reversionary interest. the conveyance of land would permit tracy to build a solar field at the site, a use which has strong local support. tracy estimates that construction of a solar field will create approximately 200 jobs which is much needed in the city. the project will also generate cleaner sources of energy and will alleviate the air quality challenges that presently afflict that area. these are al reasons to support the legislation and i urge passage and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i now yield to my distinguished colleague, mr. denham, who has been a strong advocate for both the disposal of property in a profitable way and in particular contacted us and asked to us move this legislation with a powerful and convincing argument. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. denham: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise today in support of senate bill 1302, a bill to convey a parcel of land in the city of tracy. mr. speaker, senate bill 1302 is commonsense legislation that will be a win for the federal taxpayer, the local community and private enterprise. simply put, this bill allows the city of tracy to purchase at fair market valley a parcel of land from the federal government. currently the government has an interest in this land and the community of tracy deeply needs it. the city would like to purchase the land from the government at fair market value and eliminate the interest of the local community can decide wheats best for the land. this land will then be leased to a private company to develop a solar project that will provide renewable energy and economic activity to the local community. i had the opportunity to tour this location with the mayor of tracy, mayor brent i'ves, who has been working on this for quite some time. he showed how this project will provide a significant economic impact to a community struggle -- struggling with high rates of

unemployment. mr. speaker, this legislation will solve another problem created by too much government, local control of this property will put people back to work, benefit the local community -- local committee, provide a source of renewable energy and turn a profit for the taxpayer. i was proud to be a co-sponsor of the house version of this legislation introduced by mr. mcnerney and i urning my colleagues to support this measure -- urge my colleagues to support this measure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized. ms. norton: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers and again urge passage of 1302 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: although this is a small piece of property, it's part of a vast amount of property the federal government currently owns, controls and does not use. so as we take this step today, i hope all of my colleagues in the

house and the senate will look at this as at least a small contribution to a direction we should go, find ways to take government-owned property, get it in private hands, paying property tax, being developed and creating jobs throughout the areas in which it lies. so, as i urge support, i'd like to thank my colleague, the gentlelady from the district of columbia, for her work. i'd like to thank the senate co-sponsors including senator boxer for getting this to us and i'd like to thank mr. denham for bringing it to the floor at this time. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. -- s. 1302. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 6:30 p.m. ég

>> this week, live from london, the state opening of parliament. until recently, it was usually held towards the end of the year. with changes, it has now been moved to the spring, and on wednesday, queen elizabeth will formally outlined this for the coming year. this starts at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. a c-spans this month, radio is airing more of the nixon tapes, from a collection of secretly recorded telephone

conversations until 1973. this saturday, hear conversations with the deputy national security adviser alexander haig. >> very significant, this new york times expose, documents of the war. >> i see. i did not read the story. you mean that was leaked out of the pentagon? >> it was with mcnamara, and it was carried on after mcnamara and the peaceniks of there. this was a devastating security breach. >> in washington d.c., you can listen in. also and c-span radio.org. >> white house press secretary jay carney was at today's press briefing. this is 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the press briefing room for your daily briefing. it is good to see you. i hope you had a good weekend. i will go straight to questions. >> the election of françois hollande in france, does that increase your concern that it may change the european economy, a shift away? the situation there, dragging the united states down with it? what would the president's role be in any bridging between hollande and others. would he be involved in that? >> let me say that president

obama called president-elect françois hollande yesterday to congratulate him. he looks forward to working with president hollande. president obama looks forward to welcoming president-elect hollande at camp david for the g-8 and then for the summit. they proposed that the two men meet at the white house. they each affirmed in that phone call the important and enduring relationship between the peoples of the united states and france, and that alliance is as strong today as it was last week. as for the situation in europe, the president said the other day, our economy continues to face some headwinds. the euro zone crisis is one of them. secretary geithner has worked with his counterpart to the

advise and consult on how best to get control. european leaders have taken very significant steps with the euro zone crisis, and the president and secretary geithner and others will continue to work towards them and. i think that basically answers your question. >> no, not exactly. his replacement is there about it being applauded. the austerity measures. he says he wants to make a step back for that. >> two point. first of all, we will not negotiate on behalf of european countries here at the white

house, and secondly, i would say that the president has made clear, free, as he did at the g- 20, that he believes that a balanced approach towards this consolidation that includes the consolidation and efforts to boost the recovery is the right approach for europe. this is an approach in the united states and has been aimed at growing the economy, creating jobs in the short term, as well as dealing with the challenges in the medium and long terms. this insures that the recovery continues but also get our fiscal house in order. >> this morning, the secretary of education arne duncan put himself on record, something along the same lines.

have his views changed at all on this? >> i cannot update you on the president's personal views. it was to make the same point made previously, the committed, loving, same-sex couples enjoy the same privileges enjoyed by all, in this is why we oppose the defense of marriage act. the administration also had stopped defending the constitutionality of section 3 of the defense of marriage act. secretary duncan was asked about his personal views on an issue, and he offered them. obviously, this is an issue that all people have an opinion on. >> a similar question. >> the president is the right person to describe his own personal views. as you know, he has said that his views on this were evolving. i do not have an update for you on that.

