this morning, the senate debate on real authorizing the violence against women act and that it cut 20, we will be joined by steve forbes to discuss tax policy and the economy.

43% each favorable rating. president obama gets 42%. 45% for the president and 44% for the gop nominee. do you thi those are just some of the top

numbers in the poll on the presidential race. why are you supporting your candidate? we will begin in fort lauderdale. kevin is a president obama supporter. caller: i would not say a supporter, but i have to support president obama. i don't have any party affiliation. it basically goes off what you were saying. i am an educator.

i have looked at romney's passed record. i have lived in idaho and utah. even though i think president obama is doing a great job, i think that he has a grasp of what is going on. governor romney, i don't think he gets it. he is completely detached from reality and from the american people. i don't think that he has any connection to businesses. his job was to strip businesses apart. he destroyed a lot more jobs than he saved. i don't think that he has any clue what average americans do. at least obama makes an attempt to try to understand what's going on. host: we have to leave it there and move on to texas.

mr. peterson is on the line. you are also an obama supporter it. caller: hi. host: antelope mrs. peterson. hello, as peterson. caller: we are supporting obama. he is levelheaded. he needs four more years ito do what he needs to do. he has really tried hard. host: house everything down there? caller: just fine. the camelot of tornadoes in this area. we have had a lot of tornadoes. we had 11 on the ground at one

time in the metroplex and it did a lot of destruction, although we need the rain. host: nice to hear from you. caller: take care, peter. host: a few more numbers. mitt romney supporters, we have the number on the screen. how confident are you in the candidate's ability to make the right decision about the economy? 51% say president obama. next call comes from bristow, virginia, on our support president obama line. caller: good morning.

host: why are you supporting the president? caller: mainly because i believe him and i don't believe mitt romney. like the first caller said, he is kind of detached from the rest of america. i don't hold it against him that he is wealthy. i am doing ok, personally, but he has no real concept of what it's like to be not necessarily in the 99%, but even maybe even 40%. he is so far removed from the rest of america that he has no concept of what everyone else goes through. i would like to add one little thing. i am honestly surprised that he is running. i know that he probably has political aspirations, but other than saying that he can lead the

country a little bit better than the president, why is he really trying to run for president? host: all right, thanks for the call. here are some of our facebook comments -- next call comes from lucia in . in romney supporter, hi, why are you supporting mitt romney for president? caller: as a small business owner, if we don't hurry up and

get rid of the president that we have now, we are going to lose our business, because in the state of michigan people don't have expendable money. and because of the policies that the non-believers around barack obama about how to make the economy work, that is why we are want to lose the business. host: all right, thanks for the call. i want to show you another story, page -- i'm sorry, inside the new york post. disgraced former congressman anthony wiener was behaving -- a new book depicts him as a

loudmouth who berated his staff and would do or say anything for air time. he would enter his office screaming at the top of his lungs, " why the f am i not on msnbc?" that is in the new york post this morning. pat is an obama supporter from houston, hi. caller: hi. i am supporting president obama. mitt romney does not know what the average person has to go

through. i can relate to the president because he, like me, went through public education and does not want to privatize things. mitt romney has so much money, there's no way that he can relate to the average person. he wants to cut everything,. privatize, he would run this country like he does a business. if the need to cut, he will. he would not think about what it means to the people. host: from "politico" this morning --

and this is from the hill -- that is in the hill newspaper. back to your calls on why you

are supporting your candidate. next is brandy, and romney supporter in shreveport, louisiana. hi. caller: i had to call on the wrong because you don't have ron paul up there. did he quit running? host: so you're not supporting romney? caller: hi cannot support a communist and socialist running for president? ron paul is the only one that has anything going on. he is telling the truth about the federal reserve and the banking system. that is the whole problem of this nation. host: jo ellison las vegas, and romney supporter. why are you supporting mitt romney? caller: because the cars george bush president said read my lips, no new taxes. that was enough to get him elected. president obama made war and peace look like dick and jane, saying so many lies.

i don't know how it gets away with deceiving the people right to their faces. it's hard to believe that. the biggest thing obama did was signing of a health-care bill. when he signed that bill, only god knows how many times their arrest that coming out and signing the bill. when they came out to sign the bill, vice-president joe biden even had a little black kid on the right side and president obama had to make a face. host: now to an obama supporter in birmingham, alabama. hi. caller: some of the stuff that comes from people's mouths. . good i am president obama supporter. he has done a lot for this economy. he has done a lot to bring this

economy back whether people want to face the facts or not. i have looked at many statistics about what happened in the recession. it fell on the watch of president bush and those jobs fell under president bush. [unintelligible] whether we want to acknowledge or not. the reason i don't support romney is not because i am a democrat. there are certain things the republicans say that i goal along with. but i believe mitt romney is arrogant. he tells lies. and the disrespect that he has for the president. yesterday he was running an ad talking about the united states.

that is not presidential. host: all right, olivia, thanks for calling. another facebook comment, this is from jeff -- president obama was in ohio yesterday. here's a little of what he had to say. " somebody gave me an education. i was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. michele was not. but somebody gave us a chance. just like these folks up here are looking for a chance. >host: bonnie, you are on the air from new jersey, why are you supporting the president? caller: overall he realized the

government's can help during a bad economic times. he pastel terraform, pass the stimulus bill and began to drawdown the war in afghanistan, eliminated osama bin laden, turned around the u.s. auto industry, recapitalize the banks, for repeal "don't ask, don't tell", toppled gaddafi, told mubarak to go, reversed bush portrait policies, improved america's image abroad, expanded pell grants for and student loans, coordinated response to financial crisis, increased support for veterans. host: when did you start writing all these things down? caller: you can find it yourself.

50 accomplishment that barack obama was able to do with the recalcitrant republican congress. washingtonmonthly.com for everyone to read. host: we have to move on to harrell, a romney supporter in celebration, florida. caller: i am for romney because he has actually done in things that make sense. obama, the dollar has become almost worthless. he has flooded the market with them. he has wreck the economy. you cannot look at the economy with any confidence. anything obama has messed with, how he got his house, his first job, how did he get his grades? you are not allowed to know what his grades were. this is unbelievable. the democratic response was to look at the campaign and is running. we have a president who has never been tried at anything. he is now in office.

everything he has done has failed. people say let's vote for him. the little things she kept mentioning were almost inconsequential. you can name those sorts of things about any president. she says that he's like fdr. fdr prolonged depression. host: it sounds like you are supporting romney because you are anti-obama, is that fair? caller: i am for anybody that actually has raised a good family, has worked at jobs and has done something. obama has not done anything. host: all right, harold. mitt romney was in north carolina yesterday. >> it will be a pull your years by the time he's here a convention. this cannot continue to try to deflect blame elsewhere. at some point he's got to abolish this is its economy. what has happened is the result of his policies, not of his predecessors, or congress. we remember that forced aristide

there years he had a simple majority in his own party in congress. he cannot blame the republican congress because it was a democrat congress for two years. this is the front page of the new york times this morning. a couple of reporters from the new york times went to cartagena, colombia.

it's in the new york times this morning. back to your calls on what you are supporting your candidate. surely is an obama supporter in manhattan -- shirley. caller: good morning. i realize that mr. obama has tried everything he can but there is the republican party of no. romney hides his money in offshore accounts. i really would like to know how he has money in offshore accounts and we have to display all our money. maybe we would get out of all this debt. host: melvin is in lynchburg,

virginia, on our support from the line. please go ahead. caller: it is amazing how emotional obama supporters can be at times. listening to that lady, i have never understood how people can put down a man just for being successful. one of the reasons i support mitt romney is one of my criticisms of obama in 2008 was his lack of executive leadership. mitt romney brings that to the table in addition to that mitt romney also has shown that he can work bipartisan -- in a bipartisan way. barack obama has not shown that. there's no liberal that can call in to show that barack obama has worked for bipartisanship. barack obama had two years of a democratic-controlled congress,

the same congress that in the last two years of the bush and administration that helped in the decline we have today. if i support romney because we need a different direction of someone who has shown effective leadership. it was a trial and error or a trial and fail, to the obama supporters. take the loss. maybe we can reconcile the nation. under this president we are more divided. host: now an e-mail -- beverly colleague from missouri, a president obama supporter. good morning. caller: good morning, peter. host: you keep popping up all over the country. you were in phoenix and you were

in little boppers. caller: i forgot. you have a better memory than i do. host: we have been chatting for years. caller: [laughter] i am here for good now. i am in a senior living facility now. i am very happy. i'm around my family, my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren. host: wonderful. it's nice to hear from you. you sound great. why are you supporting president obama? caller: my goodness, peter, i have never voted a straight democratic ticket, but this year i will. the congress has treated this president of the worst in my lifetime. i have never seen a congress so against a president. when mitch mcconnell said that he hoped the president failed. what he neglected to add to that

was because the country would fail. and i'd think that man should be tried for treason. and the man from virginia that just called but said it is amazing about democrats voting for obama, well, he just does not understand that it is really the congress and the president does not have the support of the congress on anything, so he's not gone to be successful. i think, under the circumstances, that obama has done a remarkable job. that's my opinion. host: it's nice to hear from you, beverly. take care and enjoy your summer. caller: ok, thank you. host: the lead editorial this morning in "usa today" --

again, that is congressman jim moran, a democrat from virginia. back to your calls of what you are supporting your candidate. lindbergh, tennessee, kenneth on the mitt romney line -- lynchburg. how peopleon't know can say obama has done so much. he squandered all of our money, taxpayer dollars.

he had 28 vacations in a year- and-a-half. i don't feel that he's done anything, to be honest with you. we've got to have a change. thank you. host: thanks for calling. i want to let you know about an event next tuesday on "book t 8booktv.org. rodney king has a new book coming out that's called "the riot within." he will be in new york city on tuesday night talking about his book. the website will bring that to you live. you can watch it on line next tuesday night beginning at 6:00 6:30. -- and from the hill newspaper this morning, asking the supreme court to uphold fine for --

that is in the hill newspaper this morning. on our president obama support line is louise from kokomo, indiana. hi. caller: yes, i am supporting mr. obama. he has done the best the can do with congress. also, i'd like to say that mr. obama, the people have really does respected him.

i think when president bush was in, we all respected him whether he was doing right or wrong. and the way people disrespect president obama, they could have put him on the cross and hung him, that is how much aid they have for this man. -- hate. host: also this morning in the hill newspaper --

on our support mitt romney line, from ventura california,. derek,, why are you supporting mitt romney? caller: how are you doing, peter? i am -- president obama has made a whole bunch of promises in 2008 and has not fulfilled any of those. mitt romney, on the other hand, makes the same type of promises. i am wondering what happened to ron paul? he was ahead in the running in some of the delegates. i don't know what happened.

