are killers within every defense department. this is one of those pillars. having the ability to protect your sovereignty. there is a direct link between our national sovereignty and our ability to protect our air space. our commitments through norad, our nato commitments, and let me refresh everyone's memory about how canada plays a critical role in the success of the libyan mission because of fighter aircraft, interoperable of the of aircraft. these plans have increased capacity to communicate and talk to one another. the stock capability and many

other features of the aircraft are what make it such an important part of the north american protection, and our ability to reach out and contribute international, as we saw recently in libya and are continuing to see in missions like afghanistan. other nato countries, quite frankly, are looking at this aircraft as well. we have a group in this party committed, including the united kingdom, australia, and others. >> we only have time for two more questions. >> there have been some rumblings that you are not happy with the size of canada's purchase. you do not believe that 65 or 66 planes are enough to cover our airspace. >> that is just not true. canada has to make decisions about what they believe are

necessary and i trust the ability of canada and the minister to make the right decisions as to what they need. we will support that. >> a question for both of you on afghanistan. we know the nato meeting coming up in may and you're looking to lay out what the transition will look like. in general amis is quoted as saying that he is confident that we fall counterinsurgency their to a train and assist mission within 12 months. i wanted to ask whether that is a feasible time frame. are we going to be able to shift from a counterinsurgency to a train and assist? >> 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 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. >> 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 overthrow 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 stronger partnerships. as this alliance has expanded from a foundation of focus on collective territorial defense to include expeditionary operations, we have seen the pay , where 49istanf countries have come together largely under a nato umbrella

expanding both blood and pressure to prevent al qaeda from ever again being able to use afghanistan as a safe haven. to all of our isa partnerf is, we are profoundly grateful for your sacrifice and for your stead 5 partnership. and here in halifax, i want to pay particular tribute to the decade-long effort in afghanistan. for your distinguished military and has performed in one of the most dangerous parts of the country, both formed in an outstanding manner. the taliban heartland of can heart. -- kandahar. o a debt of gratitude from the canadian heroes of the afghanistan campaign, brave men

and women who paid the ultimate price and whose names are etched on black granite at kandahar airfield. alongside the united states, canada's contributions to libyan operations also prove critical to our success. during my visit to europe last month, i had the opportunity to visit allied joins forces command headquarters in naples, where i received a thorough briefing on the operation from canadian air force general charlie bouchard, who very able it orchestrated the daily effort. he was tough, he was able, he took no prisoners. it is not too strong to say that his leadership, steady and sure, proved vital to our eventual success in that mission. and i want to thank him personally and here publicly for

his courage and for his 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 research -- 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 the aerial refueling and lift capabilities. to fill these gaps, allied nations will need to pull their declining defense dollars to more efficiently and effectively, as general rasmussen has allied in his smart defense initiative. we're looking to make more progress on this front when our leaders gather next year in chicago. modernizing native also means --

nato also means focusing 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 aegis the mediterranean. we are also hoping that missile defense will provide nato and russia an avenue for its most meaningful cooperation yet, presenting an obscenity for former -- and opportunity for former adversaries to formally turned 8 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 all responsibilities under article 5. but we must also constantly assess the form of engagement most appropriate in light of the capabilities of our allies and the threats we face. these are the discussions we are having at the department. as part of our strategy in global posture review. discussions that are forcing us to be very disciplined in

setting priorities so that we maintain our global leadership role while meeting our fiscal responsibilities to the american taxpayers. let me be clear at the outset that the united states will always in short that we maintain the right mix of -- ensure that we maintain the right mix of security. asking in concert with our allies, including instability on its periphery and unforeseen developments. at the same time, we must build on our success. the transatlantic alliance and further enhancing our collective security by building and during incapable 21st century security architecture and other critical regions of the globe. beginning right here in this

part of the world. working with canada, we are encouraging new partnerships. 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 the 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. it has turned into a valuable forum for discussions and

collaboration's on key defense and security issues. and as we look across the globe, two regions it stand out as being home to particularly vexing challenges. it is apparent to all that the asia-pacific region is going to 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 and continuing extreme in some -- extremism and

instability. the threat from iran continues to pose challenges. so as the united states draws down its forces in iraq and begins to draw down in afghanistan, we also have to maintain a strong presence in the middle east and work closely with our allies and our partners to bolster multilateral cooperation in countering threats emanating from al qaeda, from iran, and elsewhere. given the global nature of security challenges and the global interests that are at stake. we need to build up 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 in the asia-

pacific or in the middle east. or throughout the western hemisphere. and enabling them to do so through native when appropriate. -- through nato were inappropriate. as we examine our geode -- our 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 zero some. even as we enhance our presence in the pacific, we will not surrender our status as a global power and a global leader. as a country with global interests and responsibilities, and with a military but 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 congress, the role of law, freedom of movement, across the global commons of air and sea 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 the system of global security alliances and partnerships that have safeguarded and advance 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 even greater security in this 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 and as friends, as neighbors, as partners, as allies -- that fund -- bond is the essential key to security in the 21st century. thank you. [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house rejected a proposed balanced budget amendment. a majority voted for it but it fell short of the two-thirds needed to amend the constitution. 261-165 was the final vote. it was the first both in the house on a balanced budget amendment since 1985. this portion of the debate is about one hour and 30 minutes. orgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i stand here in proud support of h.res. 2. you know, i was listening to all argue -- listening to arguments on both sides of the aisle but particularly from my colleagues, the democrats, in regard to the gentleman from north carolina talking about the ability for individuals to balance their own budget. he made a very convincing argument, a very convincing personal argument, but i would

like to remind him that in 1995, the last time we had an opportunity, i wasn't here then, maybe he was, but the last time we had an opportunity to vote on a balanced budget amendment, some 16 years ago, and it failed by one single vote, the debt that this country has accumulated since that time is $9 trillion. so, the rest of us obviously need some constraint. we have prove than we do not have the discipline to balance the budget -- proven that we do not have the discipline to balance the budget of this country. that's how we get to $15 trillion of debt. so i would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, please support this. this is an opportunity for us not only to show that fiscal responsibility, the 75% of the country want us to show, but also that they want us to show that spirit of bipartisanship. break the gridlock.

i want to take just a moment, mr. speaker, to commend the gentleman from virginia, representative goodlatte. i sometimes as a physician member think that there are too many attorneys in this body. but thank god for the gentleman from virginia and for his ability and understanding of the constitution. because he has gone to the democratic side and the republican side, not just this session but for years, promoting this balanced budget amendment. and bringing us all together in a bipartisan way. to do something for the american people. and as the gentleman before me from indiana said, for our children and our grandchildren. so, without question, the time has come. this is my opportunity to cast a vote, the most important vote that i will have cast in nine years. could i ask the gentleman for an additional 30 seconds? mr. goodlatte: i'm happy to yield 30 seconds to the

gentleman from virginia. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding. you know, an opportunity like this just seldom comes and as i say, it's been 16 years since we have had this opportunity. don't pass on this. let's make sure that we -- and we have to do it in a bipartisan way because it takes a 2/3 vote. and i disagree with the naysayers that say, well, this has no chance of passing. god help us if this has no chance of passing. this is a one thing that we can do for this country to get us back on the right track and finally prove to the american people that we do have the discipline to protect their money and protect our children and our grandchildren and with that, mr. speaker, i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york continues to reserve. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman

from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, who is the chairman of the conservation, energy and forestry subcommittee, my subcommittee, on the house agriculture committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognize for two minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman from virginia. it's no secret, mr. speaker, washington has a spending addiction. congress has demonstrated, regardless of which party is in charge, the out-of-control spending just does not stop. each congress spending and budget reforms are enacted only to be revised or ignored by the next. this body has reliably circumvented any real budget process, even its own rules, in order to fulfill its spending addiction. routine abuses and budget gimmicks such as emergency designations are designed to skirt budget enforcementment roles and disguise the real level of spending. similar to rampant drug abuse in the 1980's that led to addiction and violence, our spending habits have led to a debt crisis

that boards on an overs -- borders on an overdose. we're here today to consider h.j.res. 2, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. most importantly the balanced budget amendment will discourage congress from circumventing its fiscal responsibilities because a constitutional amendment cannot be revised or ignored. this measure is the only way to force the hand of congress to -- towards fiscal responsibility, by ensuring the policymakers just say no to reckless spending. many economists and experts agree, adoption of such an amendment will begin to address this nation's looming debt crisis and lay a stronger path to long-term economic growth. the american people overwhelmingly back the budget balanced -- back the balanced budget amendment. that's exactly why h.j.res. 2 already has the strong support of the majority of my fellow representatives, including 242 bipartisan co-sponsors. our constituents understand what it means to live within their means and they expect nothing less from the federal government. it's time for this body to come clean. it's time for each member to

decide whether or not this country will continue down a reckless path of debt and despair or quit living beyond our means cold turkey. it's time to rid this chamber of its reckless spending addiction and time for congress to just say no by voting yes on h.j.res. 2. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. california, i apologize. ms. sanchez: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to h.j.res. 2, the republican plan to amend the constitution, to reduce government investments and codify economic stagnation. we can all agree that it's important to get the federal deficit under control. however, the amendment republicans are proposing is absolutely the wrong way to do it. it should all be very familiar to anyone who has experienced california's budget problems or even observed them from afar. it should be familiar because just like in california this legislation would require that a

supermajority of both the house of representatives and the senate agree to any bill which raises federal revenue. this not only means potential tax increases but also any bill that allows tax cuts to expire. in effect, the republican majority is insisting that the only way the federal government can tackle its deficit is by reducing programs like pell grants, unemployment benefits and infrastructure projects like federal highways. these are the very programs that help people keep their head above water during tough economic times or help them achieve the american dream. and time and time again the american people have said that cutting these programs sun acceptable -- programs is unacceptable. we should look at ways to cut waste, however it's foolish to insist on severe cuts to vital programs which help people during an economic downturn. furthermore, the california experience has shown that it is practically impossible for 60% of a political body to agree on revenue increases, no matter how

limited they are or how much sense they might make. california has tried this flawed plan and guess what? it doesn't work. california's fiscal situation becomes increasingly difficult each year because of this supermajority requirement. do we really want the same at the federal government level? i cannot and will not support legislation which would impose california's flawed fiscal system on the federal government. i urge my colleagues to learn from history, from a real-life example, my home state of california, and reject this crushing and foolish amendment. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentlewoman to say that 49 out of 50 states have a balanced budget requirement and while she cites california as perhaps the worst example, and it may be the worst example, still the fiscal situation of california is much better than the fiscal situation here in washington.