>> one more on the french election. the incoming president hollande with an approach towards austerity, is this an approach the administration can support it has its own distinct problems with the euro zone crisis, and we are not going to dictate to any country or any collection of countries what policies they should pursue. the president has said, as he said in comments at the g-20, a balanced approach towards fiscal consolidation and growth is what he believes is appropriate. that is what is taking year. europeans have taken a number of significant steps with this crisis. more needs to be done. we have said that. our view on that has not changed. >> discussions with the european

counterparts? >> well, i do not have any scheduling announcements to make on behalf of secretary geithner, but i think as you know, the treasury secretary has made numerous visits to europe to discuss euro zone issues with his counterparts there, and i am sure he has not made his last visit. >> the president has great merit -- raised millions of dollars from lgbt supporters. does he owe them or own vote -- zero voters in general his direct response and just up dancing around the issues? a second term? >> the president was asked this, and he said his personal views on this were evolving. the president does have, as you noted, a significant support in the lgbt community, and that is because of his unparalleled record in support of lgbt

rights, and that includes the repeal of do not ask, do not tell, and the hate crimes legislation that includes the lgbt, and the defense of marriage act and hospital visitation rights for lgbt patients and their loved ones, and i could go on. his record on lgbt rights is unparalleled, and he will continue. >> everybody deserves to be able to live and love as they see fit. i do not have to tell everyone in this room we have got a ways to go. what is he saying? >> you have heard him say, and those in the administration like me to speak for him, that he strongly opposes efforts to restrict rights, to repeal rights for same-sex couples. he has made his opposition to that in several states known. i think it is a stigma of obvious that that the intimate

of rights by lgbt people has not been achieved uniformly throughout the country, and that is why he is taking a stand in opposition in some states. >> vice-president biden said there was a consensus building toward a marriage in this nation and then came out yesterday saying he is comfortable with men in american men and women marrying women and having legal rights. >> i think the vice president expressed his personal views. he also said he was involving on the issue. he did. let me just be clear. the vice president, what he said about the protection of rights of citizens is completely consistent with the president's

position on this issue, in his description on the way the country has moved on this issue i think is wholly accurate, and we have seen the data that describes an evolution of views across the country on these issues, so i do not think there is anything surprising about that. >> before an election? >> this president has been extremely aggressive in supporting lgbt writes. he fought against those who fought against the repeal of do not ask, do not tell and achieved that. there are those who want to bring do not ask, do not tell back. he very robustly fight against efforts to restrict or deny rights to lgbt citizens and discriminate against them, and he will continue to do so. you did not want to hear it, but there is a long, long list that this is administration has done on behalf of the lgbt community.

>> i want to continue from before. i want to see if the president had an opportunity -- al qaeda. a direct plea, a very personal plea, in reference two daughters. >> well, the president is aware. i do not believe he has seen it, or i do not know that he has seen it, and we remain deeply concerned for his safety. our hearts go out to him and his family. we condemn his kidnapping in the strongest terms and call for his immediate release. the u.s. government will continue to make every effort to see that he is returned safely to his family, but we cannot and will not negotiate with al qaeda. >> on the same-sex marriage issue, one of the issues is that when asked about the president's

position, the presence no longer says he is evolving on the issue. he says he has no news to make on that. a few minutes ago, "i do not have any news for you." it suggests that there is news there, just waiting for a proper time to drop it, like after november. >> that is your characterization. i think the president said that he was evolving, and i think that people have asked him that, and in his use to put forward, he is simply saying he is nothing new for you on that. it simply is what it was. and that is regarded -- what needs to be remembered here is what he has done in office in support of lgbt rights, and that

record is an extensive and considerable and unparalleled. he will continue to fight for those rights as long as he is an office. >> the president has done more for the lgbt community than any president in history, so you do not need to say that again. [laughter] the question is, there are very few people in think that he will come out in favor of same-sex marriage. that there is any doubt that that is what is likely to happen. the likely future of the

president on this issue, why not come out and let the people decide? it seems cynical. >> i think the present position is well-known. it has gotten a great deal of coverage. i do not have an update for you on the president's position. i am sorry you do not want to hear about the president's support for the lgbt rights. >> the talking points 50 times in a row. >> talking points to you, it serious substantial rights to others, ok? do not ask, do not tell is serious. the effort is an illustration has taken on behalf of the lgbt community. that is the context of discussion. i just do not have anything more to give to you on the issue of

the president's views. >> and if you do not, it is because he is evolving. >> is as they are. yes? >> -- one >> i do not have an update for you. >> men marry men and women marion women. >> -- men and marrying men and women marrying women. >> he has fought for equal rights and has opposed of birds to discriminate against lgbt citizens and to take away rights that were established by law. >> the vice president has appeared to be ball on the issue, but the president is

still evolving. is that fair? >> i will read it to the individuals. i can tell you the presence views and his actions he has taken on behalf of the lgbt americans and how he will continue to take action to defend and protect their rights. >> there are a number of governors throughout this country, the governor o'malley and others, all supported a marriage. what about president obama and same-sex marriage? >> i do not have an update for you. i can tell you that he is an absolutely committed supporter to lgbt rights. his record bears that out.