you don't hear about him. he is the only one that has spoken honestly about any of the issues. i would like to hear a little bit more about him. i know that he has not made the running, but i want to know why he has been shut out like that. host: if ron paul does not a and nomination, will you support mitt romney? caller: we will just have to see what happens. i hope that i will have more options. host: david, from mclean, virginia, in the suburbs, is a president obama supporter. good morning. caller: thanks for having me. i want to say something. i think when mitt romney goes around telling lies about obama doing nothing, i think he should tell us what he is for and not against. personally, this whole thing has

got to be racial, because obama has killed osama bin laden, saved gm. if you look at jobs, when we were leading 100,000 jobs a month, now we have created over 3 million. he stabilized the economy, the wars are over, and we have "the affordable care act. it is your service to correct people on your program and they say obama has killed the dollar -- how? it is at an all-time high against the mexican peso. they said that he has taken 28 vacations. where did he go? you must do your service, c- span. if this thing is not racial, i don't know what is. when the former president lied about taking us to war and we lost tens of thousands of soldiers, yet this very fine president which we are blessed

to have is somehow a communist, socialist, marxist in the same sentence, it is beyond the pale. and please correct the facts, c- span. host: that was david. next is frank in new york on our support mitt romney line. hi. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to say that i am not to that thrilled about supporting mr. romney, but i think we have to put somebody in there besides president obama, who is actually in their above his head. he just cannot really handled the economy. it is evident he cannot handle race relations. we are more divided than ever. i was hoping that he would be the type of presidentuld go down in history like abraham lincoln and and try to unite us, and he has not done that at all. one other thing that disturbs me

about the criticisms of mr. romney is the fact that he is not in touch with people because of the money that he has. but they fail to remember that john carey has a lot of money and when he was running for the presidency nobody said anything about the money except the fact that for the most part it was his wife's money. but he had an awful lot of money and he, too, if you want to label him as out of touch with the people, was that type of person. i'm sorry to say that mr. obama really does not have the skills to get us out of this problem? that we are in now as a country and as a nation. host: the lead story this morning in the detroit free press, the jobless rate is lowest since 2008 --

that's the detroit free press this morning. and from "politico" -- that's from "politico." that is calling from illinois on our president obama line. hi. caller: yes, it is waukegan,

illinois. the reason i'm voting for president obama, when you look at his campaign, you see america. when you look at mitt romney's campaign, looks like he's only running for one nationality of people. and as far as they say president obama has made the country racist, he spoke about racism. he had to speak about racism. he did a good speech on racism. so it is not president obama that is racist, is -- i don't want to say. how could obama be racist? his mother was white and his father was black. thanks so much, peter. i enjoyed you. host: thank you, betty. my mom's name is betty. from the new york times this morning, senator scott brown has been playing up his devotion to the boston red sox --

fayetteville, north carolina on our support mitt romney line. tommy. caller: tony hodges. i am a mitt romney supporter. i think it's time we put a businessman, a man who knows how to handle large corporations and

america is a large corporation. it is a huge task to take on. we have had political politicians all of our lives and we have one that's in there now who has never had a real job. he has always worked for the government. he is just a politician. he is not a businessman. we need somebody who knows how to grow the nation, put us back to work. i'm a small businessman. my business has really suffered over -- since obama has been in office. host: what kind of business? caller: i'm in the construction business. we build houses and we do home improvements, flip homes. the mobile home industry has even been hit hard down here. it has even been hard on this end of the country. we have about a 10% unemployment

down here. but our nation -- and i love our nation -- i would like to see our nation come back. we need somebody to come into office that will revamp our government, to cut our federal people. in other words, cut 20% out of the government, and to give us smaller government and to give government back to the local states and to the local government and let us run our own areas instead of the federal government having their hands and everything. host: that was tony in fayetteville. from the financial times this morning --

that's in the financial times this morning. finally, we will hear from tom in dayton, ohio, president obama supporter. why are you supporting obama? caller: everybody talks about romney being a businessman. people are making $10 an hour and he is shutting down their corporations and shipping the jobs to china. that's the kind of businessman that could run our country? god help us. another thing, i cannot wait to see the racism stop.

and i am a white man. host: we only have a two-hour washington journal. we have terry o'neill coming up, president of the national organization for women will be here. after that, steve forbes will join us from our new york studio. we will be right backed. -- back. >> ♪ >> this weekend on "booktv" on c-span 2, live coverage from the l.a. times festival of books. coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern saturday and sunday. saturday at 3:30, biographers on clarence darrow, dwight eisenhower, and j.f.k.. at 7:30, call in with your

questions for the author of "hollywood left and right." sunday at 2:00 eastern watch for liberals and the cause. and at 5:00, camelot's surveillance and secrets. the entire schedule for the weekend is online. >> from the colonial era, prohibition to today, drinking for better or worse as always been a part of the american landscape. saturday night, live on american history tv, a history of alcohol in america. want a back story -- watch the back story. saturday night at 8:00 eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. >> when i was imbedded in eastern afghanistan, the soldiers started telling me the

u.s. government was wasting tens of billions of dollars on mismanagement and logistics contract. >> following the money in afghanistan, finding corruption from top to bottom right in and taliban.elegr >> a very effective commander, not long after president obama took office and the state department was saying we are going to give you a bunch of development money for counterinsurgency, win the hearts and minds, nation building, and the colonel says don't send any more money, send me contract officers that an overseas jobs, i need people, i don't need more money. >> bankrolling the enemy, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. washington journal continues. isst: terry o'neill

president of the national organization for women. she is our guest for the next 40 minutes to talk about the violence against women act and other issues. why is the violence against women act being brought up now? is politics running this? guest: actually, it's a timeline. it must be realized every five years. actually, it should been reauthorize the last year, but for one reason or another congress did not get around to it, so they have continued funding, but it needs to be reauthorize. host: it is being brought up right now because it's running out of time? guest: exactly. host: what does that the bill actually do? guest: >> it establishes a number of programs that are intended to help victims of violence at to recover from the violence and also to hold

perpetrators accountable. the act guns program like training for police and prosecutors and judges to really understand the dynamics of domestic violence and the dynamics of recovery from sexual assault and that sort of thing. the act is responsible for the creation of women's shelters and facilities like in montgomery county, maryland, where i live, about two years ago there was created a justice center, a one- stop shop where victims of violence can go to address all of their needs. like food stamps and safe housing and legal helpe for a protective order and prosecution of the perpetrator and that sort of thing. host: do you think those opposed

to the re-enactment have legitimate arguments? guest: i don't at all. i'm really puzzled. the last time this law was authorized, it was overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate. it is very disappointing. this year we seem to be getting some opposition or resistance from individuals who have sponsored the law in the past. host: what about the argument that the violence against women act creates a special category of legality, also makes women into a special interest group? guest: 51% of the population is not a special interest group, they are half the population. so we're not an. an group the reality is violence against women, as an enormous impact on the economy of this country.

it prevents women from getting to work on time. it causes absenteeism and causes whole families to fall apart. before the law was passed in the mid-1990s women really did not have a safe place to go and have their needs addressed. so the act, in my view, is not perfect. it has never actually been fully funded. on any given day, the national network to end domestic violence does a one-day survey of all the hot lines and service providers around the country for victims of violence, and on a given day, a thousand calls for need go unanswered because the capacity is not there. so we know it has never been fully resources. and the reality is, how can we

be the richest country in the world and allow domestic violence to go on in this country? host: 202 is the area code for all of our members if you would like to talk to the president of the national organization for women, terry o'neill. on our twitter page you can make a comment or ask a question. and you can also send an e-mail. what is the national organization of women -- for women, and what is your primary focus this year? guest: we are an advocacy organization. we work for political change to achieve 6 goals. to achieve full reproductive rights for women, economic justice for women, ending violence against women, ending

racism, lesbian rights, and getting women into the constitution. we really are a women's equality organization, but we have these six core gold because our philosophy is that they are linked and you cannot achieve equality for women unless you end racism and homophobia. host: what you mean when is a get women into the constitution? guest: the equal rights amendment is still there and maloney has a bill in congress and mendes has a companion bill in congress. recently baldwin has drafted a bill and a companion bill from senator ben cardin. both of these legislative efforts will be to revise people rights amendment and establish women's equality in the constitution. host: first call for terry o'neill is from middleton, virginia, cheryl on our democrat line go ahead.

caller: hi, i am an older person in my fifties and i have watched this over the years. basically, my question is, you hate to see this as a war on women, because i hate that phrase, it's a horrible pink listen to. but you do feel, having raised two daughters who are independent thinkers, but there seems to be kind of a concerted effort to try to roll back things that we took for granted within our country. i turn on c-span and are virginia legislator and i see many men sitting there making decisions all women. as i said, you hate to use that phrase, but that seems to be the way i feel about it and i see it at the moment. that was my question, if you

don't feel there's a concerted effort going on to roll back the things that we felt were positive for women within this country? guest: thanks for that call. absolutely. it is a huge problem. i think it's a perfect storm in 2010 in the 2010 elections. first, women did not vote. their participation, particularly married women, plummeted in 2010 compared to what it had been in 2008. if at the same time, the citizens united states out of the supreme court opened the floodgates for corporate and business funding of political candidates. in the 2010 election, what we saw was newly conservative tea party candidates flooding into the u.s. congress and also flooding into states where they took over control of both houses in the state legislatures

and the governor's office in many states. florida, for example, and wisconsin and indiana and other states. what we saw, the number of anti- reproductive rights laws at the state level skyrocketed after the 2010 elections until today. it is extremely upsetting. in the u.s. congress you have a bill defunding family planning clinics. these clinics also provide mammograms and cervical cancer screenings and std screenings. the small number means john boehner thought these were the highest priority for him. in there was the defunding of the family-planning clinic spiriths.

and right now well over 85% of private insurance companies do cover abortion care. one out of three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. it is just a necessary part of women's reproductiveh health care. r3 would outlaw private coverage of that -- hr3. that's even in cases where a woman would have cancer or heart disease that would make it necessary to terminate her pregnancy. now that termination would cost thousands of dollars to that family. then you have the blunt amendment in the senate and other bills. we have been fighting anti- reproductive rights battles for 18 months ended the same time we have been battling to save social security and medicare and medicaid from the ryan budget.

and so, women have really been -- i think women's well-being has been severely assaulted in the past 18 months. host: the next call for terry o'neill, president of the national organization for women, comes from diana, a republican in connecticut. caller: i am against violence on women, but it seemed your piling on abortion and gay rights. i find using the word homophobia a buzzword. at one time that was listed as a mental illness according to psychiatrists. i'm against that. i don't think it's natural. i live in rural area in connecticut where a woman is dealing with violence, they're not helping her, they are only interested in gathering your id.