the $25 billion deficit that they have to deal with this year, and they have to deal with it, for a state that has 1/8 the population of the country of america, which taken nationwide would mean a $200 billion deficit nationwide. we have a $1.3 trillion deficit, more than six times as much. and this is a good discipline, it's worked in the states, it will work here as well. it's now my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: mr. speaker, i doubt that i can match the volume that's been displayed today, usually partisan accusations as to who's responsible for budget mess that we're in. but i think that all of us, we republicans, for example, in our candid moments would admit that we were headed toward this fiscal crisis long before the current president took the wheel. but we're in this together. it's been decisions made by republicans and democrats, to expand entitlement programs and

to expand discretionary spending, that have put us in the situation we're in today. i think we would also concede that any bout of fiscal discipline we've had over the past couple of decades has been caused by or at least accompanied by statutory spending caps that have been put in place. the problem is, those only last for a few years and then this body waives them. so we need a backstop. we need a constitutional backstop that will force us to make decisions that we know have to be made. it is sad commentary on this body that we have to have a constitutional budget amendment to force us to do our jobs of prioritizing spending. but i think with a $15 trillion deficit we can concede that we need it. so this won't make the decisions for us, we'll still have to make the tough decisions going ahead. but we need it nonetheless and i urge adoption of this amendment and 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, how much toim-- time do we both have

now? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 29 minutes. the gentleman from texas has -- or virginia has 31 1/2 minutes. mr. nadler: we'll reserve once more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce, a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for two minutes. mr. pearce: thank you, mr. speaker, and thanks to the gentleman from virginia for bringing this forward to us. the american debt was downgraded about two months ago. we're approaching junk bond status in the minds of certain debt raters. it's not just that we have the $15 trillion debt, that's significant, but we have no apparent means or way of paying it off. our deficit, that is the short fall this year, is $1.5 trillion, which will be added to that $15 trillion during the

course of spending the money. so it's not just that we're in debt, it's that we're broke. and also the raters have seen that we have gone to social security, both parties, for the past 70 years have taken every cent out of the social security lock box and spent it. so it's not just that we're in debt $15 trillion, it's that we have taken everything out of the piggy bank and we have spent that. and to my friends who are saying, we can continue to borrow money, that's also very inaccurate. we could borrow money when we ran deficits of $300 billion, that was the amount that we ran during the last year of president bush. $300 billion we can borrow in the world. but when we went to the trillion-dollar deficits under president obama, there is no nation in the world capable of lending $1 trillion. china cannot lend $1 trillion, they're total economy is -- their total economy is $6 trillion so the raters looking

at our economy say, not only are they broke, but they have no apparent way to pay it back. it's time to say that to the american people. so this resolution is reasonable, it simply says that washington is going to do what you do as the american family in order to pay off your bills, you tighten your belt, you live within your means. that's what we're suggesting with this balanced budget amendment. that we live within our means. that we do not spend money that we don't have. h.j.res. 2 is a commonsense solution to a serious problem that america faces. i'll support it and urge support and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. markey: the republicans call this bill a balanced budget amendment, but it is not balanced because it will blow a

hole in the budget of vital programs that millions of americans depend on. it's unneeded, and will undermine our struggling economy. the republicans want us to makele the constitution because they cannot manage this institution. this amendment is a means to an end. it's a means for republicans to end medicare, to end social security and medicaid, to end every anti-poverty program. and why? because they harbor an ancient animosity towards all of those programs and their plan is to leave them as debt-soaked relics of an era where they actually cared about poor people, the elderly in our end because the republican plan

will cut critical health care and anti-poverty programs, put them on a starvation diet and leave vulnerable americans with the crumbs. our economy now has a 9% unemployment rate. you know what that means? 46 million americans today live in poverty. do you want to know what poverty is in america in 2011? that's a family of four living on $22,000 a year. there are nine million families living in that poverty. 15.9 million children live in poverty today. that's one in five children in our country living in poverty. those are the programs that they want to cut here today. for the poorest children in america in 2011, there are almost 50 million americans at risk of not having enough food, 16 million children in danger of not going to bed tonight

with a meal, one in six seniors now live in poverty, dependent upon medicare, dependent upon medicaid. each of them now at grave risk because of their plan here today. their plan is really a robin hood in reverse. take from the neediest and give to the greediest. that is the plan. now, let's go back into the way back machine, all the way back to the year 2000, the last time we voted on a balanced budget here in congress, 2000. bill clinton was president. it passed. the budget balanced. and the country was feeling good. the economy was booming. and then george bush takes over january of 2001. the republicans controlled the house. the republicans controlled the senate. what do they do? huge tax breaks for billionaires and millionaires, two wars which were not paid

for, iraq and afghanistan, all on the republicans' shoulders and they then turned a blind eye as wall street turned the entire economy into a casino which then cascaded into the biggest long-standing recession that we've seen since the great depression, upon the shoulders of the poor, the sick, the elderly, the ordinary families killing themselves to pay for their mortgages each day. you don't need a constitutional amendment, ladies and gentlemen. republicans, my good friends. you are the supercommittee meeting right now down the corridor. you know what you should do? take away those $40 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies. they don't need them. take away the $700 billion in new nuclear weapons programs. we don't have any need for those nuclear programs. kill those programs. look at the tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires. they don't need them. cut them right now. all of you have taken a pledge,

no reduction in the tax breaks for billionaires, no reduction in defense spending. you have tied your own hands even as you with crocodile tears come out here and say how much you care about balancing the budget, how much you care about the american economy. the proof will come next week when you do not stand up in order to take the tough actions right now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair would remind members of the body to address their comments to the chair and not to other members of the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to address the chair but in response to the comments of the gentleman from massachusetts. we do need to look at that way back machine. i hear the gentleman's complaints about decisions made by republicans. in the last 50 years, the gentleman has been here for many of those years, in the last 50 years the congress has balanced its budget a mere six

times. 13 of those years republicans were in control of the house and four of those years we had balanced budgets, including the year the gentleman mentioned. and in that year the gentleman voted no on the balanced budget that was passed by this congress that year. and the year before that we had a balanced budget. the gentleman voted no. in the year before that, had a balanced budget. then in 1998 we had a balanced budget. the gentleman voted no every single time that a balanced budget was offered in this congress. in fact for the 37 years that democrats controlled the congress in the last 50 years, only twice did they do it. now, i have to agree with the gentleman about something and that is that social security -- i yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say that social security and medicare are endangered. do you know why they are endangered? because we have a $15 trillion debt. in all the years we didn't have a balanced budget, what did the democrats do?

they went into the social security trust fund and took every penny of it and spent it on something else. how ironic it will be that debt that we are transferring to the next generation, all of that debt will be on our children and grandchildren, and when they need social security and medicare, it won't be there for them. not because of anything in a balanced budget amendment but because of the debt that we have accumulated. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, social security and medicare will be there unless we pass this balanced budget amendment because this balanced budget amendment will cause the inability to pay for them. the trust fund is amply funded right now for social security. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i am prepared to yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner, a member of the energy and commerce committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: my constituents

have a simple question for people participating in this debate today, what part of broke don't you understand? what part of the fact that we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar don't you get? you know what happens to the everyday american if they borrow 42 cents out of every dollar? time after time after time it's bankruptcy. they lose their homes. they lose their ability to provide food for their families. they go broke just like this country is going broke today. only congress doesn't have to pay an overdraft fee. when we write more money -- checks for more money than we have, we are not getting an overdraft fee, we are passing the buck. we are putting our future into great debt that they can't sustain for current day spending. we shouldn't be passing the buck. we should pass the b.b.a., the balanced budget amendment. i come from the state of colorado. served in the colorado state legislature where we have a strong balanced budget amendment, and you know what that forces us to do?