he has done on parallel work for the lgbt citizens and their rights, and he is proud of it. the achievements under this administration are more than just talking points. it is achievement. >> the vice president is evolving. he did not say that, as was pointed out. they are entitled to the same, exact rights, all of the civil liberties. does that mean that he supports same-sex marriage? >> there was a statement that the vice president's office put out yesterday, describing his statements, and i do not have an elaboration on that. i can tell you what he said, completely consistent with the president's view that lgbt

citizens should enjoy the same rights and that they should not be discriminated against, and this is something that the president strongly opposes. >> the american jobs act. he goes around the country and says you are entitled. why can you not form -- from this podium say whether or not the president supports or opposes same-sex marriage? >> his views have not changed, and i have no update to give you on them. >> we saw the president officially with his campaign on saturday. there was a video of him coming not from 2008, asking if we will be better off four years from now. now, you seem to be saying, are

you better off another four years from now? the president seems to be saying, four years ago, he was saying that. are you buying more time now? >> the president will continue to defend the record and make a case. there was a big decline in our economy that we have experienced in our lifetimes. four years ago, think about it. we were on the precipice of the worst economic decline from the previous administration. when he took office, we were hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs per month. we have now had 25 straight months, 11 straight quarters of positive economic growth, which is in contrast to 2008, when his predecessor was in office, during which the economy shrank 9%. now, i would argue that most americans believe that we're

going in a far better direction now than we were in 2008. >> better off than we were four years ago. >> i think we are better off gaining jobs than losing jobs. we are better off growing the economy than we are seeing it shrank at a pace not seen since the great depression. do we have further to go? no question. the president says all of the time when he discusses this issue. to climb out of it is deep, but we have made progress, and we need to make sure that we take the steps necessary to grow the economy. the congress acts on proposals the president has put forward. they had yet to act on, for example, to put teachers and first responders back to work. to put american construction workers back on the job. one of the things about the recovery we have seen so far in terms of job creation is that

compared to previous recessions, under president reagan, for example, there has been a significant drop in government and point during this period. that was not the case during parisi -- previous presidents. in recent months, there has been bling off of teachers around the country. the president put forth a proposal to make sure that those teachers were brought back in, and some in congress opposed it. to support teachers or tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. teachers or subsidies for oil and gas companies. unfortunately, they did not choose teachers. yes? >> why did the administration feel they had to put out a statement clarifying? >> well, the office of the vice president put out a statement. i think there was a lot of interest generated by the comments, and the vice president's office put out a

statement to make it clear what the vice president was saying, but i think there was a little bit of an overreaction. the president's policies when it comes to protecting the rights of lgbt citizens, and he also has his own personal views about the issue, as do most people, so the president's record on lgbt rights is an extensive, and he is committed to working to move forward on that issue. >> the president of and vice president disagree on this issue? >> no, i do not think that is what the vice president said yesterday. everyone supports initiative that this president has taken to protect and defend the rights of all americans, including lgbt americans.

>> somebody believed and referring it to the state. >> the president believes that the states are deciding this issue, and he has made clear -- >> not a federal issue. >> we certainly oppose taking away rights at the federal level. some want to propose a constitutional amendment to deny rights to lgbt citizens. we do not support that. the president has taken action on this issue, and the president believes that when the process works, it is a positive thing. he also opposes repealing or denying rights that have already been established. >> where would the present be then on the amendment in north carolina about gay marriage? >> the same person opposes the efforts to deny the rights of any citizen in any state.

>> he opposes a ban on gay marriage, but he does not support the marriage. >> the record is clear. the record has long shown that he opposes discriminatory efforts for same-sex couples. that is the position he has taken. it is a position he is taking in north carolina and has in other states. yes, yes opposed efforts and other states that deny rights. >> you are saying he opposes this, but he is not for a gay marriage. >> marriage is a state issue, and the states have the right to take action on it. he opposes action to repeal rights that have been granted or that are discriminatory. >> let me ask you about in greece.

does the administration of position on whether or not greece should pull out of the euro zone? that would set off a greater economic -- >> we are looking at the euro zone crisis as a whole. we understand that the political parties in greece are working, and we hope to your announcements and the coming days. the greek people have made many sacrifices, and the greek economic reform program remains vital to sustaining this and spurring economic growth for greece and the entire region. we will continue to work with breeze, with whom we have a longstanding relationship, and we will continue to support this with the essential reforms with fiscal responsibility. we are, as we said earlier, very

mindful of the impact that the situation of europe can have on the american economy. the headwind. that is why we work so closely with our european counterparts. there are the steps they are working on. we will continue to work with the greeks. >> to leave or anything like that. >> i will simply say that stability in europe is important. it is certainly important for american economic growth, and we continue to work with our european counterparts to assist them in their effort in any way we can. >> there is going to be an effort to support demerge as part of the democratic platform.

to have the platform have these use. >> the platform, which has not been developed yet, i would refer you. >> the president thinks that the platform does not matter? or if there is a statement of his views? >> i think the stigma of the party's views has long been that, but i think a platform is a statement of party views. it is called a democratic or republican party platform. i would refer you to the dnc. i do not have a different answer for you, laura. the platform has not been developed, and i would point you to the dnc. >> putting forward for ideas for job creation. is there anything different about what he is going to be doing all along those lines? >> the present will tomorrow talk about things that congress should and must do to of the

economy grow and create jobs. i will not give specifics, but that is certainly going to be a topic of discussion when the president does that tomorrow. >> do you have a reason to believe that this effort will be more successful? >> well, i think the efforts have to some degree been, the extension of the payroll tax, only because of the president's decision to fight for that despite saw -- strong resistance from republicans. we of the extension of the unemployment insurance. we also have some other measures that have been passed, with demonstrations of the ability for congress to come together and worked in a bipartisan way. this is despite the fact that we have experienced a considerable amount of gridlock.