as far as abortion, it's not safe. i don't think anybody in this country should be for the large amount of children that have been killed. you have to remember, there are women who are under threat and are forced to do that. . there is nothing safe. -- there is nothing safe about abortion. host: would you address also her comments about the violence against issues and the other issues that you mentioned? guest: i heard her say that it's difficult to get services in rural connecticut. that is true or around the country. in 2005 when the violence against women act was reauthorize, the agencies that implement blocks were instructed to start gathering information about where services are needed, are their pockets of the country, are there specific types of populations that are served?ng are

specificyear 3 i s populations have been noticed. the lesbian, gay, a transsexual, and transgender community find it more difficult to find services and particularly in the battered a third population is women on reservations. someone who doesn't wear reservation and commits a sexual assault cannot be prosecuted by the troubled authority and it is difficult for the state authorities to do the prosecution because the assault happened on the reservation. blog tries to address those

issues -- the law tries to address those issues. we need far better funding and for better resources and in those rural areas to really meet the needs of women. as far as the other issues, yes, my organization -- in the 1990's, the academic community started calling it intersection morality. there is an intersection of race and sexual orientation and disability discrimination. it is interesting from the late 1960's when the national organization for women was traded, it originally took this position that these isms arlington the need to work on and all of them together in order to have women fully participate in their communities host: how did you get

politically active? guest: i was teaching law at tulane university in new orleans for it was 1991. i was not tenured at the time but david duke ran at the time and my daughter was about six months old. the polls were showing him ahead. i thought that i cannot raise a child in this environment. i have to be able to tell her when she is an adult that i did my best. i tried to do something so i joined a campaign in louisiana and by assignment was to go door-to-door in my neighborhood which is not that far from the university and knock on doors and say my name and it urged people to vote. the problem was whether we would get turnout. wheat squeaked through it changed my life. host: where to go from there?

guest: what i heard later on after the election was that 50.6% of white women in orleans parish had voted for david duke. that statistic was what got me to decide that i really needed to remain active in the community to try to make a difference. i felt that there is a lot of sexism in the south as anywhere but that race was a huge problem down there. there was an enormous amount of racial healing that needed to happen in the wake of the duke candidacy. i frankly stumbled into a n.o.w. meeting one year after the david duke campaign. on the wall, there is a poster, it was a circle and said "

sexism, racism, homophobia, connect the dots." i thought this was an organization that gets me. i thought i would keep going to meetings. host: does now give political money? guest: yes they have a purple action committee and endorses federal candidates for office. you can go to now.org and see who we have endorsed for congress. we have been very active already host: any republicans? guest: in the past we have. right now, there are no republicans that we can endorse. there are many democrats that we cannot endorse. host: is pro-choice the number one criteria? guest: it is not number one. it is a requirement but we -- it

is hard to get a n.o.w. endorsement because we have a list of requirements and the candidate must not only supports full reproductive rights for women but full equal marriage rights for same-sex couples and be committed to ending violence against women. and also be committed to economic justice for women. we believe the so-called safety net for poor women or low income women that either because they are escaping violence or because they have lost their jobs or whatever -- the welfare laws don't provide for them and many to only endorse candidates that will move an agenda of achieving economic justice for low income women. a tweet -- is say to wait thank you.

we do not prioritize entire racism or over our anti-sex is a more guarded by the way, women of color are women. this is a combination of racism and sexism and that has a devastating impact on women of color. some of the numbers are astonishing. in 2009, a study showed that the net worth, the wealth, what you owe-what you own for african- american women who are not married, the number is $100. 18 years and over, the median net worth of african-american women is $100 and latino women, $120 but for white women, it is $41,500. that is one of the starkest

examples of how the combination of sexism and racism devastates women of color. those numbers are heavily influenced by the drop in housing prices. they're mostly driven by housing values and white women benefit from owning houses which, over all around the country, did not go down in value as much as four women of color. it is a startling disparity that in the women's movement, we need to focus on changing. host: what do you think about that larose and comments about ann romney? guest: i don't use the phrase that women work or don't work. my mom never worked outside the home and she referred to her self as she doesn't work. she was probably one of the hardest working women i've ever met. i use the phrase work outside

the home or work for pay outside the home. it is a mouthful but it is accurate. hilary rosen said ann romney has never worked outside the home for pay and that is accurate and i think hillary rosen was questioning whether the governor and mrs. romney had the kind of life experience that would give them an understanding of what ordinary middle-class families are struggling with. clearly the run these are extremely fortunate -- the romneys are extremely fortunate and do not experience what most americans are experiencing. i have heard since then that it was not so much the phrase of whether she works outside the home or does not work, it is really more that any woman because she has some work experience whether in the home or not, that she has a right to be heard about economics. that i agree with very much so,

certainly right to be heard and ann romney has a huge megafauna she could make her voice heard. so far, i have not heard much i agree with. host: the next call comes from st. paul, minnesota. caller: i always enjoy you, thank you for the opportunity. let me be brief. i don't disagree with the cause that n.o.w. is working for but this is where the argument is in trouble. i believe in the constitution and i believe in a limited role of the federal government. when a woman or man or anyone is negatively impacted by violence or what have you, i believe that as a state issue. my concern is that we consistently go to the federal government for these types of programs where my preference would be to see these types of

organizations that work at the state level and let the states make programs that meet the needs of their states. thank you for the opportunity. guest: thank you for the comment. the problem is that that is a failed policy. when violence against women was left to the states, it did not work. violence is an epidemic. one in three women will be subjected to violence and the vast majority of cases, it will be by an intimate partner in her lifetime. the numbers are absolutely staggering. because the state overall failed to respond to the challenge, it is absolutely necessary for the federal government to step in. host: the next call is from cumberland, maryland, a democrat, good morning. caller: thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion. i find this very interesting, this topic.

i want to expressly state that violence against women runs through all socio-economic stratas - rich, poor, it does not make a difference. also, when you go up in front of a judge and you are trying to prosecute your husband for bad review, -- for battery and you, the judge should be made more aware of what is going on with domestic violence. i took my second husband against a judge in maryland but the judge had the nerve to say to me, "do you expect me to believe what you are saying to me?" >i said that is what happens. i believe women should go to domestic violence classes like i went to and men should be locked

up and given counseling are not beating and mistreating women of any age and i think it is a democrat, republican, independent, anybody but it runs all socio-economic class is. it is not just the poor. guest: that is absolutely right. it is a point that needs to be said and repeated constantly. violence against women runs across all socio-economic levels, all educational levels. you have professors at prestigious universities who have been subjected to violence or have committed violence in an intimate relationship. it runs across the entire country. it is in the cities and small towns and rural communities. it is across the political spectrum from the right wing to the left wing. you find violence and intimate relationships. one of the key aspects of the

violence against women act is grants that are made to state and local government to offer training to judges specifically who are faced especially in family court with allegations of violence and try to figure out what happened and what to do about the violence. we have a culture that is centuries old in which judges were not informed about this and it did not have the knowledge or the tools to deal with it. the violence against women act has never been fully funded. if it were, we would have a lot more understanding on the part of judges. we would have a much better environment within which a victim of violence could go in and tell her story and be believed. that is something that has been sorely lacking. host: a republican from tennessee, you are on. caller: i think we need a

violence against a baby's act. you look at 55 million babies that have been aborted and we have a baby boomers that are retiring now that these babies would be paying social security. we are an aging population because we are destroying our yarn and democratic people don't see them as human. you are either black or hispanic or lesbian or this or that. we are all human out here. gobble those responsible for this, for all these children that have been killed. it is a shame and disgrace. -- god will hold us responsible for this and all these children that have been killed host: here is a twitter comment. guest: no, we are for women and women who disagree with us get the benefit of the violence against women act. women who disagree with us get

all the benefits of the non- discrimination laws that have helped. all women across the country actually benefit from the things we advocate. one in three women will have an abortion. it is common and necessary. you can bring the rate of abortion down by having universal birth control. make birth control available to any woman who wants it universally. it is a fact that birth control is a key part of women's preventive health. the other thing that would bring the abortion rate down would be medically accurate and age appropriate comprehensive sex education which would include relationship education. it would include talking to girls and boys in middle schools and high schools about appropriate behavior, about how girls get to decide for themselves whether they are ready for a particular type of

relationship or particular intimacy. we find that very often girls are pressured into sex and sometimes boys feel pressured into pressuring their girlfriends for sex. the comprehensive education would not only bring the abortion rate down, it would raise the general health of young people everywhere. i respect the religious views of people who oppose abortion. my sense is that they should be guided in their own behavior is by their religious views of the united states constitution prohibits someone else's religious views from impending on other people's constitutional rights and that includes other people's religious rights. tweet --e is a trait next call comes from colleen, a

democrat in wisconsin. caller: yes, near oshkosh. i would like to say that i am angry at governor scott walker for repealing the equal pay for equal work act. i was in an alcoholic a violent relationship with my husband for 13 years. it was only because we were protected with equal pay that i was able to go back to school, learn how to read blueprints, and become a machinist that i was able to get out of that situation. now with that act be repealed, we can no longer count on equal pay for equal work. guest: it is astonishing. after the national consciousness was really raised about the so- called war on women, my

organization has been calling it a war on women for over two years but since the 2010 election and january of 2011 -- after this whole uproar about whether there is a war of women and after we saw women turning their backs on the republican party in droves, we see scott walker repealing the equal pay act. it is astonishing. scott walker also went after selectively women public employees and not the man. the first thing he did as governor was to announce that he was going to outlaw collective bargaining by public employee unions. he exempted three unions. the four unions that were suggested to his anti-collective bargaining role were the teachers, the nurses, the child care workers, and the home health-care workers. the three unions that were exempted were the police, the

firefighters, and the state troopers. the men's unions stood in solidarity with the women which was huge. it was scott walker who selectively went after women workers and now he is going after women workers again by signing the repeal of the state level equal pay act. it is absolutely astonishing and it only reinforces the sense that there is a war against women going on. host: we have been talking with terry o'neil, the president of the national organization for women. thank you for being on "washington journal." we have one more guest coming up and that is steve forbes who will join us from our new york studio. we will be right back. >> for this years studentcam competition, we asked students to create. -- video explaining what part of the constitution was in part to them and why. today we will go to racine, wisconsin to speak with a second prize winner, and eighth grade

at mckinley middle school. hi. your video is on the full body scanners and its relationship to the fourth amendment. why did you choose this topic? >> we decided to go with this topic because we wanted something that people could become emotionally attached to. another reason we chose it is because it appealed to such a variety of people, anybody who has ever traveled by plane before has come into contact with tsa and possibly a full body scanners that what was your goal by using the promise of superman on trial? >> we wanted something that people were familiar and comfortable with and also we wanted to know why people thought superman was so cool and some people don't like tsa when they are doing the same thing that you interviewed an employee from the department of home and security. >> how did he deepen our understanding on this topic? >> it is pretty tricky to get an