it forces us to make tough choices, to make the right decisions for the people of colorado, to make sure we are indeed balancing our budget. sure, it means that there are some very difficult decisions that have to be made, but that's exactly what we were sent here to do. we weren't sent here -- we weren't sit here to fiddle while the treasury burns. we were sent here to solve the greatest -- one of the greatest challenges that this country faces, and that is growing an insurmountable debt and deficit. i would urge my colleagues to pass this resolution. this congress cannot make choices on its own. we need the guidance of a balanced budget amendment to restrain the unrestrained fiscal mess we are in right now. in 1995 when we passed the balanced budget amendment, the debt's grown $9 trillion since then. our experience in colorado and the 49 states that has a

balanced budget amendment show when we have a requirement forcing us to balance the budgets, we will do just that. don't pass the buck. pass the b.b.a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield the gentleman from pennsylvania two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. fattah: since it's the season of thanksgiving, a child born in our country, we could celebrate it. the truth is not as a young american you are born with all this debt. what you're born is as a citizen of the greatest country anywhere in the world, the most -- the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world made off of decisions that are being decried here. we could not balance our budget and win world war i or ii or

build 40,000 miles of highway, or build the land grant college system. and my church we borrowed a mortgage to build a church, and you pay for it over time. these 49 states that we hear, these imaginary balanced budget amendments, all of those statesboro money. they have a capital budget. they borrow money to build bridges and highways and roads. this nonsense that families don't borrow money to buy homes or cars. republicans in the majority can do better than this. this is not a debate between democrats and republicans. we don't need a balanced budget. we need a budget as a country that retains our leadership position in the world. we don't want to have a balanced budget and a weak military. we don't want to have a balanced budget but not be able to take care of the needs that have propeled our country

forward. we just honored john glenn and neal armstrong, astronauts who went into space. we didn't cothat on a balanced budget. we said we were going to lead in terms of the race to the moon and we led. this country deserves better, and the republicans who are here, let us address the real issue. the real issue is that we have a 70-year low in the amount of resources coming into the government because we've cut taxes. the gentleman says, well, where did we borrow $1 trillion? well, we can borrow it from tax expenditures we are going to provide this tax year, many to the wealthiest people in our country. we have the ability to pay our bills. we need to make the decision to do it and leave the constitution alone. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the

gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, who is the chairman of the agricultural appropriations subcommittee of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. kingston: thank you, mr. speaker and mr. goodlatte. an amendment to the united states constitution should never be taken lightly. it's a sacred and profound document. but 15 years ago when mr. goodlatte and i and a number of others first came to town, we voted to amend that constitution. we were joined not only by all the republicans but by 72 democrats. now some of those very 72 who voted yes have changed their mind. we're hearing the same old argument. social security and medicare. when all else goes wrong in democrat liberal land, you start scarring seniors, children, teachers, first responders, critical programs and saying whatever the bill is this bill threatens them. one of the worst things you can do to social security and

medicare is to go broke, and since that vote 15 years ago when it failed in the senate by one single member, we have accumulated $9.2 trillion in debt. balancing the budget is what 49 states do, what every city does, what businesses and families do. it's a matter of survival. it's not a radical concept. oh, don't people in greece wish that they had a balanced budget all those many years? and what of their social security and medicare programs right now? what will happen to the seniors in greece without those critical programs? if their government had done the prudent thing, the right thing just as we tried to do 15 years ago, what a different picture it would be in fwreast. but you know, greece is -- would be in greece. but you know, greece is not trying to defy the laws of financial gravity. america seems to be doing it.

for every dollar we spend, 40 cents is borrowed, and yet we are choosing to ignore all the many red flags that are around us. but when the whole thing goes broke and melts down, won't our children say, what were you thinking? you know, mr. speaker, this vote today is not about the next election. it is truly about the next generation. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. ms. moore: and thank you for recognizing me, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to h.j.res. 2, the so-called -- so-called balanced budget amendment. and i also rise, mr. speaker, to point out the nefarious, cynical intergenerational warfare that has been raised as an argument for passing this misguided

so-called balanced budget amendment. to say that, you know, we want to extract $2 trillion over the next decade from programs that benefit seniors like social security and medicare and say we're doing it, to -- doing it to keep from imposing a burden on our children and grandchildren, as if this balanced budget amendment benefited those children, mr. speaker this program will devastate public education, it will devastate the federal government's current mandatory spending and pell grants, a program that's designed to help us meet the global challenges of the future by educating our assets, our children. it's a program that in the next decade will take a half trillion dollars out of the children's health insurance program. it's a program that will exacerbate the hunger that children face right now.

our w.i.c. and food stamp program, the earned tax income credits, we have now one in five children today that are going to bed hungry. so when we say we want to balance the budget, we are balancing them on the backs of our children. and those children that we are trying to prevent or we say that we are trying to save must be the children of those heirs, those 1% that we are now enriching. and with that, mr. speaker, i would reluctantly yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling, a member of the agriculture committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. schilling: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd also like to thank mr. goodlatte for giving me the time today. you know, we continue to hear a

common thread, let's raise taxes on our job creators with no solution to our spending problem . i rise today as the people's house prepares to vote for an amendment to our constitution that would require congress and the president to balance the budget. i look forward to voting in favor of this amendment today. 15 years ago an amendment nearly identical to this one passed the house with strong bipartisan support. but failed by one single vote in the senate. since that time our debt has tripled. did you know that on wednesday our national debt surpassed $15 trillion? and it has been nearly 950 days since the senate has passed a budget. not to mention the 20 jobs that are sitting over there that they've decided not to act upon. the american people deserve better. you deserve a credible plan to help get our fiscal house in order. grow our economy and get folks

back to work. it's clear, though, we cannot borrow or spend our way out of this mess, we also cannot afford to put off badly needed but difficult decisions. we need to tackle this unsustainable spending addiction head-on. since coming to washington, my fellow freshman colleagues and i have helped change the way the conversation has been held here for years from how much can we spend to how much can we save? this is a good start but we can do much more to get our country on a better fiscal path and save the american dream for our kids and our grandkids. we have the duty to leave our kids and our grandkids with a country better off than it is now. we have the opportunity here to fundamentally change the way washington does business, by supporting a balanced budget amendment. it's time for washington to balance the budget, i'm pleased to vote in strong support of balanced budget amendment and will continue working on ways to get our fiscal house in order.

grow -- order, grow america's economy and create jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i -- mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong opposition to h.j.res. 2. it represents an attack on the middle class and the most vulnerable in our society. by the grover norquist tea party republicans. you see, there is no fiscal emergency but the fiscal crisis has been manufactured by the tea partyiers along with grover norquist and the republicans that represent them for the purposes of tricking the american people into thinking that america can't pay its bills . we paid our debts, we can pay our debts and we'll continue to pay our debts. just like families of america who incur debt as a normal course of taking care of their

families, we've heard a lot of analogies to the federal government should balance its budget like a family, but how many 99ers, how many families do you know that can go out and purchase a car for cash? how many of those 99ers, how many of those families out there working can afford to pay for a house cash? everybody out there incurs debt for legitimate expenses and this nation has legitimate expenses that it has to pay debts for. like two wars, like a medicare part d supplement, like the bush tax cuts that they don't want to expire. so what they're doing, ladies and gentlemen, is they are trying to enshrine in the constitution what is already an

unfair tax system. a system that favors the rich and balances the budget on the backs of the middle class. those are the people that pay for america's expenses, not the corporations and wealthy individuals. many of whom do not pay one red cent in taxes and you know it's true. and they know it's true. so, ladies and gentlemen, i rise in strong opposition. this is shortsighted, mean-spirited, unfair, wrongful and i urge my colleagues to vote against it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. wasm, chairman of the -- walsh, chairman of the small business growth committee. mr. walsh: thank you, mr. speaker, and a big thank you to the gentleman from virginia for taking a lead, a very strong lead, on this issue. mr. speaker, like many of my

fellow freshman, i was sent here to washington because we're broke. we have a government we can't afford, like all of us we were sent here, though, not just to cut spending. we were sent here hopefully to try to change the way this town does business so that we never get to this point again. so that our kids and our grandkids aren't stuck with a bill they'll never be able to pay off. as a freshman in congress, the very first bill i introduced back in march was a balanced budget amendment. and it was a stronger balanced budget amendment than this. it included a spending limitation, it made it more difficult for myself and my colleagues to raise taxes. i support this balanced budget amendment with everything i've got because, again, we have an opportunity to do something

fairly historic. and this amendment will enable us to do that. you know, i've learned in my year, almost a year as a congressman, that there's plenty hypocrisy in this chamber, on both sides of the aisle. the hypocrisy today is regrettably, mr. speaker, with too many of our democratic colleagues who really would like to vote for this but they simply can't because of political reasons. and i would ask them, i would implore my democratic colleagues to just think about, again, what our kids and our grandkids will say and we throw their names around here often, what they will say to us 20, 30, 40 years down the road when they know we didn't exhibit the courage we need to exhibit right here and now. so i stand with my colleague from virginia in full support of this balanced budget amendment and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. engel: i thank my friend from new york and i rise in strong opposition to this piece of legislation. you know, with all due respect, i always enjoy listening to my republican friends lecture us about fiscal responsibility. may i remind them that when bill clinton left office we had record surpluses and in eight years of george bush record deficits and may i remind my republican friends that for six of those eight years during the bush years republicans controlled both houses of the congress. so if we were going to do the right thing and attempt to balance our budget, we could have done so then. but what did we do then? we fought two wars on the credit card, we had tax cuts for the pealty, which we're now paying for -- for the wealthy, which we're now paying for in terms of our desits now, prescription drug program unpaid for, and so