i think the congress will act because there are the people that are insisting that they act. that is why in the end, republicans finally came to an agreement. as you know, every member of the house is up for reelection, and in the senate. do they just say no? to the block every effort? to create jobs? or do they try to get something done, and it is perhaps the need to answer that question in an affirmative way that might compel members of congress to take a more constructive approach. >> following up on the hollane

question, domestically, this would include a stimulus plan, with the effect of the possible recession. >> the president put forward with the jobs at the initiative that he described in the state of the union with the economy built to last, a number that will help this economy continue to grow and continue to create jobs. and he will continue, as i just mentioned it to laura, that they could and should pass, the kinds of things that should enjoy bipartisan support, if there really is interest in congress among republicans, in particular, too -- just one second.

>> i am fine. i just have one question. >> somebody give him a seat, please. please, please give him a seat. the president has put forward a number of initiatives. they are built around the notion that we have to continue to take steps to build this economy. i think it includes issues like the euro zone crisis, when a global crisis for oil that can create headwind for the economy,

but that is one of the reasons we have to take action here. our capacity to pass legislation that actually does something to help the economy, as opposed to the bickering over things when the american people are demanding action. al qaeda. sure. >> al qaeda and the prisoners from the afghan military -- and also, what is the difference between -- >> well, i think you are conflating a number of things, connie, and i think a lot of being has been spilled over the differentiation between the taliban and some rank-and-file members of the taliban and al qaeda. the fact of the matter is on the issue, the story in "the washington post," decisions are

made by battlefield commanders, and i will refer you to the dod and another group on that. they are not made in washington. secondly, it has been this administration's policy that the number one priority of our mission in afghanistan is to dismantle and defeat al qaeda. the taliban exist in afghanistan, and there needs to be reconciliation. that is why we have supported afghan-led efforts towards reconciliation with the taliban, on condition that members of the taliban wish to reconcile, laid down their arms, denounced al qaeda and sever all ties with al qaeda and commit themselves to

abiding by that constitution. >> is one of the reasons that the president wants to meet with the french president elect before the g-8 and nadel is to discuss his stance on afghanistan? >> the president and president- elect hollande will have a number of things to discuss, particularly in that he has been elected president of one of our oldest allies. >> an effort to shore up the alliance in chicago could >> -- in chicago? >> to discuss steps going forward on afghanistan. the present was in afghanistan one week ago. a strategy that he put forward

for the national security forces and ultimately for it being passed to the afghans by 2014. this will certainly be a focus of discussion. >> will the president be supporting that the >> we support compromise. -- will the president be supporting that? >> the president supports compromise. the president is committed and certainly commend those who are working towards finding a compromise. >> ending airport subsidies.

is there any concern? >> i cannot take that question. i have nothing specific for you on the legislation. >> the reelection. >> i will not take that question. yes, sure, i have not been asked that before, so i will have to get back to you on that. mark? >> yeah said he opposes taking away rights in north carolina. >> is a marriage a civil liberty? >> i think he would have to ask others.

the president believe very strongly that lgbt americans should enjoy the same rights and opposes efforts to deny rights to lgbt americans and to discriminate against them. >> it is pretty rare for someone running for office to say, "i am getting ready to change my mind ." if you do not run some risk of looking too clever. >> i cannot update you on the president's personal views. he has gotten a great deal of coverage in the past. that is the answer he has, and i do not have a new answer for you. >> he has said it so many times,

it has to mean something specific. >> not necessarily, i think he said they were evolving. his views on lgbt rights are crystal clear. they have taken actions that are on parallel to support them. he will continue to take those actions because he thinks that is the right thing to do. >> everybody in this room is asking questions. >> they are reacting as they often do, with a story taking off, and they run and chase it. nothing has changed. the president has a firm commitment to lgbt rights, and nothing has changed. it is the same position. it is not the position of the white house. the vice president's statements

were been misinterpreted by some, so he had an effort to clarify. that is where the president is, ok? the policy positions have not changed, jake, and i can remind you that his support of lgbt rights is unprecedented. anyone else out there in the political arena -- and he will continue to support them. >> i want to dissect the evolution. >> no, i am not going to. >> ok, you are not going to, but can you at least say yea or nay? here is the deal. before we heard that he was having a hard time marion issues between his faith and -- issues.

>> the next time the president has a conference, if you want to ask him that, you certainly can. i do not have an update for you on the president's personal use. >> let me ask you this. does the president want to support a democrat for that seat? >> -- >> being comfortable with men marrying men? >> again, i do not have a readout for you. >> thanks.