interview from somebody like a homeland security or tsa because they are very private about what information they released to the general public. we are very grateful that mr. darrow took part in our interview and he helped deepen my understanding on scanners and technology. >> you interviewed several people on their personal views on the full body scanners. how did this help you understand the different sides of the issue? >> by telling me what everyday people think about these scanners, where there are comforts and discomforts. >> what was your favorite part of the entire process of creating this documentary? >> that would probably be the interviewing. i got to interact with new people which i like and i got to gain more knowledge on the topic. >> what would you like others to learn when they watch your

documentary? >> i would like others to learn that these scanners are necessary and i would like them to learn the tsa is making efforts to make people more comfortable with these machines. >> thank you for talking with us today. >> thank you. >> here's a portion of this documentary, the adventures of superman. >> lois lane is accusing the defendant, superman, of violating her fourth amendment rights by looking through her clothes and by letting her personal privacy. how does the defendant pleaded? >> the defendant would like to enter a plea of not guilty. >> does the plaintive have an opening statements? >> yes, she does, your honor. reply to claims that under numerous occasions, the defendant used his x-ray vision to violate her personal privacy and support -- and to flaunt

fourth amendment rights and he said he was doing it for personal protection. >> does the defendant had an opening statement? >> the defendant like to point out that he only uses his superpowers for good and in this case, was making sure that lois was not carrying any diseases like skin cancer or smallpox that might affect her or anyone who comes in contact with our. >her. x-ray vision is being used daily for thousands of individuals. washington, d.c. circuit court of appeals has recently ruled that searches are legal and do not violate an individual's fourth amendment rights. >> you can watch the entire video and olwen in documentaries on studentcam.org and continue the conversation on our facebook and twitter pages. >> "washington journal" continued -- host: china's from our new

york studio is steve forbes, twice presidential candidate and president and ceo of forbes. thank you for being a "washington journal." have you endorsed mitt romney yet? guest: i am endorsing him as the republican nominee. earlier in the campaign, i had endorsed director perry the governor from texas and he dropped out several months ago and i said at the time whoever gets the nomination i would in doors and mr. romney will be the nominee so i am backing him 100%. host: what is your enthusiasm level? guest: it is picking up. the one good about this campaign even though it looked like a hurt the republicans short term is that i think it made mr. run a better candidate. he has come out with a very good tax proposal. he has come up with some positive reforms on entitlements. i think he is moving in the right direction. you have to have positive proposal to go up against the

incumbent for the november elections. he is a much better candidate than he was four months ago, four years ago and a much better candidate than he was three months ago. i am positive. host: where do you disagree with president obama on economic matters? guest: well, let's go down the list -- first is his weak dollar policy which is -- which has devastated the economy into recovery, the been spending -- you have to ask yourself where the money comes from a. it does not come from heaven, it comes from the american people, barley, taxing, or printed money which is another form of taxation. his desire to raise taxes especially on capitol and what he has done to help care -- i hope the supreme court throws it out. it would have a devastating impact on health care in america. it is a pretty long list their host: what about the congress?

what you think about the republican house? guest: i think they have made some good attempts to do some positive things but one thing about government in this country and some of the republicans have been a little frustrated by is that our founders this of we designed the system so you don't take great lurches in one direction or another. they got one control of one house, the house of representatives. i think this november, they will get control of the senate and white house. then they will have a mandate to do a positive agenda. i think the american people will be supportive of it. you have to bring public opinion along. i beg that is what we see unfolding now, reaching a new consensus. host: in your magazine on-line, you have an interview conducted with former president george w. bush. here is the first page of that interview -- some of you may gag, but on

trade and other things else, bush 43 as it right is the headline. why did you and clue"some of you may get" part. guest: president bush to be the first to tell you that his reputation has suffered especially what happened in 2007-2008. he has always been a controversial figure as president going back to his election in 2000. we are serving up and saying put aside your personal feelings on some of these issues. he's got some very useful and helpful things to say. host: what about the tax cuts of 2001-2002-2003? guest: the powerful ones were 2003. the 2001 was nice but they are spread over many years. it did not have much impact. the tax cuts of 2003 was

brought into effect immediately. they worked. the economy revived after the 2001 recession. my only regret was they did not do more to simplify the tax code. those rates were good. i think one of the reasons why we are showing the life we have in the economy today is that those rates were renewed in december of 2010. i think there will be a lot of debate whether they should be renewed again at least for a few months until we can in 2013 get a real comprehensive tax simplification and reform. host: i don't know of warren buffett as a friend of yours, but have you ever discussed the buffet role with him guest:? i have not i have no member in many years. we are good friends even if we disagree politically. the so-called buffet rule is one of those things that would do more harm than good grade it

would raise the capital gains tax to a level we have not seen since the carter years in the capitaland, because i gains are uncertain and most new businesses don't succeed, it is risk -- it punishes or risk- taking. you'll get rid less risk taking in less future prosperity. even the small numbers that the buffet rule would raise, about $4 billion per year each year for 10 years, in the real world, it would be less. every time we raise the capital gains tax, we end up losing capital gains revenue, not gaining. this is a thing that would destroy capital, reduced risk taking and hurt the economy. i don't think it will come to pass. host: steve forbes is our guest and a phone numbers are on the screen. you could also send the o emailr a tweet.

the first call, j fromoe, a democrat in bethlehem, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i would like to know why it is that all the time you conservative republicans never have anything good to say about what the president is doing or what the democrats are doing. it is only your idea that the conservative republicans are the only ones who are able to try to do anything for the economy which they never have done anything. do you think it's a good idea for some of these conservative republicans like rush limbaugh going around and threatening to kill the president of united states. is that a good idea? >> rush limbaugh has never threatened to kill the u.s. president of united states and i don't know what your referring to. in terms of the president's

economic policies, if you believe those policies are doing more harm than good, you should say so. this economic recovery is just about one of the worst in american history. normally after a sharp downturn initially, you get a sharp upturn in the economy and the question becomes if you can't sustain it. this is one of the worst on record. i think the reasons are the weak dollar, the been spending, massive tax increases, huge regulation, and the uncertainty those policies have created. in terms of positive things, republicans have always had a likeive proposals job creation and one of the failures of the recent years was that republicans did not advocate a strong and sound the dollar. reagan did, bill clinton did, john kennedy did bottom portion of the previous administration did not and this administration is worse. in terms of my own conservatism, if i see republicans doing the

wrong, i never hesitate to criticize them. if the democrats do things right, never hesitate to praise them. i thought bill clinton had it right on the dollar and said so at the time. host: indiana, republican line, go ahead to -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel the conservatives in america are basically trying to pay off the credit card, so to speak and the progressives on both sides are trying to bring up the credit card like drunken sailors. are we almost had a saturation point when 49% of the americans at the end of the year don't pay taxes and believe in an entitlement society? are we really at the press as best of it will be too late in turn in greece or are we getting out the message of fiscal responsibility? are we too late to get the message out to?

? guest: i think what has happened in western europe and particularly greece and other countries like spain which is going to re terrible time is an object lesson of what happens when you pursue these reckless policies. in this country, i think the mood has changed. i live in new jersey, a blue states agree we have a republican governor but the democrats control the legislature. nonetheless, they were able to agree on budgets that are far lower than they were when chris christie took office, major reforms in terms of health care policies and pension policies that are wrecking other you municipalities in other states. people of new jersey knew we could not continue on this path. new york state, a democratic governor, got her a budget that was slightly less than the year before. i think the american people know we cannot continue on this path. i think it is a consensus. we have to be -- we can't

continue this reckless spending and their positive reforms of things like social security and medicare that don't affect those on the systems today but put in positive reforms for people less than the age of 55 said they have something there. and we don't go broke as you see in western europe. yes, i think we're moving in a positive direction. in terms of taxes, even though they don't call it a tax, working americans pay payroll taxes in the form of social security/medicare taxes. even if you don't end up paying in income tax, you do pay a payroll tax is not to mention all the state and local taxes and states are very ferocious. i was telling the governor of maine the other day that the top income tax in maine which was reduced to 7.9%, its head and, of a little more of $19,000

per even if you escape the federal income tax, you get slammed on the state level with property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes. i think the top american people are in a mood for fundamental reform and i'm optimistic about november a host: senator conrad has been moving a budget in the senate based-on the simpsonbowles debt commission budget. would you have supported that had that become the vehicle? guest: i think there is a lot to recommend in some-bowles. i wish they had been more aggressive but they are moving in the right direction. that is why i am optimistic that in january, there are a lot of democrats --bowles is a democrat and worked closely with bill clinton and democrats on that commission, many of them signed on to the idea of simplifying the code with positive reforms on entitlements. it has been the white house, to be blunt, that has blocked

agreement on these things. come january, you will find all the republicans but a lot of democrats will say we've got to make changes. i think a new consensus is emerging that will be good for this country imported host: there is a social media program tou calledt that we are starting -- calledtout that we are starting to use where people can send in a video and advertised that you would be on the program. we got some responses to that. here t is aout video from sam and the >> sen. >> which presidential candidate do you think as the best chance to fix the economy? guest: good fundamental question. of the two major candidates, i think mitt romney by far has the best plan. he has a tax proposal plan to reduce tax rates and simplify

the code, not as far as i would like to go, but moving in the right direction, very positive tax plan. he knows the need for reducing spending and reforming health care in positive ways. yes, i think governor romney has a much better proposal for getting this economy back on its feet which is why i think in november, even though it will be a nasty campaign, i think he will try and and that consensus will be there to get real things done in january. host: is there an opportunity to reform the tax code? you have talked about that for years. guest: the answer is yes. taking the sense inb-owles commission, -- taking the simpson-bowles commission, they did not endorse a flat tax which is what i am for but they bought into the concept.

in the 1986, we saw a consensus emerged on simplifying the tax code. democrats signed onto it including the chairman of the ways and means committee who was a democratic. the time reduced a lot of tax shelters from the tax code and reduced the number of tax brackets from 2% and that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. the cleaned up the code somewhat and reduced rates and simplified the number of tax brackets. it was a good reform bill. i think you can achieve the kind of consensus next year. i think some-sunbowles is a proof positive that a lot of democrats now this has to be done. in 1986, democrats got to clean out loopholes and i think we will do it again in 2013, reduced tax rates, and i think will get a bipartisan bill on it.