it seems to me that if we have the resolve to do it, you know, i love people who have newfound religion, but when they control the place -- controlled the place we went from a massive surpluses to massive deficits. now, this congress needs to work with the president in passing a jobs bill. this congress should be passing a robust transportation bill. this congress should get out of the business of attacking our labor, attacking seniors, attacking women and do what the american people want us to do, put people back to work. a balanced budget amendment will ultimately lead to either draconian cuts in the social safety net for some of our nation's most cherished programs, like social security, medicare and medicaid, or significant tax hikes on the nation's middle class. this is nothing more than a gimmick to garner headlines while avoiding the tough decisions that the people have asked us to make. there may be times in the future when we need to run a surplus, there may be times when we need to run a deficit to stimulate the economy. this amendment handcuffs us and

puts us in a straight january jacket where we have nowhere to move. i care and my constituents care very much about preserving medicare, medicaid and social security. i think that if we're going to get our budget to balance, it's not only cuts in programs that we need, although my friends on the other side of the aisle fret about defense cuts. we need to cut spending, yes, we also need to raise taxes on those who can most afford to do it. the 1%. i think that's something we should consider. so while we think this is one-size-fits-all and we can all go home and say, well, we tried to save the republic, what i think this does is handcuff us for generations to come, makes it impossible for us to stimulate the economy and makes it impossible for us to continue those social service programs that the american people have come to rely on, medicare, medicaid and social security. i think we need to meet in a

sensible center, not have something like this. let me finally say that what is truly absurd is we require only a simple majority to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way but the republican majority would require a supermajority to raise the nation's debt ceiling. we all saw how close our economy came to disaster with only a simple majority vote to raise the debt ceiling the last time. so i would say to my colleagues, vote no, let's do a job that we were elected to do, let's make the tough choices, we don't need a balanced budget amendment. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to respond to my good friend from new york. i would just say to the gentleman that we do need to do the job but you don't have to look ahead to wonder what's going to happen. all you have to do is look back. over the last 50 years we've balanced the budget just six times. and we've run up a $15 trillion national debt. the gentleman has cited some criticism of republican votes but there are plenty of

democratic votes, in the four years that the democrats were in control of this congress, just recently, we added $4 trillion to the national debt. now, the fact of the matter is, over the 50 years, 37 of those years democrats have controlled the house of representatives and only two of those 37 years was it balanced. so when the gentleman says that some years we'll run surpluses and some years we'll run deficits, that's very true, but the history has been, almost all those years will run deficits unless we have a discipline in our constitution to require that we do otherwise. and i would also point out that in the four years since the gentleman has been here, and i've been here, that we've had balanced budgets, the gentleman, for i'm sure reasons that he felt were very justified, voted against all four of the budgets that balanced in this congress. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is prized -- is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: the fact is the reason this country is in such deficit is because of a deliberate republican crusade over the last 30 years to reduce taxes on the rich in order to deliberately to create huge deficits and then to use those deficits as the excuse to justify large cuts to gut social security and medicare and medicaid and education programs that they have never liked in the first place but could not justify cutting without it. we used to tax -- taxes used to be 18% to 19% of the economy or g.d.p. now, they are about 14% of g.d.p. and yet the republicans won't increase it because we decrease the taxes on the rich and the corporation top corporations. we are not taxing the millionaires and billionaires the which we used to. the fact is you look at the history here, when ronald reagan took over as president of the united states, the entire national debt of the united states accumulated from george washington through jimmy carter was less than $800

billion. then you had 12 years of reagan and the first bush cutting taxes on the rich and when clinton took over you had a $4.3 trillion deficit. and it was expected to go much higher. we made the tough decisions, we voted for increased taxes in 1993 and for cutting the budget -- for cutting the budget. and when clinton left office eight years later the budge hab balanced. from the time we made that vote in 1993, the deficit decreased every year until it became a surplus. then it increased every year. when bush ii took over we were looking at a $5.7 trillion surplus over the next 10 years and pay off the entire national debt. then we had those huge bush tax cuts and the unresponsible two wars. and when he left office we had a turn-around of $13 trillion and a recession which cause us the bigger deficits now.

when the c.b.o. gave -- i'll give myself an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: when the c.b.o. estimated before president obama took office it said that the next year's deficit would be $1.2 trillion before he did anything. and i would remind us that the nondefense discretionary spending in this country has not gone up by a nickel. it adjusted for inflation and population growth since 2001 when we had a huge surplus. the problem is that our taxes on the rich are too low. we cannot reach an agreement in the supercommittee because the republicans will not tax the rich. and that's the basic problem. and a balanced budget amendment will not solve that problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back and reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll yield myself a minute to respond to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: first off, let me be very clear, when the gentleman talks about the since he wants to impose upon

republicans for not balancing the budget, i think that's a very good argument. but since this is a bipartisan bill and dozens of his colleagues will be voting for this, i think it's because those who vote for it recognize that this is true on both sides of the aisle, that there has been a lack of tough decisions that have led to balanced budgets. every single year i vote for the toughest budget offered in this congress. those budgets never pass. why? because there's no requirement that they do so. so what do we have? we have complaints on the other side of the aisle that there is a terrible plot on our part to bring about all kinds of harsh cuts. this balanced budget amendment doesn't make any distinction between whether you balance a budget by raising taxes or cutting spending. i'm going to do it to cut spending because i see lots of waste in our government and i voted for budgets that bring about a balance without raising taxes. but that is not the point here. the point is that it doesn't get done either way. i yield myself an additional 30

seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: as to the gentleman's complaints is that we haven't taxed the rich, my goodness. in the last congress under the control of your party you extended all of those tax cuts for everyone. everyone. and the fact of the matter is that the top 1% of american families pay 38%. 38% of the personal income taxes in this country today. so -- and that, by the way, is up from 34% in 2001. so all of this can be on the table when we have a discussion about how to balance the budget. all we're debating here today is the principle of whether or not we should balance a budget and looking at the past history where we have not indeed balanced it but six times in 50 years. mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. west, who is not only a member of the house armed services committee but a great advocate for fiscal responsibility and the balanced budget amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. 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 new debt 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 here to 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 do 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. yet, 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 trillion in debt? mr. speaker, i think that each and every one of us here today when we cast our vote there needs to 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 are not 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' affairs committee and a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: it's amazing we still keep talking about the bush-era tax cuts. those same 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 families 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 gentleman from illinois for 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 organizations 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 psychologists, the national association of secondary school principals, the national black child development institute, the national partnership for women and families, 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 budget 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 fair 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, children, 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 society. 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 from 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 the gaps will not close. goode -- >> will the gentleman 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: if you 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 gentleman 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 about how they will do in the future, cnn 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 states 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 ways 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 here we are and we have that opportunity to do the same thing, although to do it successfully. this is not about donkeys and elephants. this is ultimately about us coming together as a congress in a thoughtful way that says one thing to the united states and that is, we can govern wisely, we can govern forthrightly, 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 back home 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 pro tempore: 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 result i 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, 2001. 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 said yesterday that what we need is not a balanced budget amendment, 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. not cut spending. it takes no courage, i suggest to my friends, to cut taxes. none whatsoever. everybody'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 others 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 deficit. 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 different 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.

months 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 the best 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 congressional 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 trillion. 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 leadership 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 this 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 other 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 not need 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 constitutional 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 supercommittee have 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 of 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 find 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's time 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 have 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 their employer if they 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 the aisle believe this federal 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 passed 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 to spend money we don't have is somehow back in their district it 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 back 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 the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: madam speaker, since 1995 when the amendment was last on the floor, 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 spending during a recession is to increase unemployment, it's to guarantee that every recession becomes a depression. 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 britain. 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 for 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 unwilling, as our colleagues on the other side are, to raise taxes on the rich. and the fact taxes on the rich are much less than they've 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 balance the budget we have to undo most of the tax cuts. we should pal the bument, not 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. that is why dozens of democrats will join us today in enshrining in our constitution something that will require that future congresses balance a budget. . customary 30

minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in opposition to the rule on the underlying bill. mrspeaker, with this rule and underlying bill, congress coinues months of inaction on job growth, months of ignoring

real solutions, choosing instead to use our economic struggles as an excuse to push partisan and ideological legislation. the american people deserve jobs now. rather than bills aimed only at stoking the fires and antagonizing political opponents. it's time to stop the games and seek compromise for t betterment of our nation. a middle class tax increase is looming. woo the extension of the payroll tax, many middle class families earning $70,000, $80,000 a year will be forced to pay over $1,000 a year more in taxes. apparently the republicans believe that the government knows how to spend their money better than american families. as a businessman and entrepreneur i'm proud to have created many jobs and many businesses. i meet with the businesses in my district on a regular basis. not a single business has raised this issue as any kind of impediment to job growth, any kind of impediment to getting the economy going again. this is mply a nonrelated

subject that pursues a long-time agenda to destroy the ability of workers to organize. this bill represents the ohioization of america. just as republicans attempted in the state of ohio, house republicans are simply union busting. but what we saw happen in ohio where ohioans across e ideological spectrum overwhelmingly said no to this kind of anti-worker agenda. and the american people reject it as well. this bill's singular goal is to shut down workplace elections t. would overturn the proposed national labor relations board rule. it would modernize the union election process and avoid delays. but instead of creating efficiency in government, the workplace election prevention actually mandates inefficiency and makes inefficiency the norm rather than the exception. the bill puts in place 35-day delays in holding elections after filing pe significances. the bill includes no limit on how long the elections can be delayed. in the case of workplace