>> bilateral. >> i do not know if we have made any announcement. the president looks very much forward to meeting with president-elect putin when he is here. it was president-elect clinton when he was in moscow, now president putin. there is an ongoing series of high-level conversations about strategic interests. i think there was something that mr. domonic had -- that mr. donelan had. >> what was mentioned yesterday in the conversation? >> i will point to the readout that the day. i think that pertains to the

topics. >> and nicolas sarkozy, they were pretty close. did you see anything in the defeat of nicolas sarkozy? >> i do not think i would analyze another country's politics. our alliance with france is enduring and will continue to be a vital part of our national security. >> this social a lot -- this close alliance, do you think they can really get close in an election year? >> we have issues with france that we will work on, regardless of who is president or which party is in power.

that applies to nations across europe, especially with allies as close as france is. there have been very, very close relations between france and the united states. regardless of whether a republican is in power here or which party is in power in france. >> is it accurate to say that president obama is opposed to gay marriage? >> i think it is fair to say that his views are evolving, and i do not have an update for you on that. >> bringing together with the views of arne duncan. >> the vice president spoke very clearly about the present policies. they are entirely consistent with the policies that this president has supported. he also talked about evolution in this country, and those are

personal views. i will refer you to the office of the vice president. >> do you have any indication that this will be any different, what to do next, working closely together at this point? does this put a greater onus on the united states to have them come up with a better or different solution? >> he was just elected yesterday. i am nothing to add to that except to say the opposition is quite clear. about the assad regime's willingness to comply with it. we will take steps as necessary if that kofi annan plan does not succeed.

>> with the vice president, do you remember him speaking favorably before on the issue of same-sex marriage print >> the vice president supports this president's policies and the lgbt rights. i would just point to you to what the vice president said. you deserve a question after collapsing. >> general conference representatives voted to reject a proposal to divest from companies that do business with israel. is the present grateful for this support? i have one follow-up. >> i will just take the one question. i am not aware of that.

the president believes strongly that we have an unshakable alliance with israel. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the gang is all here. thank you all for playing today. >> the house is coming back in at 6:30 eastern with what they were dealing with earlier, including grounds to be used for several upcoming events. later this week, spending for a science program and automatic cuts in spending outlined in the budget control act, compared to cuts in social programs. the budget committee is meeting right now about that. live coverage is on c-span3. and as always, the house is here on c-span. the head of an organization

giving about $10 million per year to support policy. he was on "washington journal," and we will watch that until coverage of the house. >> this is ahead of teammate eight republican presidential primary and the convention in charlotte this coming september. today, in raleigh, north carolina, close to the state capital, we have an activist. thank you for joining us. host: looking to overcome years of dominance. with the north carolina afl-cio, the most dangerous man in north carolina.

how would you explain your role today? guest: well, i do not think i am a dangerous man. the democrat party has always outspent the republican party. during the 2000 election, the democrat party can it spent about $14.70 million to the $7 million by the republicans. in the 2010 election, the democratic party spent $15.3 million compared to the $6 million by republican candidates. they outspent republicans by 25%, but in 2010, the voters voted, and this was breaking the

legislature. i have made contributions. alternatives to growing government. and i have engaged in a campaign to educate the voters on where the incumbent candidates stand on the issue. host: give us a sense about how much you have been involved on the financial side? the state legislature, as well. this is from the center of responsive politics. this is about money and politics. the research found that the family contributed about $390,000 to federal candidates since 1990, with every cent of that going to republicans. that includes you and your wife.

you alone have contributed about $65,000, and your parents, when they were alive, contributed about $224 thousand. there are groups that include nonprofits, think tanks, political committees, and academic institutions. it is estimated that the family foundation supplies more than 90% of the total income of the state's conservative group. about right? guest: since 1990 to 2010, that is 20 years. about $15,000 a year from five different adults, $15,000 a year to contribute to the candidate of your choice and our democracy money. of course, they ignore how much money is spent the democratic

party side. john edwards, a democrat candidate for the u.s. senate and later presidential candidates spent $6 million. the amount of money i personally spent is very small compared to democrats. just this year, a bill in january gave his campaign $500,000 at the beginning of the year. that is more than a single contribution in one year that my family has given over 20 years. money in politics is not new. again, they have spent more money than republicans. the second part of your question, i think you call that the empire. it does give out millions of

dollars of year -- a year in grants to homeless shelters, to medical care. it also gives millions of dollars to a social group said archconservative. -- social groups that are conservative. it gives more money to millions of dollars. the pope foundation. can we help equalize liberal spending? i hope so. help inform of the voters and make better choices. host: you seem to be the subject of a lot of interest. you're the subject of a lengthy piece in "the new yorker" last fall. that piece does that.

pope's crimes in 2010 was sweeping. -- pope's triumphs in 2010 was sweeping. i want to give you a chance to talk about your inputs in the 2010 election and why there is so much interest in who you are. guest: first of all, that article was inaccurate by several factors, i should say.

a left wing progression of organization is a highly unbiased group. my company did not spend $2.2 million on the 2010 election. i am linked to the republican party. that $1.5 million are exaggerated. what they did not report is the democratic party and his candid it out spend the republican party in the 2010 election, i

believe $1.7 million. that was about another $2 million. however, on the union's side, one of the group called real facts spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on progressive issues supporting democratic candidates. also in report it is an organization called blueprint north carolina. again, spent $2 million on voter engagement. they wrote after the election that they contacted voters. on an election of 2.5 million votes, they contacted one out of five of voters. in north carolina, the conservative groups, and i keep saying the democratic party spent more than the republican

party. 59% of the state vote. host: we are talking to art pope, a conservative activist in north carolina. if you want to get into the conversation, give us a call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our independent line is 202-628- 0205. we are talking about north carolina politics with the primary coming up tomorrow.