host: steve forbes is our guest . we will be ourtout throughout the "washington journal" you can see what it's like at tout.com. you can send in a video. clearwater, fla., on our independent line caller:. hello and thank you for taking my call. i am an independent and i think politicians should be given a lie detector test before they perform duties. they spend too much but i think of obama gets elected again, a lot of people are leaving the united states because a lot of people think they can stick their hand out and that the government is supposed to support them and where does the money come from?

i would like to seek like the other guy that says republicans are against democrats -- he understands that he has a business and has bought $100 budget, $25 is for operations, $25 for supplies, $25 for salaries, and $25 are for taxes. if they increase the taxes to $40, they have to cut jobs were cut this or cutbacks. people unfortunately do not understand this. they have by high school or less education and there are different levels of decrees intelligence. host: i think we got your point. guest: in terms of small businesses, makes a very good point. small businesses, many of them

have very small margins. they spend a lot of time on unnecessary tax forms and bring a bookkeeper in and trying to make sure they're not running afoul of regulations and it makes it very difficult to succeed. if you raise the buffet rule or what president obama has proposed, $250,000 or more of income, that it's individuals and small businesses particularly businesses that have 25-60 employees. they fall in that bracket so bay -- their effective tax rate will go up which means they survive and they will do less tiring and less investing. take the restaurant industry which is by nature has a very high casualty rate, i have talked to restaurant doors to setca obamare as it is now written -- they will be crushed by the cost of the rules of the

money they have to lay out that again will hurt job creation. the mass of on certainty we see here is hurting especially small businesses that don't have big tax department and legal departments. they are the ones that create most of the new jobs in this economy. host: air istw dateeet - guest: put me aside from it. if you want to stay with the old code, go ahead. you can carve out an exemption for may. in terms of simplifying the tax code, the tax code today is one of the biggest sources of political corruption and wait on this economy. the lincoln gettysburg address is 272. words the declaration of independence is 15 other words and the constitution and the amendments is a little more than 7000 words and the bible is over 72 out thousand words and a

federal tax code is 9 million words and rising. nobody knows what is in it. the virtue of the flat tax is if you make it, you pay it agreed to worry about companies not paying their taxes under the flat tax, they make the money, they pay it for you cannot hide. in that sense, you get more compliance, you have low rates so you encourage things like risk-taking and reward success which means you'll get more of those good things. it is good all around. don't perk -- don't personalize it. ask what is best for america and cleaning up this horrific political system we have. let's throw out the tax code and start with something people can actually host:: a democrat in washington -- you are all on. caller: wow, thank you. you indicated that you think that you will retain the house

and senate and the white house a you can have a mandate. there was a mandate into thousand eight and the president did not accomplish his goal for the will of the people because of the off the chart filibusters and the fact that the democrats never had a majority. senator lieberman campaigned for the other candidate. i don't want to hear that you could've gotten everything you wanted because you had 60 votes. we never had 60 votes. the democrats are more broad minded party with broader ideas. republicans are very strong and lock step in their efforts. the record filibusters', you

cannot say you are in the minority. guest: in terms of 2008, joe lieberman may have liked john mccain but he did not endorse john mccain and when caucues, he did with the democrats. he voted for president obama's health care bill. in terms of the health care bill, even though the american people showed it was unpopular, he got through and they got through massive spending increases and the dodd-frank area of many big things, he got his mandate and it was repudiated in elections of 2010. in terms of 2013, there is no way republicans will have a filibuster-proof majority in the united states senate. unless there is a huge blowout and i don't anticipate that. because there is an emerging consensus and used a s as

withimpson-bowles, there are many democrats to know that medicare and social security for younger people are headed off the cliff. they know we cannot continue this massive debt and been spending, look at western europe. i think he will get a consensus. even though the gop will not have anywhere near 60 members of the senate, there will be a lot of democrats in favor of positive reforms just as we saw in the state of new jersey. chris christie could say anything he wants but the democrats did not go along in the legislature, it would not have become law and he achieved a lot of positive things because a lot of democrats said we have to make positive changes and we have to do these things and they did. i think we are in the process of doing that nationwide. host: here is an e-mail --

guest: [applause] [laughter] this will probably take up the rest of the show. what you want is you want to have more free markets in health care and more effective safety nets. when people have trouble getting food in this country, you don't have the government take over agriculture. russia and china tried that with disastrous results. if people have problems getting food, you have food bags and food stamps to deal with it. why in the world can we do that in health care? have the patient in control instead of a third party and more effective safety nets whether you have the equivalent of health vouchers and the likes of people get minimum care and shore up the safety net system instead of having to go to the

emergency room. how about nationwide shopping for health insurance? if you live in a state, each state restricts how many companies can compete for your business. i live in new jersey. i can get a perfectly good health policy and pennsylvania but is it legal for me to buy it. i can buy a house and pennsylvania so why not nationwide shopping so you have hundreds of companiesvying for your business? how about equal tax treatment? if you are an individual that does not like your employer's plan and you want to buy what in the marketplace, you have to pay for it with after-tax dollars. that is not right. there are positive reforms that can be done. sure up the safety net system as the f done withood and have more patient control with health care and get the kind of productivity and cost reduction and increase in the supply of health care that we have everywhere else in the economy.

we cannot continue with the status quo. more government control is not the right answer. more free markets and the effective safety nets instead of a hodgepodge we have today, we did it with food and we can do it in health care. host: the labor department is reporting on unemployment applications. the number of people seeking unemployment benefits dipped last week but remained higher than it has been in recent weeks. the slight rise in applications in the past few weeks could signal that gains in the job market are not equal. here is another email -- guest: i'm not going to get off for device presidency. there are many good people out there like bobby jindal in louisiana and marco rubio in florida, rob portman from ohio,

our governor chris christie. in terms of any thing in the run the administration, i don't think i will get offered a job. i will certainly support the positive policies romney puts forth. if i think there's something wrong with those policies, i have the freedom to criticize. for vice president joe biden no,, if you want lose money, that on may. host: water because of high gas prices? guest: the biggest cause and this is the most boring topic in the world, monetary policy, the biggest cause of high gasoline prices and higher oil prices is the cheap dollar. we should have learned this from the 1970's. when you trash the u.s. dollar by printing too many dollars as the federal reserve has been doing for 10 years, you get

higher commodity prices. you see it in the gold prices and oil prices. in the 1970's, oil went from $3 per barrel to $40 per barrel because of printing summit dollars and when ronald reagan stopped that in the early 1980's, well went from $40 and stabilized at $20 where it remained until the fed went on as been 10 years ago. it has gone from $20 to $100 per barrel. have a strong and stable dollar. john kennedy said the dollar should be as good as gold and clinton understood that and i hope the next president understands that. we also have to remove unnecessary barriers to the creation of energy sources in this country. we have a lot of on export availability of gas and oil in alaska, offshore, on shore with natural gas. we are having a huge natural bo gasom.

if we don't put unnecessary barriers in the way, within less than a decade for the first and since the 1960's, this country will be a net energy exporter. it is phenomenal. it would be a huge stir because of technological breakthroughs in the drilling for natural gas and also with oil more and more. host: a few minutes left with our guest, steve forbes. richard is a republican in middletown, new york -- caller: mr. forbes, over a month ago we talked and you talked about the canada with the best plan was ron paul. -- you talk about the candidate with the best plan was ron paul.

he had 8500 people at ucla -- [unintelligible] we have things like a comprehensive annual financial reform which is like a double set of votes. on less than a look at the assets of the municipalities -- host: we got the point about ron paul. guest: in terms of the race of the 33 contests in the primaries and caucuses, while he had a lot of enthusiasm and supporters, he did not win one of those contests. he is nowhere near to getting the nomination. what i like about ron paul is his views on the dollar. he is the one candidate who has some comprehension of this board subject which is critical about the dollar and monetary policy. rather than run for president, i

think he should run for chairman of the fed. i would gladly support him for that. he is one candidate who understands when you trash your money, we pay a huge price in breaking down the social order, reducing the standard of living, reducing real wages in this country. that is something he profoundly gets and i hope governor romney and others pay more attention to ron paul on the critical subjects. is a tweet -n t is safew guest: in terms of employment, i think the american people now understand that the unemployment rate in and of itself hardly gives you a complete picture. a lot of people have jobs that they take because they have no other choice. many people are working part time who would like to work full time. a lot of people are discouraged

and have dropped out of the labor. market even though we have had some gains in recent months, the situation is nowhere near where we need to do to get a good employment picture in this country. in terms of a representative paul ryan's plan, i think it is positive. he would have two tax rates instead of one, 25% instead of 10% which is a huge improvement. he's got very positive proposals on medicare and social security. the emphasis is for people on medicare and social security and are about to go on in the next five-seven years or 10 years, you are not affected by his reforms. it is only people who are younger. sense of these systems, democrats off the record, most of them will tell you the two systems medicare and social security will not work for younger people.

while we still have time, make reforms now so that younger people have something when they become of age. this is a positive approach. don't take away anything from people who are on those systems today but put in new systems that give something to younger people. i think he will clarify the rules which will help job creation and with a more vibrant economy, that is the only way you get resources to meet commitments in the future. host: independent line, you are on with steve forbes from minnesota. caller: good morning cspan and americassteve, you are the man. i wish you would have switched to the republican party because they are not very conservative as we all know. do we need a c thanpa's than

lawyers -- do we need more cpa's than lawyers in government? what did mitt romney pay in taxes? why are they talking percentages? where is the logic? uest: enter rounds ofcpa's, i'm not concerned with their profession is as long as they understand incentives, positive incentives, free markets and able people to enjoy a higher standard of living. if they get it, i don't care what their profession is. in terms of republicans -- many republicans have not behaved very well fiscally and that is one reason why the tea party rose up in many of those republicans did not win the primaries. they are seeing some of that

play out this year as well. the bottom line is -- the american people are ahead of their political leaders in knowing that things have to be done and it is not austerity in terms of throwing granma off the cliff or any of that nonsense. if you do positive things now, you have a much better future and more prosperous future and will avoid the horrors that are unfolded in greece and the rest of western europe. we don't have to go down that path host: we have time for alisa in sacramento calif., a democrat. caller: good morning. i just have three questions and one of them already answered. he says he does not support affordable health care with obama but obama adopted from mitt romney. the second thing is you say you support the paul ryan budget and the third thing is how you started business when you are

unemployed and -- and have no money? host: we have about 30 seconds. can you take that third question on starting a business to guest:? if you have an idea for a product or service, many people have started a business by producing the product and then going to friends or family to start raising money. even though i am not a big government guy, you can go to the small business administration and try to persuade them or others to help you with capital. many people are able to. it they don't have to have a lot of capital in the beginning. the key thing is to come up with something and persuade others and that a bo is how youot strap it up. host: steve forbes has been our guest and we appreciate taking calls from our viewers. guest: thank you. host: the house of representatives is coming into

session in a minute and they will work in small business tax cut act. i want to remind you that this weekend on book-tv, we will be live from the los angeles times book festival. you can find the whole schedule, about nine different call in programs of this weekend on saturday and sunday on book-tv island cspan 2. you can see that we will be broadcasting live on-line rodney king talking about his new book on tuesday night. you and all c-span.org to go to for the full schedule. the house of representatives is now coming into session. will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., april 19,