election day delay is a critical issue. the intent to delay an election is to get anti-union employers a chance to prevent workers from organizing. despite republicans' professed outrage over frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and many other areas, h.r. 3094 incentivizes a mountain of litigation for the sole purpose of stalling workplace elections. this creates a massive backlog of cases, including frivolous ones, all on the taxpayers' dime. republicans don't seem to have a problem with trial lawyers as long as they are suingnions. this bill even allows managers to stuff the ballot boxes of employ elections. mr. eaker, i'm sure many of us in this body here are following -- our state redistricting processes to see how various districts across the country are gerrymandered. what this bill would allow employers to do would effectively gerrymander what the negotiating unit is across the

company. if there is a group of employees interested in forming a union, it would give the employer the ability to say no. and decide on what the electoral body s what is the electorate. choosing their own electorate. as too many members of congress attempt to do through the redistricting process, choosing their electorate to try to rig the election against the workers. this bill is the latest assault on workers' rights and is again typical of this do-nothing congress. the republicans have been fixated on attacking the national labor relations board, the board that is in pce to strike a balance between labor and employers by cutting the agency's funding, by holding up new appointments, and now by reversing a rule on notice posting to inform employees of their rights. mr. speaker, the people are wise to see what's going on here in congress. every week ware in session we see a parade of special interest bills paraded on the house floor while taxes foriddle class

families, risk going up because republicans believe the government knows how to spend their money better than the american people. the big energy companies have got numerous exemptions from the clean air and clean water act. the rest of us got pollution asthma and other illness. look, is it possible to create jobs by lowering standards? it is. if you want to remove workplace safety standards, you can create jobs. unsafe jobs. you want to reducthe minimum wage to $2 an ur, you can create jobs, $2 an hour jobs, is that the america we want? is that the america we want for our children and grandchildren? we can do better and we must do better. why are weere? when will americans get the job bill that we desperately need to the floor of the house of representatives? you got some ideas to create jobs, let's get them out, put them in front of us, discuss them, let's start fro preventing the payroll taxes from going up for middle class americans. it's obvious why this body is at the approval rating that's actually lower than communism now and lower than president nixon when he resigned.

it's time for this congress to get to work to provide solutions, to help get this economy going. or it's going to be time to get a new congress. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time is reserved. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. our colleagues across the aisle are constantly reminding the american people of what a great economy wead when president clinton was president. why d we have such a great economy? because six of the eight years that he was president we haa republican-controlled congress. the first two years of his administration was a disaster in this country. then we had six years of the republicans in control. they balanced the budget. they reduced spending, and did we have a horrible economy? did we have horrible workplace situations? no. they want to lead you to believe that with republicans in control and passing republican bills that we'll somehow or other destroy this country.

that is not going to happen. unr republican control we have generally a booming economy. but not under democrats. i now would like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from south carolina, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, dr. foxx. i'd like to submit to the record the following email from mr. solomon acting chief council -- counsel of the nlrb. mr. speaker, there is no question that the nlrb is not under attack. employees' freedom is under attack. the workplace fairness concept is under attack, but certainly not the nlrb. there is no question that the nlrb was thought to be an impartial referee for employers and employees. but that has not been the case. they have been anything other than impartial. and their email trail will show that in just a few seconds. but despite the fact that today

we have two million more unemployed americans, the nlrb continues to choose sides in the disputes as opposed to being a referee. their lack of judgment and common sense has been magnified and it can be seen clearly in the email conversations within the department of the nlrb. mr. solomon apparently thought the following was funny despite his current efforts which threatens more than 1,000 jobs in the great state of south carolina and in my district in north charleston. emailing a colleague regarding criticism from a mag article, this is what -- magazine article, this is what he said. i want you to hear this clrly. i'm going to say it slowly because we need to understand and appreciate the nlrb has lost their marbles without any question. his quote, the article gave me a new idea. you go to geneva and i get a job

with airbus, mr. solomon said. we screwed up the u.s. economy and now we can tackle europe. let me repeat that. because this is the chief counsel. at the nlrb. stating very clearly, his intentions and his lack of humor. the article gave me a new idea. saying to one of his colleagues, you go to geneva, i'll get a job with airbus. we have screwed up the u.s. economy and now we can tackle europe. only in an alternate universe is this funny or make any sense whatsoever. it is no secret that the nlrb's reckless actions have a direct impactn my district. without any question. but it is also no secret many on both sides of the aisle have recognized the danger of those

actions. earlier this year the house passed my bill, h.r. 2587, which removes the ability from the nlrb to destroy jobs because simply put they cannot be trusted to do anything other than undermine the fragile recovery here in america. unfortunately, senator reid has done with my bill with what he has done with the other 22 job creating measures. nothing. miss forks: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, dr. foxx. in an effort to appease the president and his union supporters, the nlrb has gone off the tracks and begun proposing harmful rules, left, right, up, down. it is ridiculous. one of these rules is why we are here today, an effort to allow for quicky union elections. this rule quite simply puts the

rights of all employees at risk. by allowing as little as seven to 10 ds for employees to decide whetherhey want to join a union or not, the nlrb is preventing many from having the time to do the necessary research and make a good decision on whether or not they join a union. currently the average time is 35 to 40 days, a reasonable amount of time. i will not yield. no, sir. this is a significant difference. going from 35 to 40 days down to seven to 10 days is ridiculous. 30 seconds. ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. scott: thank you, sir. thank you, dr. foxx. the new rule also makes it impossible for anyone to

challenge the bargaining unit chosen by the union. dividing employees and raising employers' labor costs. we stand here today with an opportunity. we can either allow the nlrb to continue to create bad policy and bad rules, or we can put america and the job creators back on the rig track. the question cannot be simpler and the choice has been made easy because of the inability of the nlrb to do what they were chosen to do, whi was to be the impartial referee on issues between employers and employees, and i find that challenging. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. million polis: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my honor to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, the ranking member of the education and work force committee, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

75 years ago this nation decided it is a matter of right and matter of law that the decision of whether or not workers wanted to union belong to those workers. and this congress passed the national labor relations act. to give workers this right and an election to decide. . ever since that time they believe the companies control all of the rights in the workplace. they believe that the workers should take and do what they say and that's the end of the discussion. and this has been a battle throughout the economic history of this cotry since the passage of the national labor relations act. but the fact of the matter is that when unions decide -- when workers decide they want an organization, they go out and talk to their fellow workers, they form a union and they have an election. but what we now see is the companies constantly trying to

insert themselves into that worker controlled process by trying to disrupt the elections of those workers and trying to keep them from exercising their rights under the law. and this is the goal of this very anti-worker, anti-family legislation. it would end the collective bargaining rights for working people in this country. because it would so obscure the process that you can't get to the election that the workers are guaranteed under this law. this is wisconsin and ohio all wrapped up into one. this is where they can't control the governorship or legislature, where they made the attempt after the election to take away workers' rights at work. where they can't do that they now seek to do in the halls of congress. to so change the process and to discriminate the rights of workers so that in fact the process ceases to exist. how do they do that?

they do that by having endless delays. why are endless delays important to employers? so that they can hire union busting law firms to come in and intim indicate and teach employers how to intimidate workers. because don't forget that the employer has theight from the moment they're served notice to have meetings in the workplace where they threaten the workers with the loss of jobs, where they threaten the workers with being fired, or they threaten the workers for sending work to china or elsewhere, or they threaten the workers that they won't get the promotion, where they change the workers shift time from maybe day shift to graveyard shift and keep rotating them around tohow them that they're in control and the workers have no rights. and if they can do it for seven days, you have a chance. if you can do it for 10 days you may have a better chance. if you do it for 2,000 days, you can kill the drive for union. you can intimidate the workers. how else do they do it?

when workers decide among themselves that we want a unit within this company, within this factory to represent us. this law now says, this bill now says that the employer can come in and rearrange the members of the unit that would have that election. th can stuff the ballot box. they can pick your candidate to stand for election. it doesn't sound very democratic to me, but that's what they get to do under this bill that's proposed. the workers no longer get to decide as the law says they get to decide. the workers no longer get to decide as the supreme court says they get to decide. the employer gets to decide. the arrogance of the people to suggest that they should pick, they should pick the leaders of the workers, that they should pick the organization of the workers who have a right to organize. so they get toelay the election. they get to -- they encourage and provide for and define the right to continue to file

frivolous lawsuits so that this process never ends. you can bankrupt these workers if they try to run head on head with big law firms that specialize in this, that travel around the country to take away the rights at work. what does this mean? this means underpinning the basic organization in the american workplace today that speaks on behalf of e middle class. this is from the organizations that brought you the great american weekend. this is the organizations that brought you the eight-hour day. this is the organization that brought you overtime pay if you work longer than eight hours. this is the organization that brought you sick leave. this is the organization that brought women their rights at work. this is the organization that makes safe workplaces. this is the organization that provid for the first time pensions and retirement benefits for workers. any wonder why these corporations, why the chamber of commerce is so set against

this? because they don't want to do this any more. they want to ship the jobs to china. they want no minimum wage. they want a subminimum wage. they want no rights for workers. how do the american families survive that? they've already offloaded all of the health care costs they possibly could. they offloaded all of the pecks costs th possibly could on the backs of these workers. now they want to take away the rights to organization. should not allowhat to happen, not in this -- rights to organize. we should not allow that happen, not in this country. we should defeat this very anti-family piece of legislation. ms. foxx: . speaker, regular order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: i did yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. lewis: i'd like to say -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. polis: i yield an additional 30 seconds. mr. miller: there was not a single republican vote in the clinton era. once again --

ms. foxx: mr. speaker, the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now would like to yield a southern gentleman who understands the rules from tennessee, dr. roe, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for four minutes. mr. roe: dr. foxx, i thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i urge my lleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill. our country is in the middle of a jobs crisis, no question. both sides understand that. the national unemployment rate has hovered around 9% for the longest time in my lifetime and in tennessee it's even higher, 9.8%. millions of american milies are struggling as we speak. amidst of all this uncertainty, the house, with bipartisan support, has passed 22 jobs bills. right down this hallway here, this week the u.s. senate worked so hard they voted two times on two federal judges.