we want to take you to the c- span bus, talking about the issues and north carolina. caller: the biggest influence in my political opinion have been students and other class is here. they have been encouraged to think critically. host: mr. pope, we have been focusing on young people and students of this week. how do you think they will play in at north carolina politics tomorrow and later this fall? guest: north carolina is very much a battleground state. it is sometimes called a red state. i think it is more accurately called a purple stake. it is voted republican for most presidential elections until 2008. only a 14,000 martin carried the state for obama. for 110 years the democrats have controlled the state. there never controlled the senate until 2010. the saab 2008 and then swing all the way in 2010.

that is not permanent. only about 60% of the voters in 2008 also voted in 2010. the trend is much higher in 2012. the obama campaign and the democratic party, the democratic-the convention is here. they do not want to see the state go to obama again by a few thousand votes. they're trying very hard on both sides to turn out the boats. they did about the higher numbers. i think the republican party and its candidates -- if they do turnout, i think it will vote republican this time. host: i should mention we also have a special line set up for north carolina voters in this segment. we're actually going to go to one of those north carolina

voters right now. you are on with art pope. caller: thank you very much. good morning. how are you? i have several questions. one of them is if republicans are doing such a good job, why is the unemployment rate the highest in the country here in my county? also, i would like to know why they're going to pass this gay amendment bill if they had to include some superficial things to instead of giving people the right to have unions. my wife and i were married at a court house 46 years ago. there are a lot of my friends who have unwed children because of either drugs are all kinds of other things. over the years, my daughter's friends. i do not understand how we can justify saying that these people have no rights to

adoption or anything else. the bible does teach us -- they take apart the constitution and the use the parts they want. they do not use the parts that said the pursuit of happiness. my happiness is not his happiness. his happiness is not mine. host: will give him a chance to talk about the many issues you brought up. guest: well, the first question of unemployment, have to realize that republicans were ejected to a majority legislature in 2010. they did not take office until 2011. the most important budget was not until july 1. republican policies and republican budget have only been in place less than one year. it is hard to change the unemployment rate in that point and time.

more importantly, you are right. the and a plethora has been 8.7% to nine. -- to 9%. the policies of the obama administration in the last three years is still in control. i do think republican policies will help alleviate unemployment gradually. what republicans do in their first year of office compared to the obama administration and the democratic congress is very small. i am sorry, go ahead. host: i want to give a little background that the amendment came up and "the washington times" today. the amended text is listed in the article. this is a subject that a lot of different groups in north carolina are spending money ahead of the vote tomorrow.

about $2.3 million has been spent by those who opposed the amendment. about $1.2 million by those who support it. talk about this amendment. are some of the groups that you work with opposing this amendment? guest: first of all, it was a bipartisan through the general assembly. second, it will be decided by a vote of the people. the polls showed that many democrats will vote for the amendment. it is not a pure partisan issue. in answer to your immediate question, they're not taking a position on this issue. i am not on either side of this debate.

the opponents are better funded and the proponents of it. most of the polls seem to indicate that the article will pass. it is a complicated issue. president obama has said he believes that marriages between a man of a woman. but there is also a provision in that amendment that says marriage shall be the only domestic policy for civil unions. there is a complex amendment. i think some of the rhetoric has been way overstated. host: vice president biden was talking about this issue. i want to play that ended your

reaction. [video clip] >> in the vice president of united states of america. the president sets the policy. i am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexuals getting married are entitled the same exact rights, all the civil liberties, and quite frankly, i do not see much of a distinction beyond that. host: supporters of gay marriage were excited to hear his statement. what is your take on his statement? aest: well, i'll be glad to " president obama when he stated, i do not support -- to quote president obama when he stated, i do not support a gay marriage. that was in his campaign in 2008. apparently, there is some division between president obama and vice president biden.

obama has come out against the language having to do with civil partnership. host: let's go back to the phones. on the republican online. are you there? caller: are you speaking to me? i am, from malibu. -- i am tom from malibu. in a recovering democrat, a recovering republican. in a strong, conservative independent. but would you guys, please, not be distracted by social issues -- gay marriage, abortion. it has nothing to do with moving our country forward. don't let democrats be attainable -- do not let democrats paint conservatives at some kind of devil. i am sorry, but it is a distraction.

if we could just stress conservative issues, hardware, decency, people would be a lot better off. i want to thank you for your time. host: should conservatives be involved in social issues like this? guest: well, the gentleman from malibu, i think he was referring to republicans. the republican party has been dealing with issues for all americans. how to create more jobs. the new republican majority spent most of its time on fiscal issues. it only spent one special session for the marriage amendment on the ballot in north carolina.

that was a bipartisan vote. actually, the group i support, we are concerned with prosperity. and not leaving a huge debt of trillions of dollars to our children. social issues are very important to many people, including conservative democrats, conservative independents. it is part of the debate. i think mainly democratic party and the liberal pundits are trying to use social issues to drive a wedge and distract voters of republican proposals for job creation is about budgets. host: art pope is joining us live from our c-span bus.