2012. i hereby appoint the honorable candice s. miller, to act as speaker pro tempore on this day . signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: our prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, reverend baker from morganville, kentucky. reverend. the chaplain: let us pray. heavenly father, we thank you this day for your many blessings to us as citizens of the united states of america. for our nation, for our freedom, for our prosperity, for our heritage, for our defenders, past and present, for the duty of our land, for our families, for our faith in you, for all whom we love. keep us in your watchful care.

make us strong as a people. bless our unity. bless our diversity. bless this august body in their deliberations. may god bless us, everyone. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. green: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. green: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will

rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by ms. hochul. ms. hochul: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, is recognized for one minute. mr. whitfield: madam speaker, thank you very much. i'm satellited today father jerald baker, pastor of st. anne catholic church in morganville, kentucky, gave our opening prayer. he's served there since 2002. father baker was the -- also the pastor prior to that in my hometown in hop kinsville, kentucky, where he was a wonderful community leader. among other things, he started the free clinic in hop

kinsville. he received his master of divinity degree from mount st. mary seminary in maryland in 1983. i might say that is the same year our chaplain conroy received his degree also in 1983. he was ordained in 1983. we're also delighted to have the eighth grade class of st. anne's catholic church with us this morning from morganville, and they will be taking a tour of the capitol. and so once again, i want to thank father baker for being with us today for his leadership in our congressional district as well as the state of kentucky and the spiritual leadership he provides our citizens. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> madam speaker, i rise today to remember the life and service of command sergeant major retired herb brav. this extraordinary man who served for 27 years and he died march 19, 2012 in st. augustine, florida. herb was a legend. a former heavyweight boxer. he joined the army in 1947, served tours in korea, the philippines and vietnam. mr. womack: his iconic service with the m.f.o. impacted thousands of soldiers from many forces. when the will is strong, everything is easy was his mantra. soldiering was everything for this patriot. he rarely took a vacation. never away from the soldiers at south camp.

his wife, his two children in saluting herb for his service to country and his fellow man. let us remember his immortal words, when the will is strong, everything is easy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: and the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to honor and recognize a true american patriot, sergeant william wilson of amherst, new york, my district, forg giving the ultimate sacrifice and service to his country. ms. hochul: on march 26 of this year, sergeant wilson lost his life defending us in afghanistan while serving with nato forces. billy, as he was fondly called by his family, served our country for seven years and was on his third tour of duty.

his commanders said he was my best, my most skilled and talented squad leader. that's who billy was, selfless, dedicated, always putting his heart and soul into his soldiers. he asked his family and friends and looked into the eyes of his mom and dad, they were overwhelmed with pride of his service. he was proud to put on the uniform and serve our country. his smile would light up a room. just ask any of the thousands of people who came and paid tribute to him this past week. a devoted family, friend, respected and loved by many. to his brother, he's known as superman. for his brave efforts, sergeant wilson was awarded the bronze star and purple heart. my message today is for billy's parents, bill and kim, his brothers, jeremy, wesley, his fiancee, his entire family, his grandma. i want them to know, your boy did not die in vain. he honored this country for his

service and for that we are forever grateful. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, it's a new day in washington, and soon the unelected, unaccountable regulators will be sending out new rules to the people. the fourth branch of government meddles in every aspect of our lives and the name of saving of saving us from ourselves, they regulate, regulate, regulate. without with regard to the consequences of these expensive government mandates. sometimes they put businesses out of business. susan, a small business owner in texas, wrote me this -- our small business is operated on a shoestring for several years and we started in 1978. but i fear we are at an end. we manufacture 400 products all made from the same materials. the new product safety

regulations require that we certify every product to the tune of about $500 per product, even though they're all made from the same materials. do the math, $175,000 or more just to get these products that we made since 1978 certified? add on the health care fines and the rising cost of gasoline and the rising property and sales and income taxes, well, you know the rest of the story. madam speaker, the regulators close the doors of small businesses like susan's and that ought not to be and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: madam speaker, i rise today in honor of lance corporal abraham toller of the united states marine corps. elected to serve the united states when he joined the marine course in 2009. he was promoted to the rank of lance corporal just two years

ago. as a member of the second battalion based in camp lejeune in north carolina, lance corporal toller was conducting combat operations as part of operation enduring freedom in afghanistan when he lost his life on april 12. among other awards, he earned the combat action ribbon and sea service deployment ribbon. his family will be having a funeral in liberia as well as in the united states. my prayers are with his wife, their 1-year-old son and his entire family. with heavy hearts we remember him today. may we honor his memory always. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, 97 years ago

the government of the ottoman empire killed over 1.5 million people during the armenian genocide. mr. dold area the turkish state never held responsibility for their acts and maintains that the genocide never took place. for the past 90 years the armenian people sought justice, yet the turkish justice has continued to actively obstruct any attempt to recognize what has happened to the armenian people. the united states can help bring closure to this longstanding moral issue by recognizing the armenian genocide. that's why i am proud to be a sponsor of house resolution 304 which would formally recognize this atrocity. to date, 88 members of this body have joined me in support of the resolution. i urge all of my other colleagues to support what is a very important resolution. if we do nothing the victims of

this horrible genocide may be forgotten. we cannot allow that to happen. madam speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. green: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. green: madam speaker, i rise in support of small business and domestic manufacturing in our district and throughout our country and the need for congress to support manufacturing and job creation. last week i visited a company dan lock bolt and casket, a bolt and metal manufacturing company located in houston. they are highly regarded and for their quality and longevity. they produce for our energy industry like the bolt i'm holding right now. in recent years dan lock, like thousands of consumer small businesses throughout our country, have been under attack from cheap and low-quality competition from companies overseas. they have actually forced businesses to close their doors or drastic cuts. these foreign imports are

oftentimes cheaper than the raw materials produced these bolts. they can only do this with illegal subsidies from their governments. we can no longer ignore this issue. otherwise our country will no longer have a manufacturing sector and the millions of middle class jobs it supports. congress needs to remember the hard workers who support their -- support their jobs who make these bolts. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise too cogget the illinois mathematics and science academy on their 25 years of excellent education. since opening its doors to students in 1986, the academy has graduated nearly 5,000 students and has global recognition to the state of illinois. with the focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or stem education, they have developed the

talented work force we need to compete in the modern world. they have provided opportunities to underresource students, breaking down geographic and socioeconomic barriers. mr. hultgren: i am proud to represent the academy here in washington. i'd like to add a special thanks to dr. leon letterman. his vision helped find the academy. his leadership has helped it become what is today. congratulations to the illinois math and science academy and good luck to the robotics team when they compete in st. louis. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to honor ms. sidney schmidt. he hails from the first congressional district of minnesota and is the water of mary kay and lieutenant colonel

brad smith and sister to danny smith. mr. walz: as a high school teacher and 24-year veteran of our military, i understand how challenging it is for families when your parents are deployed overseas. we know that when a parent's called to duty they aren't the only ones who serve this nation. the family serves as well. sidney maintains a 4.0 grade average, volunteers as a big sister, tutors elementary students, spends time with senior citizens as well as excelling at band and sports. i applaud sidney's ability to set an example for her peers, not only in her community, but across the country. they are a testament for hire passion to community, her involvement and her love of country. we honor those achievements and set the example for others. congratulations to sidney and all the military kids, families and service members. i and the rest of this nation thank you for your service to america and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask

permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, advantaged wisely -- if managed wise-l, america's initial forests can provide recreational opportunities, and thousands of jobs in the timber industry. unfortunately, a lack of effective forest management in the united states has led to poor forest health. mr. coffman: this can and does cause forest fires. recently colorado, the north fort fire destroyed 27 homes and killed three homeowners. the fire was caused by a prescribed burn designed to prevent a catastrophic forest fire. clearly this incident exemplifies the need for alternative forest management tools such as increased timber harvesting to reduce the risk of

wildfires in the future. through prudent forest management and the ability to access and harvest our timber resources, these communities can support jobs while fostering healthy forest. safeguarding the natural beauty of colorado and the nation and protecting against dangerous wildfires. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to recognize the white house's first ever rotary day. mr. deutch: tomorrow americans from rotary clubs across the nation will be honored as champions of change in their communities. many of us in this house frequent rotary clubs throughout our districts. i'm always pleased to meet with constituents so committed to honest discussion, civic engagement, and the betterment of our community. last week at a meeting of a rotary club in coral springs,

florida, i was reminded of something i would like to share would you, the four way test. they guide them in their daily lives. is it the truth? is it fair to all concerned? will it build big will and better friendships? will it be beneficial to all concerned? madam speaker, washington has been paralyze bide partisan politics and a disappointing level of discourse. if we can just approach our nation's problems a bit more like the rotary club's four way test, we would be better off. after all, at a time of great challenge facing our nation, the american people deserve no less than a congress that operates with honesty, builds bipartisanship, and base its decisions on whether or not it will be beneficial to all our citizens. enjoy your visit to the white house tomorrow for rotary day. i hope the rotary's four way test visits congress very soon. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. session: good morning, madam speaker. madam speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 620 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 126, house resolution 620. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 9, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to provide a decanucks for -- deduction for domestic business income for qualified small businesses. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one,

one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. two, the further amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. if offered by representative levin of michigan or his designee. which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and three, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one hour. mr. session: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to amend the resolution with an amendment i have placed at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sellingses of texas -- sessions of texas, page 2, line 8, strike one hour and insert 70 minutes. page two, line 16, strike 20 and

insert 25. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, the resolution is amended. mr. session: for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, mr. hastings, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sessions: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: madam speaker, i rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. house resolution 620 provides a structured rule for h.r. 9, the small business tax cut act. the bill was introduced on march 21, 2012, by our leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. and was ordered reported by the committee on ways and means on april 10. the rule provides for consideration of amendment in

the nature of a substitute as is standard practice for this legislation when dealing with tax policy. madam speaker, today we'll be considering the underlying legislation which will allow the house of representatives yet another opportunity to ease the burden on small businesses across america by giving them the economic tools to create jobs and to help grow our economy. it would be an understatement not to recognize that this -- -- small businesses are under duress in this country, the economic circumstances which abound across the entire country are not only obvious to every one of our citizens but also to this body and we are here doing our job today following through not just in regular order but the processes to make sure that we are talking about what congress should be doing to aid small business.