that's all the work that took place with 22 -- many of them bipartisanills passed, mr. speaker. i think root now we've seen in this country the -- i think right now we've seen in this country the holdup of the keystone pipeline which would provide us as much oil from canada as we're getting from opec right now. 1.3 million barrels a day would essentially relieve us and help our national security and create thousands, thousands of jobs. so why are we here today? what happens currently? mr. speaker, i grew up in union household. my father was a union worker at that time, united rubble worker union. he worked in a factory and made shoe heels. we have a right in this country, employees have right to organize and to vote any way or not. what's happening right now? well, currently in 2010, 92% of

the national union elections were held under a voluntary election agreement. when they had an election, 92%, 8% went to the nlrb election official. at which time they had to sit down together. that's what happens to agree on the rules of the election. and as mr. scott pointed out, the nlrb is supposed to be a fair ash tore. like you play in a basketball game and you go to one's home gym you expect the referees to carry out a fair game for both sides so both sides could have a chance to give their side of the story. so in june of this year what happened? the nlrb issued a rule that would say that an employer has seven days to find an attorney to present their side of the case. and remember in this just the description of this, there are over 400 pages of rules that you have to go to or information that the lawyer has to go through and have seven days to get that done and an

employee would hav10 days whether they want a union or not. and ey have that right. today 70 -- almost 70% of the elections held, the union wins. and what's the average time of an election? 31 days. so that means if you wanted to vote on the first of october of 2011, the average time by the end of that month, 70%, almost three out of four would be picked, yes, we want a union. so what happens after this? after this 10 days? the seco thing the union wants is the amount of information that's required that an employee give up. and what would that be? well, that would be personal information including your work schedule, your home address, phone numbers, etc. right now what we want, what this bill says is that the employee gets to decide, just their name and what other way they wantcontact. i think that's fair. i think that's right. let themployee decide. mr. speaker, also, what my colleague from california spoke

of is a bargaining unit. for over two decades the nlrb has used the standard to decide, to define what a bargaining unit is. this is a new definition. we have done this for almost 30 years in this country, and we want this to change. i think right now, i believe, as i understand the law it's against the law right now, as an employer for over three decades, to threaten a worker. you can do that now. it's against the law. so this bill that we are defining allows 14 days -- has my time -- ms. foxx: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. roe: i thank the gentlelady. this bill would give the employer 14 days on a pre-election hearing to find representation. it would allow the workers 35 days to get the information that they need to make an informed decision to vote in a secret ballot so that they can decide in an unintimidated so the employer or the union can't

intimidate this worker. it would allow the employee, the worker, to decide what information -- not the union -- but you a alw the employee what -- but allow the employee what information they want to give up. this is a commonsense bill. this basically redefines what's been going on for three decades. i respect the right of anyone to belong to a union if they want to. as i said, i lived in a union household. but i believe this will allow both sides a free and fairway to decide whether they want to -- free and fair way to decide whether they want to. i yield back the balance of my time. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank youmr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding me time, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i played a little basketball in my day. you know, i grew up on a schoolyard and we choose -- we chose teams. we didn't need referees quite frankly because we chose teams fairly. you don't need referees here either if you have the opportunity to pick the other

team. you're the a team but you get to say who is going to play. you don't need referees ballgames you know what the outcome is going to be -- because you know what the outcome is going to be. now, i have heard that the job losses in this country are because of president obama and the health care bill. and i heard that the job loss in this country is because of speaker pelosi and harry reid and all the bad legislation. and i've heard it's because we have a department of education. and i've heard it's because we have a department of commerce. and i've heard it's because we have a department of nlrb. oops. i'm sorry. i forgot. you got me. thelrb. well, mr. speaker, i rise to say in strong opposition to this legislation. my colleagues on the other side

of the aisle have a common refrain that they want to make the federal government more efficient, work better for the american people and move obstacs to create something that i am very much in favor of . but this bill will do exactly the opposite. in fact, repealing the nlrb's proposed rule wi actually make them less efficient, more burdensome and introduce costly delays to a process that is already got abuse. so i think the american people deserve to know why did the g.o.p. prioritize this bill and bring it to the floor for debate. the answer is pretty clear. it's a thinly veiled effort to make it all but impossible for american workers to organize in labor unions. that's it. it's an effort to place ideology over practicality, and it has nothing to do -- mr. polis: i yield the

gentleman one minute. mr. crowley: it has nothing to do with job creation. over 300 days here on the floor and yet not a single jobs bill has been offered by my republican colleagues to put americans back to work. and instead, once again they have put on t floor a bill to hurt the american worker, the american family. have you no shame? is there no end to this? is there any other departments we can get rid of in these few remaining days of this session? put americans back to work. stop beating up on the fair players on this playing field. put americans back to work. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to remind my colleague from new york as well as all our colleagues across the aisle that republicans have passed over 20 bills this session that would create jobs and bills

that would bring down the cost of gasoline. those are the two things that my constituents are most concerned about, and if our colleagues across the aislere talking to their constituents or more importantly listening to their constituents, they would know that's what their constituents are concerned about also. however, those bills are tied up in the democrat-controlled senate. i now would like to yield five minutes to my distinguished colleague from south carolina who did such a wonderful job on c-span this morning, mr. gowdy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina for her leadership on this issue and so many other issues on the education and work force committee. mr. speaker, when so many of our fellow citizens are hurting, when so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work, when so many of our fellow citizens are striving to meet their familial and so

sital obligations -- societal obligations and all they want is a job and as my friend, tim scott, my friend and colleague from charleston, so eloquently put this morning, the nlrb thinks it's a joke, mr. speaker, a joke. they're making jokes about it. . airbus is not another plane manufacturer, they are the direct competitor to boeing. virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of nlrb overreach which is the complaint they filed against boeing. and not a single example of job loss has been cited. not a single worker has lost a single benefit in the state of washington. nevertheless, the nlrb sued boeing and they seek to have boeing mothball the facily in north charleston and displace 1,00 workers and return the work to a union state.

that is exhibit annlrb's ack -- in nlrb's activist. as a former prosecutor, they have become a sycophant of big labor. while knowing is exhibit a, it is by no means, mr. speaker, the only evidence of an activist politically motivated agenda. currently union elections, . speaker, take place on average within 31 days. the filing of an election petition. additionally, unions are victorious more often than not. but unions want more. so they persuaded the nlrb to propose sweeping changes to the rules and regulations governing the election process, shifting the balance of power even further towards those employees seeking unionization.

by promoting rush elections and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, mr. speaker, the nlrb severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. additionally, employers would only have seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex lab brint of federal labor law before presting their case before an nlrb hearing officer. education and work force committee chairman john kleine smartly introduced h.r. 3094, the work force democracy and fairness act to level the playing field. this legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision. nr 3094 acknowledges that full and complete information is treasured when employees are contemplating how they will vote. ironically, mr. speaker, some

unions have already endorsed president obama's re-election bid. which is well-nigh a year off. clearly they believe they need the time, the 12 months, to inform their members. but somehow a week is enough for employers to inform their employees of all salient facts. before an election. the hypocrisy and blind advocacy towards big labor has to stop, mr. speaker. the purpose of the national labor relations board is to enforce the national labor relations act. and the purpose of the national labor relations act is to balance the rights of employe, employees, and the general public. the act is not calculated to drive up union membership. because they happen to be a loyal constituency of the democr party. because the nlrb through its filing a proposed rules and regulatis has lost all

pretense of objectivity, mr. speaker, and labor issues, fair evenhanded pieces of legislation like chairman kline's work force and advocacy are necessary. i encourage my colleagues to help us protect american jobs, to stand up for equal access to justice, to promote a level playing field. i encourage my colleagues to support the rule and support the underlying bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. mr. speaker, when the sun rose over the country this morning a lot ofmericans got out of bed to go to a job that doesn't pay them enough to support their family. they are working part-time to pay full-timeills. a lot of other americans who have good jobs, good full-time

jobs, woke up this morning and worried if this was going to be the day they got their pink slitch and got their layoff notice. and far too many americans, at least 15 million of them, got up this morning and didn't have a job to go to. 90% of the people surveyed, in a recent survey in this country, said the american dream is either dead or on life support. because the deal in the country has always been if you work as hard as you can and do your fair share, tn the country will give you the opportunity to move your family forward. people don't buy that anymore. they don't believe it anymore. and so what do we do about it here this morning? we are having a debate about a bill that changes the rules for the way people decide whether or not to have a union in their workplace. this is an important consideration. it's a worthy consideration. i think the bill's a very bad

one. but it's a credible debate to have. but it's the wrong dete to have. members of our caucus have gone out over the last month and spoken to thousands of small businesspeople, the real job creators in this country, who create two out of every three jobs created in america, and here's what they have said. we are not hiring people largely because we don't ha enough customers and if we think we do have enough customers, we can't get loans from banks that we bailed out with our tax money. that's what we ought to be discussing here today. the other side will say no, no, these small businesspeople aren't hiring because of their deathly fear of regulations. well, here's what the bureau of labor statistics says. when they interviewed employers who laid people off in 2010 and said why did you lay people off?