you brought up some of the organizations that you are involved in and that your foundation has given money to. one of those is americans for prosperity. you're on the board of directors for americans for prosperity. how did you come about that? guest: i believe in a public policy debate. you also need activism. whether you are a legislator or a congressman, you hear the special interests and lobbyists all the time. very rarely do they hear from their constituents. bring them together so they have a voice that will be heard. i think you need grass roots

activism to offset the special interests that are there all the time. host: they have ties to the koch brothers. they have drawn the ire of the obama administration at times. talk about your relationship with the brothers. guest: i serve on the board of directors for americans for prosperity with david koch. he has been a generous supporter. i donate. we have many donors. more important, we have over 2 million grass roots combinations. these are real people who have

taken actions to hold elected officials accountable. you have been polite. some say is just a front group for big oil. that is simply not true. go to our national summit where we have thousands and not paid one a dime to be there. they spend their own money to come to washington so their voice can be heard. host: paul on the republican line. caller: you have to get it right. in a ron paul supporter. i have a fire in the belly. i am a veteran. i am for bringing the troops back. here is the big question. slavery was written into our constitution.

it took 100 years and 250,000 lives to settle the issue that it was morally wrong. how long do think it will take to settle roe v. wade, which was wrong, to change the situation of abortion? guest: if i understand your question correctly, first of all, slavery was the near-fatal defect in the constitution. unfortunately, it took the civil war to end of slavery. in regards to abortion, it was primarily a state issue. it has been recalled -- resolved on a state-by-a state issue. when roe v. wade was decided, it is decided and subject to the federal 4 -- federal courts. now, we're over a generation, it may take a u.s. constitution

amendment to change that and put it back to the states or a constitutional amendment at the federal level. unfortunately, it is a very controversial, very litigated issue. northwe'll go to our carolina line for our voters in north carolina. david is waiting on the independent line. he wants to talk to our pope. caller: good morning. i am an independent thinker. long time resident of north carolina. you have not really mentioned the onslaught that conservatives had to withstand

from the media. just a few years ago, we had our first republican governor in north carolina. now have a republican legislature. all we are trying to do is level the field of ideas. i think you have been instrumental in doing that. i wonder seeking comment about the other forces that are impacting, if you well, the media, the newspapers. people like that. i will hang up. thank you. guest: well, in north carolina, like in many states, at the national level, our main newspapers do strongly leaned liberal or democratic. for years, the only endorsed democratic candidates. occasionally, now they endorse republicans. the media is predominately for

liberal policies and of the democratic party. we have had a situation where the left started attacking republicans. the democratic party in north carolina called for a boycott. because i support education reform in public schools, the teachers' union in north carolina also boycott. they are trying to shut down and silence the debate of conservatives. that is not healthy infant democracy. i am more than happy to debate the liberals, rather than attacking their character from false, malicious attacks.

host: want to go to one of the students we have ready to join us at the c-span bus. caller: something abhorrent to me is environmental sustainability we have reached a pivotal and critical moment. host: mr. pope, talk about your group's influence on environmental issues. guest: more than that, i can talk about my own record. i serve on the north carolina general assembly for eight years. i got a 100% rating from the conservation council for my strong boats to protect the environment. republicans and conservatives agree in protecting the empowerment. primarily from the perspective of what helps benefit society

and businesses. a critical energy portfolio. they criticized that policy, rather than lowering the amount in the air. although it is increase the utility bills for north carolina families. -- all it did is increase the utility bills for north carolina families. the environmental issue, like all issues, should have two sides of the debate. we may disagree about how best to achieve that clean environment. host: let's go to tyler on the

democratic line. caller: good morning. mr. pope, you said you have a certain amount of funding that you have given per family. my brother always said it is not the individual of your character, but the friends you associate with. [unintelligible] guest: i have never supported that foundation. i was not a member of the american legislative changed counsel. they have done some good work. they have done some

controversial work. this is controversial as well. i do not support alec. host: we spent a lot of time talking about your money and showed organizations you are involved in. i want to get your take on the controversial citizens united decision and the role of money and influence in politics. guest: well, first of all, and this is one of the errors that were delivered in the article. everything i was involved in was not under citizens united. they did not expressly advocate any candid. by the way, citizens united had a liberal support. individuals also have a first amendment rights. that is important.

all media today is through corporations. if newspapers endorse a candidate, they have corporations. if they don't have first amendment rights, the government can shut them down. the have to expressly exempt news media, otherwise, there would be regulated. in a free, democratic society, we need freedom of speech. they to protect the rights of individuals and corporations to freedom of speech. one of the government lawyers try to defend regulation was asked, if you had a 500 page

book on someone who was a candid it and said this is a good person, vote for him, would you ban that book? would the fcc ban that book? we cannot put book banning under our first amendment. host: npr sat down and did an interview with her after that article was published. it talked about the citizens united decision. i just wanted to read her comments. he, meaning you, is just educating people. we will go down to north carolina. charles is on our north carolina line. good morning. caller: i want to ask him -- i

am against gay marriage, period. i think it is absolutely wrong. i think that people should vote it down. i am asking you, would you like to be in a church, serving god, and that pastor is married -- has married gay people. would you attend that church? guest: my personal take, i respect this -- respect the secret ballot. i have not stated what side i believe in. i believe and the freedom of religion. it is up to the church, whether they are gay or condoned gay marriage.