i believe that by giving them the economic tools, the free enterprise system, and entrepreneurs, men and women, will know exactly what to do because we are allowing them competitive advantages. earlier this week congressional democrats and president obama offered their plan and their plan is to raise taxes on small businesses. we disagree with that. so today the republicans in the house of representatives under our great tutelage and leadership of our majority leader, eric kenter, offer a different vision for america. despite their best effort, congressional democrats think that we can tax our way to improving our economy. it's really simple logic, increases taxes on job creators will not help create jobs. it will place new impediments and roadblocks for not just job creation but the opportunity for

business and small business to be successful. congressional republicans once again today are stand with small businesses across the nation as we demand less government intervention and more marketplace creativity and the opportunity for small business to get what it needs. madam speaker, as this congress and the american people know the job creators are small businesses. they are the engine of our economy. and as a former chairman of the board for a small chamber of commerce in dallas, texas, the greater east dallas chamber of commerce, i saw firsthand entrepreneurship and the availability of talent that was necessary in small business that same engine of our economy is what we are trying to restart and ignite today. congressional republicans will continue to promote job creation

through a robust economic growth because we must grow our economy by giving those job creators a chance to get that done. h.r. 9 will allow small businesses under 500 full-time employees to take a tax deduction equal to 20% of their domestic business income. so, no matter how they are organized under the tax code, under the bill the size of the tax cut is capped at 50% of w-2 wages paid encouraging increasing hiring. i have been in touch with small businesses across dallas texas and across that area, and we do understand that small business wants to come and create more jobs to increase the amount of not just employment but to help them grow their businesses. in return, what happens is that loyalty that comes from

entrepreneurship to those employees and obviously then uncle sam gets the advantage because taxes are being paid instead of paying for unemployment. so, small business we know employ about half of our private sector. work force. and generate 65% of our new jobs. what we are here on the floor talking about today is ideas that come straight from these small business job creators. directly from men and women, many minorities, many moms who are in the marketplace who are trying to help their family to make sure that they can perhaps pay for their kids to go to college. ideas that they have. entrepreneurship, the american dream, is what we are talking about today and we need to keep that dream alive. with unemployment rate consistently over 8% for the past three years, it's time that we can -- that we not only take

aggressive action but we do the things that are being asked for that will create jobs. in my home state of texas, the 14 million citizens who work for 387,000 small businesses and 1.69 million seoul -- sole proprietorships will see immediate benefits from this bill. they call that relief. they call that competitiveness. we call it up here giving back to those job creators what they need by listening to them and then offering solutions. those real texans are struggling even in the midst of perhaps one of the best economies in this country. texans are still struggling and small business need this opportunity today. madam speaker, just a few weeks ago congress and the president came together to pass what was known as the jobs act. a bill designed and designated to generate unique sources of new credit for small business.

i was proud to manage that rule and for legislation that not only passed on a bipartisan effort but has become law. this underlying bill today applies those very same principles. but instead of opening up new avenues of credit, this legislation reports -- enables the very same small businesses to keep more of what they have earned and to reinvest them into their own business and to make sure that that capital that was difficult to achieve is now possible through their own success. democrats quite likely as we have heard up in the rules committee and seen in the press will quite likely oppose this novel concept because they really want washington lawmakers and bureaucrats not our hardworking constituents back home to have the availability to get those dollars. i'm proud to tell the small

businesses and the -- in the congressional district i represent in dallas and irving and addison, and richardson, texas that with this bill those small businesses not just in mying onal district that i am lucky to represent, but all across this country will be able to see the potential, will be able to grow and succeed, and perhaps most of all it is a group of people in washington who are willing to listen to the needs of small business men and women who are trying to create the avenues of success, not just for them, and the american dream, but also for more employees. i encourage my colleagues to vote for this fair rule and the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time of the the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: i thank you very much, madam speaker. i thank my friend for yielding the time. i'd ask him begin a little bit

unusually by asking a few questions of my friend and then yielding to him for any response that he may have. a gentleman named bruce bartlett was the former treasury secretary, department economist rather, for president ronald reagan. he makes this comment, the serious point here is that the term small business casts a very wide net. indeed, since the only test for being a small business under the legislation, as my good friend proposes, is the number of employees. the ultimate beneficiary of the republican bill will be some large and profitable businesses that just happen to have few

employees. . what is my friends response to that? mr. sessions: thank you for yielding me the time and i hope my substance that i provide back is of great measure to the gentleman's request. first off, i want to say i know bruce bartlett. i had a chance to work with bruce bartlett when i worked for the national center of policy and analysis. mr. bartlett was a regular contributor, not just for the ncpa, but of economic terms. i completely agree with mr. bartlett that there are many out there who have successful businesses. our point is we want them all to grow. successful business is able to hire new people. unsuccessful businesses struggle and cannot provide not only an increase in the amount of pay but also the benefit issue becomes difficult. so we want people to be successful, and i think mr. bartlett is correct. it's a wide swath.

i want small business because of the size, not because of how successful they are, to be able to employ more people and that's what republicans are trying to do. guilty as charged. mr. hastings: then i ask my friend first to just listen and then i will ask yet another question. mr. bartlett also said this, he said the republican tax plan will do nothing whatsoever to increase employment. it is nothing more than an election year giveaway to favor republican constituency and should not be taken seriously. but i ask my friend, after hearing what mr. bartlett said, is there a requirement, and listening to you as well saying that it's suggested that there will be jobs, is there a requirement in the legislation as is proposed that requires the creation of jobs?

mr. sessions: well, let me -- i thank the gentleman. mr. hastings: can you give me a yes or no? mr. sessions: mr. bartlett is wrong because i know there will be at least one new job -- net new job created and i know that because the testimony and information that i received last week as i was at the north dallas chamber, several people told me this is exactly what they need. they needed a jobs bill to get credit. they need this opportunity, and what's interesting is on the reverse side is where illinois in january, a full year ago, passed a bill which increased taxes and they lost 58,000 jobs in illinois quickly because of high taxes. we're trying to make it easier to grow small business. mr. bartlett acts like there will be no new job growth. there will be. mr. hastings: let me say the

complaint that this did not go through regular order, did not have hearings. had one question period with the -- during the ways and means committee markup, and the person that was being questioned on the committee on taxation was the chief of staff, thomas, and when he was asked about the effects of h.r. 9, the question was put to him by our colleague, mr. becerra, is there a requirement that you create jobs. he says there's no requirement. on the result of the tax relief. and i go back to you and ask you again. is there a requirement that jobs be created in the measure? mr. sessions: the answer is no. i respond to the gentleman, if i saw in this house of representatives when former speaker pelosi increased the amount of money that we had in

our member reimbursement account, we went out and did more. and i hired an additional person at that rate. if given an opportunity, small business wants to grow and they want to add employees -- and this is what nobody seems to understand in this town. we are for growing our economy. no one, no one on our side would do something that wouldn't necessarily work. we are doing it because this is what people are asking for, to grow the economy. mr. hastings: well, my friend says that no one would do anything that would not necessarily work. well, why are we spending the time on this when my friend and i know that this measure is not going to become law for the reason, whether we like it or not, that the united states senate is not going to pass it? last week, contrary to what you said, in the united states senate, the president's plan and the democrats' plan was

offered where there would be an alternative minimum tax for people that pay $1 million or more in taxes. it's been referred to as the buffett rule. you said that it didn't pass. it had a majority, but it didn't come up because republicans didn't allow for it to have the majority whereas had it come up it likely would have passed because some republicans would have caused it to pass also. but you don't create jobs with your 20%, and now you need to answer for me then, what if somebody rather after they get the 20%, rather than hire somebody, fire somebody, do they still get the tax cut? mr. sessions: thank you very much. as the gentleman knows quite well from the legislation and from the hearing which we had in the rules committee yesterday that while these are great questions that you ask, the answer is we do not tell them what to do.

there are no limitations in this bill that would say you must or not do these things. we try to encourage on the republican side and believe this is what small business is asking for. i think you'll be shocked with not only the success if we had testimony from these small business, this is what they're asking for. why would we possibly push an agenda that will never be held the light of day with a vote in the united states senate? for the same reason that the president will never get a tax increase from john boehner. this republican house will not increase taxes, and so i don't know why the president is doing what he's doing. mr. hastings: all what my friend says is most regrettable. one of the things your friends in conference are concerned about is this is a one-year measure, is that correct? mr. sessions: i believe you are correct. mr. hastings: how many times

have we passed anything one year tax something or another that cuts taxes, let's take the bush tax cuts that lasted 10 years that's soon to expire, how is it then that this is not going to go beyond one year? one year already is being to cost $46 billion. now, my friend is a deficit and a debt hawk and i like to think i'm conservative enough to fear the deficit and debt are matters we should address in order to give americans opportunity. toward that end, what is a $46 billion measure going to do other than blow a hole in the deficit since it's not paid for? i yield to my friend. mr. sessions: i appreciate that and i thank you so much for asking it. the gentleman was here in 1997. the exact same arguments took place as we worked with -- mr. hastings: i ain't talking about then. i'm talking about now. mr. sessions: as we worked with president clinton and we were told on this floor a capital

gains tax cut will result in $9 million not coming into the treasury. $554 million appeared quickly in that same tax year. mr. hastings: reclaiming my time. mr. sessions: we encourage people to go -- mr. hastings: reclaiming my time. i am talking about what you are trying to do today. what you are trying to do today is blowing a $46 billion hole in the deficit which will destroy opportunity. i thank my friend and let me get on with my script now that i had my opportunity to talk with you. i rise in strong opposition to this rule and its opportunity destroying on the underlying bill. when it comes to small businesses, congress should work to create chances for smart, savvy small business owners to strive so the

hardworking americans can get a fair shot at a good-paying job for an honest day's work and therefore ensuring our economic recovery continues. instead, the republican bill creates only one opportunity and that is the opportunity for those that are better off, including those of us in the united states congress, to pay less than we could and can as our fair share in taxes. make no mistake, h.r. 9, despite its name, is not going to level the playing field so american businesses can create the kinds of opportunities that the average american needs. that's because house republicans have made the benefits of this bill available to a wide range of enterprises owned by wealthy people, including lawyers -- i'm one of the lawyers. not one of the wealthy, but when i was a lawyer and had

three secretaries as a single practitioner, if you had given me a 20% tax cut i may have shared some of that with those three employees. i assure you i would not have hired anybody. had you when i was a lawyer given me a 20% tax cut and required me to hire somebody, then i would have hired somebody. and it may have done some good. but other wealthy people, lobbyists, hedge funds, private equity managers as well as many professional sports teams without a single requirement to expand employment or invest in the united states. in fact, under this bill a business owner could fire, as i asked my friend, u.s. workers, hire full-time workers in foreign countries and still be eligible for the full deduction. according to an analysis of the tax policy center, approximately 49% of the benefits of h.r. 9 would go to