about 40% of those employers said, we laid people off because we don't have enough customers. .2 said they laid people off because of regulations. that's what the facts are. how you get more customers for businesss? one idea would be to put construction workers back to work building schools and libraries and roads and bridges. so they would be in the restaurants and buy in the stores. there is a bill pending before the house to do that. the president's jobs bill, but we are not voting on that today. we have something better to do. another way would be to avoid a massive tax increase on the middle class in this country. i would ask for an additional minute. i thank the speaker, i thank my friend. if we don't act by january 1, there will be a $1,500 tax

increase on every middle class family in this country. the president says we ould be postpone that tax increase so people have more money to spend, but we areot voting on that bill today. we have something more important to do. how about the idea of a tax cut for small businesses that hire people? that's in the president's jobs bill. but we are not voting on that today because we have something more important to do. how about saying to teachers who have been laid off from the classroom, fefighters and police officers not on the job because of cutbacks in local government, how about save -- saving their jobs so they can serve their communitieand spend more of the stores and restaurants and on products in this country? that's in the president's jobs bill. but we are not voting on that because we have something more important to do. there's a reason why 90% of the people in this country think that congress is not doing a good job. it's because the leadership of this congress, the replican

leadership of this congress, is voting on the wrong bill at the wrong time and today's another sad chapter in that rlity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from noh carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. we'll reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. lynch: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill, h.r. 3094, the so-called work force democracy and fairness act. since the start of the 112th congress there's been a certain faction guiding the republican majority undtaking what amounts to a full scale attack on america's working families and america's working class. and against the bedrock principles that ha helped create america's middle class. this latest effort is more of the same, the so-called work force democracy and frness act is another piece of leslation

that weakens the rights and protections that workers have long and hard fought to obtain. sectn 9-b of the national labo relations act gives employees the right to organize, quote, in an appropriate unit, giving them choice on how best to bargain with their employer. that's all this is about. when an employer group, employee group organizes, all it requires is they sit down across their employees, and bargain, and talk to them about terms and conditions of employment and benefits. what this bill would do is establish a one-size-fits-all approach to organizing. forcing together employees who have very little in common. and making it much more difficult to organize. that's gerrymandering, basically, to protect employer interests, plain and simple. this bill doesn't stop at changing existing rules, however. this bill would overturn proposed rules that have not

ev been finalized by the national labor relations board. the nlrb has proposed practical rules, modernizing and streamlining the union election process. the proposed rules are genuine improvements over the existing procedures and designed to encourage the use of technology and discourage unnecessary litigation to save taxpayer dollars. i was an ironworker for 18 years, union ironworker. very proud of that fact. i was a union president. i also was involved in in very many union organizing drives not only for my union but carpenters and stagehands, wardrobe workers, and the nlra, the act is set up to reduce the likelihood of unrest. of work force disputes. it's really to help business and workers. and to reduce that economic

conflict. this bill will have the opposite effect. this bill will actually increase the likelihood of labor disputes. and we have seen in this country a great disparate between the haves and have-nots. this is gointo make matters worse. instead of putting people to work, this is going to cause strife and reduce the efficiency and productivity of america's workers. this is shameful. we should thk about strengthening -- all these union workers, this is the middle class in america. you are destroying the middle class in america. you are increasing that disparate between the haves and have-nots. we got to do better than this. the american people deserve it. mr. speaker, iield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank yo mr. speaker. i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time is reserved. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i want to inquire if the gentlelady has any additional speakers. ms. foxx: we do not. i'm prepared to close if the

gentleman from colorado is prepared. mr. polis: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: mr. speaker, the middle class in this country doesn't need a higher payroll tax, more dirty air, dirty water, fewer workers' rights. and they certainly don't need more partisan gridlock in this do-nothing congress. yet that is what is being offered here today. the american people and the american economy need jobs, need optimism. our nation needs to know that we are working to ensure american competitiveness and access to hope and opportunity. to work to ensure that kids get the best education in the world so we can drive the economic engine of today and tomorrow, invent new technology,propel future generations of american ingenuity and leadership. this kind of political gridlock in this do-nothing congress do not help america move forward.

this bill's singular goal is to delay and ultimately prevent workers from voting in workplace elections. these rights have helped to create the middle class in the last century. in recent decades the erosion of these rights have lowered paychecks for families, led to jobs outsourcing overseas, and wide income disparities in our society. . our environmental workplace laws that have been around for decades is the reason our economy is bad? of course not. let's talk about preventing a looming increase on taxes in the middle class. i encourage the supercommittee and if it need be stand-alone legislation to ensure we can keep payroll taxes at their current level. it's time for congress to take up the president's jobs act which includes extending the middle-class tax cut. the american jobs act, which republicans still can refuse to consider, includesjob-creating

proposals, including rebuilding our schools, tax breaks for small businesses to create jobs and modernizing our air traffic control system. it's time for this congress to stand up for the american people, to offer solutions, to get serious about getting our economy back on track instead of just scoring political points that appeal to the base. i urge a no vote on this rule and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i want to point out that i neglected to say earlier in response to my colleague who said we ha't passed any house bills that those were bipartisan bills that passed. every one of the jobs bills that we passed has received bipartisan support, and the american people want us be bipartisan, and i hope they have noticed in the debate

today that the badmouth of this bill has not come from this side of the aie. we need to reduce government red tape as a way to help job creation. we are trying to reinstate the traditional standards for union organizing elections and ensuring that employees and employer voices are heard. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the underlying bill. i yiel

it will be an essential lighter bat will help in norad and will be the future in helping us secure the challenges that we face. our troops have stood shoulder to shoulder, not only here, but 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 and a partner together so effectively, minister mckay and i have really, i think, continued to strengthen the relationship between our countries when it comes to security. we met two months ago in washington and we saw each other at the nato ministerial. we are committed to continuing a dialogue that will, hopefully, strengthen back 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 had 150 canadian heroes who have paid the ultimate price. in libya, where i met the canadian general, buchard,

someone who is capable and instrumental in leading those operations, all of that reflects the fact that we fight together and we believe it together as one. i am looking to forward to participating in the security forum this afternoon. finally, let me extend my thanks to the people of canada for the warm hospitality that they have provided me. i have had cousins that have come through canada as part of might italian heritage. canada, for me, is a very special place. together we are a powerful force -- the united states and canada. we represent a very powerful voice for peace, freedom, democracy, and pour security. mr. minister, you have my commitment that i will do whatever i can to ensure that we

continue to strengthen that voice, not only in this hemisphere, but the world. let's take you very much for that. >> we will start with reuters. >> good morning, mr. secretary. given u.s. assurances that the united states will not reduce its military posture in asia or the middle east, what kind of cuts are being considered for the u.s. military in europe? thank you. >> in reviewing obviously the budget that we are dealing with and the budget requirements on savings that 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 three or four guidelines that are extremely important to me. number one, the united states will protect the best military in the world. we are the strongest in the world and intend to remain the best military in the world. two, i do not want to hollow out the force which is something that has been happen with previous cuts. we are not going to do that. thirdly, that leads me to looking at a series of areas where we can try to achieve savings. those areas include efficiencies, procurement reforms, they include the area of compensation, and they also include force structure reductions. all of those areas are being looked at. we have made no decisions as to

what areas we will in fact make the reductions, but i think it is fair to say that everything is on the table and we will do nothing without consulting with our allies survey are aware of the decisions we make. there is no question we will be a smaller, agile, flexible, more deployable force. we will have a technological edge so we can make the -- meet the challenges of the future. that is a broad strategy that we are going to use, but with regard to every area, including europe, our goal is to make sure that we are able to maintain a relationship that allows us to provide security, not only in the pacific and the middle east, but also the mediterranean arena .s well >> >> [speaking french]

>> perhaps i could give the question. the question was whether the minister is concerned about the f35 program because of possible cuts in the united states. [speaking french]