.3% of people with incomes exceeding $1 million in 2012. each receiving an average tax cut of more than $44,000. that's not creating an opportunity environment in which small businesses can create jobs. as i said before and say again, i have no -- i want everybody to be able to have significant wealth if that were to be possible. i do, however, have a problem with legislation designed to tip the scales in favor of the best among us in this country masquerading as tax cuts for small businesses. furthermore, madam speaker, the republican justifications for this kind of trickled down tax policy are inaccurate and debunked by history. in actuality, tax rates have

little bearing on economic productivity. some of the fastest economic growth of the postwar period came in the 1950's when the tough tax rate was above 80%. the slowest growth came in the 2000's when the top tax rate was 35% which i pay and which some of you do not because you are in better circumstances than am i, but all of us in the house of representatives are better off than the people we want to really help other than those that are better off like us. furthermore, mr. speaker, the republican justifications allow that this occurrence, that the change from the 1950's to the 2000's is easy to explain. businesses do not make decisions based on tax rates. they make decisions based on factors specific to their business.

like the number of competitors and large macro and microeconomic factors. bills like the one before us today ignore the reality in favor of pushing republican pet policies that ignore the actual difficulties facing hardworking small business owners. in the rules committee i cited a restaurant in fort lauderdale, florida, where i eat breakfast and sometimes lunch or dinner. at betty's she has no more than nine employees. if we are to target our relief to 20%, betty would be in better shape. but if larry flint at "hussler" is in of better shape i'm taking betty. i take my clothes to spring cleaners. they have been in business over 25 years. the owner of that business after he retired left it with his daughter. they don't have more than 10 employees in two of their

cleaning plants. this kind of measure is targeted to her, would help her, but a law firm here in washington or a lobbying firm with 49 lawyers that's making $500 million a year will qualify for this tax cut, and i'm taking spring cleaners over those lawyers and lobbyists here in this town. simply put, what we have before us is the exact opposite of a jobs bill. it's a boom for the rich, the very anthesis of tax reform and does nothing to create jobs for middle class, let alone, poor americans. instead of the misguided legislation before us today, madam speaker, we should pass policy initiatives that stimulate economic growth and job creation such as public-private partnerships. . when compared to measures such as infrastructure spending, today's bill would have a

relatively small effect on strengthening our economy and helping businesses create even more jobs. in comparison for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure construction projects, 18,000 jobs, nobody controwverts that, if you do, say 15,000 jobs supported nationwide. my government turned down a billion-plus dollars for a rail project that had been appropriated and that republicans and democrats had sought and it would have created 18,000 jobs, and yet we find ourselves in florida and just like other places in this country suffering job dim munition. this was not money that went to illinois and california and the northeast corridor for rail, it just did not come to florida. and there are other circumstances. we yesterday passed a measure here to extend the transportation measure for three months. cut me some slack.

we have been begging to do a infrastructure bill that probably would have put us in the position not to have done the stimulus. and we need to do a better bill than a three-month extension. this was the 10th extension of the transportation measure that we have done. we are better than that. and we could have done what the senate authored and we would kick start this economy rather than kicking this can down the road. let me tell you something about the can, it's getting ready to run up against a wall or cliff and there won't be anywhere else to kick it. someday republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives, are going to have to stand up and face the fact we must address this in a significant way and we can't have this great -- continuous standoff. this is supposed to be the land of opportunity, madam speaker. and let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for rich people. let's make sure that it's the land of opportunity for middle class and poor people. let's make sure that it's the

land of opportunity for small and large businesses. in short opportunities for all americans. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield time to the gentleman who is a freshman who serves on the transportation, homeland security, and science committee, a man who understands what people back home are asking for, i'd like to yield the gentleman, mr. cravaack, four minutes. mr. cravaack: i rise today in support of this rule and underlying bill, h.r. 9, the small business tax cuts of america. the fact is, madam speaker, american small businesses are drowning in red tape and the national federation of independent business has determined that tax compliance is one of the biggest costs. american small businesses now spend between $1.7 billion and $1.8 billion -- $1.8 billion hours in tax compliance and a total estimate cost between $15

billion and $16 billion annually. this wasted time and effort would be better invested in creating jobs and manufacturing products instead of handing over hard-earned capital to the government. i support efforts to reform the tax code and make it simpler to reduce those tax compliance costs. i also support reducing the tax burden on american job creators. that's why i am glad to be co-sponsor of h.r. 9, legislation that reduced the burden faced by small businesses. since 99.9% of all u.s. businesses employ less than 500 people, small businesses are vital to the american economy. in the eighth district, eight out of 10 jobs are due to small business. when i return home, i repeatedly listen to the same concerns from small business people in the eighth district. my constituents are hesitant to expand their businesses as a result of deficient access to capital, complex legal burdens, and tax code uncertainty.

the small business tax cuts act immediately creates access to capital by allowing productive employers to reinvest more of their hard-earned money into their businesses. the bill will have an immediate impact on every city and town in this country. in fact, more than 22 million small businesses will receive much needed infusion of capital. several small business owners that i have personally spoken with in my district have already expressed strong support for this proposal. this includes businesses like r.c. fabricators which wfers steel and aluminum construction equipment. one that specializeds with large truck repair. and one that provides all kind of equipment and party rentals. because of the recent success in northern minnesota's industries, r.c. fabricators has been looking for ways to expand but

high taxes have prevented them from accumulating enough capital to grow. this bill will ease that tax burden and allow them to update machinery, hire workers, and provide high quality products. these kinds of stories are repeated throughout the country and this legislation will help them. madam speaker, h.r. 9 is common sense pro-growth bill that will provide immediate assistance to employers and american workers as we labor to jump-start our economy and ease the burden felt by small business and american families. i urge all of my colleagues to support the rule as well as the underlying bill. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota yields back his time of the the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: madam speaker f. we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that the house votes on the buffet rule which representative baldwin has introduced and i'm a co-sponsor of h.r. 39903 the paying the fair share act of 2012. this bill would ensure that

people making over $1 million a year do not pay a lower tax rate than middle class americans. to discuss our amendment to this rule, i'm very pleased to yield to my good friend, ms. baldwin, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. ms. baldwin: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from florida for the time. i rise today on behalf of the hardworking middle class families in wisconsin and across the country who have unfairly been paying at a higher tax rate than multimillionaires and billionaires. working wisconsin identities are struggling to find good paying jobs, pay their mortgages, send their kids to college and save for retirement. meanwhile the ultrarich are reaping benefits unavailable to the rest of us. no wonder middle cls americans have long felt that our tax system is rigged against them.

frankly, it is. middle class americans deserve a tax code that is fair. powerful special interests have manipulated our tax code to make sure that the wealthiest americans don't have to pay their fair share. loopholes and special provisions have made it so that billionaire warren buffett's secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. in fact, approximately 1/4 of all people who make over $1 million a year pay lower effective tax rates than middle class families. i introduced the paying a fair share act which would make the buffet rule law and ensure that middle class workers do not pay at a higher tax rate than those making over $1 million a year. this is a commonsense solution that would address the disparate that warren buffett decried and it would reduce the deficit by billions of dollars over the next decade.

now let's be honest about what the buffet rule is and what it is not. the buffet rule is not a comprehensive tax reform bill, which i favor, by the way. the buffet rule is not going to wipe our nation's deficit away. something that i agree must be tackled. the buffet rule is not, i repeat, is not a tax increase on small businesses. according to the congressional research service, less than 1/2 of 1% of businesses may be impacted by the buffet rule. here is what the buffet rule is really about. fairness, plain and simple this is about fairness. it's high time that we level the playing field between middle class taxpayers and those who make over $1 million per year. the paying a fair share act will help restore people's faith that if you work hard and play by the rules you'll have a chance to

get ahead. it's up to congress to fix this obvious injustice. according to a recent cnn poll nearly 3/4 of americans support the buffet rule. earlier this week a bipartisan majority of senators demonstrated their support for the buffet rule to institute tax fairness for the middle class. i urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so that i may offer the paying a fair share act, also known as the buffet rule. i thank the speaker and yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions clo thank you -- mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker. we are hearing a lot of rhetoric here today about all these millionaires out there. i would be for their ideas if they worked. but the facts of the case are what they create is less opportunity.

the i.r.s. on their website shows that there were 37% fewer people who filed as millionaires one year over the next. and that's the latest information we have on the i.r.s. website. 37% fewer people reported incomes of a million dollars or more. that falls right in line what's happening as america goes into bankruptcy. this is about fairness. which shouldn't be about fairness, it should be about opportunities. creating more opportunities. that's the same reason why the same rhetoric has 63% of our children move in back to our homes when they finish college. lack of opportunities. that's not fair. fairness is opportunity and the chance for people to go make something better of their lives. what we are talking about today will help some -- the state of texas, some 54,509 women-owned businesses.

in the state of texas alone. that account for 483,000 individuals. that's what we are trying to help and save. and this is the right thing. i'm very proud of it. i know what they want to do is raise taxes. i know what they want to do is call it fairness. all it simply does is cause our further economic ma lace and -- malaise and deficiencies across this country of small business. madam speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, the gentleman who sits on the rules committee, mr. nugent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. nugent: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. madam speaker, we hear so much out here on the house floor, but i support the rule and the underlying legislation because it gives the ability to small businesses to create jobs here in america. it allows people to go back to work. those folks who go to work pay taxes. they start contributing as

citizens of this great country and this small business group tax reduction affects small businesses that are minority owned and women owned. that are veteran owned businesses. you hear all this talk about how it affects all these other folks, but this is about creating jobs in america. it's about allowing people that are entrepreneurs to utilize the resources that they worked hard for and their employees have worked hard for to create additional jobs. you have heard a whole lot of stuff down here about transportation. transportation bill expired back in september of 2009. my good friend from florida, i agree with you. we should have a long-term transportation bill. but what did you do since 2009? i got up here 2011. we are still talking about the lack of action by this congress by the senate, and by this president since 2009. to get americans back to work.

quhu talk to those that are small business that is do the work on roads, they said if you do a 90-day, two-year extension we are not going to add jocks. we are going to be able to keep the jobs that we have. but we are not going to add jobs. we are not going to be buying equipment from caterpillar up in peoria illinois and putting people to work in illinois. we have already canceled those jobs. madam speaker, this is about america. this is about actually looking at people in the eye. those that actually create jobs. remember, small businesses create over 30% of the new jobs in america. and we are making them the villain in this. instead of returning it back and saying, you know, small business and entrepreneurs, they are going to use the money to grow their business. that's why they are in it. that's why they get into this whole thing in regards to putting their risk, their money and their rat