>> minister mckay was saying mr. panetta had clarified the situation with the u.s. intent to make budget cuts. with respect to your specific -- we believeda's

this is an absolutely critical military asset for the protection of north america. we are very confident about the future of the program and we believe is absolutely necessary to keep it in place. of course, the u.s. intends to continue the process. there are agreements not only with lockheed martin, but with nine other partners. >> i am with cbc news. you said you are committed to the f35 program, but i want to know if you think you can get funding for it. for mr. mckay, if there are funding problems because of financial difficulties, what is canada's backup plan? >> on the first part of that, i feel very confident that we will get the funding for the f35

program. this is the fighter plane of the future. in some ways, we have no alternatives. this is the plane that is going to be able to provide the technology and the capabilities for the future. we need to have this. it is true for us and it is true for our partners, not only canadians, but others who will work with us and participate with us in the development of the f35. let me say that as we go through the budget decisions that we have to make it, obviously, as i said, there are areas where we will look at savings. but we also have to look at areas where we continue to invest in the future. the f35 is one of those areas where we will continue to invest in the future. >> given those comments, and those are comments that are very

much in line with the discussions secretary panetta and i had some two months ago, that the united states commitment to this program is a firm and fast. this is the very reason that canada has chosen this aircraft. it is because of the eye watering technology aboard the f35. it is the ability to dominate the air space all over north america. there is no fifth generation aircraft other than the f35 available to canada and the united states. all of the hypothetical discussions and-discussions, quite frankly, about this program are religious clatter and noise. this program is going ahead. clearly budgetary pressures are going to lead to speculation. we are dealing with our budget

as all countries are dealing with their budgets, but we are not wavering on our commitment to this program. there are pillars within every defense department. this is one of those pillars -- having the ability to protect your sovereignty. there is a direct link between our national sovereignty and our ability to protect our air space. our commitments to norad, our nato commitments, and let me refresh everyone's memory again about how canada has played a critical role in the success of the libyan mission because of the a probability of aircraft. these planes will literally have increased capacity to communicate and talk to one another. they have stealth capability. many of the features of the aircraft are what make it an important part of the north american protection and our ability to reach out and

contribute internationally as we saw recently in libya and as we are continuing to seek in missions like afghanistan. other nato countries, quite correctly, are looking at this aircraft as well. we have a group that is already committed, including the united kingdom, australia, and others. >> ladies and gentleman, we only have time for two more questions the canadian press and the wall street journal. >> mr. panetta, there are rumors that you are not happy with canada's size of purchase. is there any truth to that? . that is not true. canada has to make decisions as to what it believes is necessary. i trust the ability of canada and the minister to make the right decisions as to what they need and we will support that. >> faq.

a question or both of you on afghanistan we know the nato meeting coming up in may in chicago -- you are laying out what the chechen will look at like. in general and as was quoted as saying he is confident we will be able to shift from a full counter insurgency there to a train and assist commission within 12 months. i wanted to ask whether that is a feasible timeframe? will we be able to shift to a train and assist? >> i am not familiar with what the general may or may not have said, but our commitment is to implement the agreement at lisbon. the agreement at lisbon is to continue to work towards the ability to reduce our combat presence by the end of 2014.

obviously we are going to go through the campaign of that general allan will outline as we approach that commitment. there is no question there is going to beat as we develop our ability to secure that country, to weaken the taliban, to get the afghan army and police in place that there is. to be a transition that takes place. as a matter of fact, we are going to complete another tranche of provinces that will goat to the afghans for security and governance. when completed one group earlier this year. it is going well. will complete another hopefully in december. that will represent over 80% of the afghan population. -- 50% of the afghan population.

we are moving in the right direction. as we do that, obviously we are trying to get the afghan army and police to assume more responsibilities with regard to combat operations. this will take a transition period. i would not assign a particular date or time frame for that. that will depend an awful lot on general allan to determine how best to make the transition from a combat role to an advise and assist role. there is been no decision regarding a timeframe. >> i just returned from afghanistan a week ago. i met with general allan. canada has assumed a very prominent role on 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 a year ago. to that extent, the numbers of the afghan national security force, both police and military, have swelled to over 300,000. the focus is on professionalizing and enabling those forces, to give them that firm backing they need to start conducting independent operations, taking over control of the various provinces, and as secretary panetta has said, we are at the 50 plus mark. we will meet and exceed the time lines. whether we get there will depend on this very focused effort to train afghan security forces. within that training like the con is improving literacy. it is giving them all of the skills they need and impart those skills by american and

canadian soldiers and implant them firmly in the background and the training cycle of afghan security forces. it is happening. i am proud of canada's role. we worked very closely 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 they can secure their own borders, provide security for their own villages and population, and carry on well into the future. canada has a lot to bring to this effort. many of the soldier taking part in this training mission have combat experience where they have deployed on previous missions into the south, and province.har they held the fort in the most

difficult part of the country at the most critical time the afghans have been very quick to acknowledge that. there interior minister last week -- there was a very clear demonstration on their part for what canada has done. we are partnering with our greatest ally, the united states, working with our nato allies. 40 + countries are still involved in this effort. it is a monumental effort, but where -- when you consider afghan is today compared to a few short years ago, security is, of course, the most critical piece, but when you look at the number of children now attending school, the infrastructure investments, the long-term vision that all of these countries we are working with and the afghans themselves

have demonstrated to stabilize and be in the position never fall under the control of a terrorist organization like the taliban -- we have made enormous steps in that regard. there are more women standing in the parliament of afghanistan today then we have in our own country. women are participating in business an entrepreneurial ventures. there is, starting to take hold in the country. they are moving back to an agrarian society that exports more than just poppy that winds up in the form of drugs on the streets of north america. they are growing beets, barley, and pomegranates. we are all very much seeing the importance of the training mission and the continued security building. there is great and positive progress to report in that country today.

>> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. >> after the joint news conference, defense secretary leon panetta talked about global security. this is about 35 minutes. >> it is an honor for me to welcome you to this city of halifax. it is a glorious autumn day with a big blue sky outside. this is a city that is the very heart of canada's atlantic gateway. we refer to it as can the's

ocean playground. at least in the summer months, it is a warm and inviting place, but that is true every day i can assure you. you are part of an interesting and powerful time in our nation's history and in world history. you are in a part of canada that has always been a point of convergence of four different peoples and cultures. nearly 1 million immigrants began their voyage to america here at pier 21, now canada's national immigration museum. this is a city that is home of canada's east coast navy and is the largest military base in canada. halifax had the enviable reputation as a hub of knowledge, being home to canada's finest universities where the leaders of tomorrow debate cutting edge issues and ideas. i know we have some students with us today.

halifax is the perfect venue to hold an international security forum. a unique event where key leaders and policy makers come up thinkers, and practitioners come together to share their insights on the global security and defense challenges of the 21st century. those of you who did did previous forums already know this is an exceptional event and i see a lot of familiar faces with us here today. i welcome you all back. for new participants, you are in for a tremendous experience. we have put together a unique gathering in a unique gathering place. peter, i want to thank you personally. you and your team at national defence and atlantic canada opportunities agencies have done a great job of organizing this form. i also want to welcome foreign affairs magazine as the official

media sponsor. we are honored to partner with foreign affairs. its outstanding leading edge analysis, global reach, and international leadership and leadership have done so much to shape policy thinking and policy making. ladies and gentlemen, our conference comes in a dynamic year of dramatic and democratic change. when we convened here last year, some may have signaled that the middle east and north africa where ready for popular uprisings, yet who among us would have predicted that the desperate actions of a young tunisian who committed suicide to protest against the decisions of an autocratic bureaucracy would become the catalyst for protests across an entire region, bringing down regimes that were powerful and 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 are to begin within a month after the collapse of the mubarak regime. with the support of the united nations, terribly, and nato this wave of change also reached libya. in october after months of fighting, the national transitional council has declared the country free. we also need to consider the important lessons offered to us by these recent events. they show us that ordinary people once mobilized will brave violence repression to defend their ideas, their aspirations, and their human dignity. but even more importantly, these events also highlight what i believe are the key figures of

the 21st century international system. during past uprisings, whether it be the prague spring, the hon. uprising, the ataman square -- it took weeks for one-way communication to spread by word of mouth, pamphlets, or short wave radio, across the masses. by comparison, this year in egypt, it took 18 days for protesters organized by twitter, and by facebook to completely overthrow a regime that had been interest for over 30 years. the world and technology are certainly changing. in this new work, more globalized world, a 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.

these same analysts are predicting that there will be a decline of liberal democracies as a social and political model -- political model. this is provocative and trendy, but it is premature and probably misguided. as the arab uprising in decay, democratic ideals still resonate strongly around the world. when hundreds of thousands of egyptians occupied the square earlier this year and when canadians and libyans revolted, they're demanding accountability, transparency, fairness, the rule of law, and economic opportunity. in short, they're demanding records of the big government. now, some of these same analysts that predicted that -- predicted the decline of democratic values

are pointing a critical finger at the middle east. they say that egypt and tunisia will not be able to overcome their histories. but 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 process is still under way that start with an ideal. in past centuries, it has evolved with milestones, such as the abolition of slavery, two world wars, and the fight for universal suffrage. it is easy or skeptics to say that other nations will not be able to overcome the options that they face in building their democratic countries. this underestimates the and a determination of all people everywhere to be the masters of their own destinies, to be

citizens, not subject. in my view, this underestimates the determination of the human experience. it also underestimates the capacity of our democracies to adapt to new circumstances, to modernize, to be a force for good in the world. how can we position ourselves to respond to the jaspers' -- transformation of the world? the answer to the question lies in the way that we do business -- the business of international engagement. over the past decade we have learned important lessons in afghanistan. we have learned that if we are going to be effective partners for countries in their transition from chaos to conflict, to stability and prosperity, we must develop coherence in our actions and our efforts. we have to break the barriers that exist between our various departments and agencies and ensure that our military,

diplomats, and intelligence efforts are coordinated and geared towards the ejected that we want to achieve. we refer to this as the whole of government approach. nato has a difference phrased in terms of comprehensive approach. whatever we call it, we need to ensure that we continue to develop a coherent strategies to deal with these complex issues. we need this coherence of a efforts in situations like afghanistan. but also we need to manage the new dynamics, such as the opportunities and the risks that are emerging from the arab uprisings and coordinating our efforts to maximize our effectiveness. it becomes even more important giving the situation -- given the situation that we face. we do not have the luxury of going more money at our defense and security institutions so that they can adapt to the new circumstances. in fact, in most of our country,