that should be a private choice and those churches. however, when it comes to legal aspects of marriage, legal rights, that is what this amendment does. the courts cannot change with the lot is direct constitutional amendment. i'll have to go back to your comment on the article. with regards to myself and my company, it did not happen. citizens united protect the rights of liberal corporations, such as pro-choice and groups to spend money and unions as well. host: a tweet i want to read for you. we will go back to the phones in louisville, ky.

on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about getting the conservative message out to college students. as everybody knows, the conservative message is apparently not ringing in the years of college students. i have a recent college grad and a daughter about to enter college. guest: well, one year the republicans are leapfrogging. the republicans are leapfrogging democrats. the 2008 election, the obama

campaign was cutting edge on using social networking, text messaging, e-mail, in order to reach out to the young voters, educate them on their position and they turned out and voted for president obama. the republican party was caught off guard in every form. the obama campaign in north carolina in 2000 it had about 83 months get out of the boat effort to identify, register, and turnout the voters. it is overwhelmed by the get out of the vote early voting of the democrats and liberals. they're doing many of the same techniques, both in the long term and reaching out to voters. quacks' the house is coming back in. including a number of measures to be used for several upcoming events.

september 30, 20 13rks and for other purpose, waiving the requirement of clause 6-a of rule 313 with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on the following, house concurrent resolution 117, by the yeas and nays, house resolution 118 by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote resm maining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute vote thesms unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, to suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 105, on which the yeas and nays are wordered. the clerk will report the

title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 105, house concurrent resolution authorizing the use of emancipation hall for an event to celebrate the birthday of king kamahameha. the speaker pro tempore: members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> leon panetta met with his counterpart in china. >> good afternoon. it is my privilege and honor to

welcome general leon panetta back to the pentagon. i am pleased that in the course of his visit to the united states, general has had the opportunity to visit in number of important military installations and received some very thorough briefings and demonstrations from our military leaders. we just finished a very productive meeting. our first with the secretary of defense.

this continued to regular dialogue between military and political leaders from the united states and china. earlier this year, i was honored to be able to host a vice- president shi during his visit to the united states. i was pleased by the successful outcome of last week's strategic and economic dialogue and the second strategic security dialogue that jim miller, are acting undersecretary of defense

for policy, let the department's delegation. in my meeting with the general, i expressed my commitment to achieving and maintaining a healthy stable, reliable and continuous relationship with china. as a symbol of that during our meeting, the general invited me

to visit china. i look forward to doing that with in the next few months. the united states and china are both pacific powers in -- our relationship is one of the most critical in the world. we share many interests across the asia-pacific region and beyond. from humanitarian assistance to concerns about weapons of mass destruction to terrorism, drug interdictions, trade, and counter piracy.

it is essential for our nation's to communicate effectively on a range of very challenging issues. the united states and china have already worked together in a variety of areas. we are expanding our cooperation, particularly in areas like peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and counter piracy.

on counter piracy -- china has conducted maritime operations in the gulf of aden for more than three years. these operations have helped to secure the free flow of commerce in vital sea lanes from the red sea to the indian ocean. i thank general liang for these

efforts and later this year, the united states and chinese ships will continue -- conduct a combined counterparty exercise in the gulf of aden. -- counter piracy exercise in the gulf of aden. on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, i conveyed to the general my appreciation for china co-chairing a group dedicated to these efforts on behalf of the defense ministers meeting plus.

on regional security challenges, we talked about north korea and other areas, areas of mutual interest that require our continued cooperation and dialogue. and on other issues, of discussed maritime areas, cyberspace, nuclear proliferation and missile defense as well. as you all know, the united states department of defense recently released a new defense strategy. it recognizes that no region is more important than the asia-

pacific for our country's future peace and prosperity. our goal is to enhance our corp. throughout the region -- with china so that we can promote peace and stability in that region. we recognize that the united states and china will not always agree on every issue but we believe our military to military

dialogue is critical to ensuring that we avoid dangerous misunderstandings and misperceptions that could lead to crisis. a positive, cooperative, comprehensive united states- china relationship is absolutely essential to achieving a secure asia-pacific region and a more secure future for both of our nations. general liang , thank you for

your leadership and now let me turn it over to you. >> friends of the media, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. at the invitation of secretary panetta, i am leading the senior military delegation to visit the united states. i am bringing the french ship -- friendship from the chinese people and the chinese military.

the purpose of my visit this time is to implement the important agreements reached by president who jintao i'm president obama on developing the china-u.s. state to state and military to military relationship, to increase mutual understanding and to raise the level of our state to state and military to military relationship, in particular our

military relationship and to ensure that this relationship can continue to develop in a sound and stable manner. the united states attaches great

importance to my visit this time, in particular secretary panetta has made considerable arrangements to my visit. i arrived in the united states in san francisco on the afternoon of the fourth of may to read it has been three days. i have been very glad during the past three days. i received many benefits and aspirations during my visit. -- inspirations during my visit. i would like to thank the u.s. side for its considerable arrangements and warm hospitality.

this morning, i had a meeting with mr.burns, the deputy secretary of state. we had a discussion and a candid discussion on international security situations on the issues of our common interests. we discussed our military- military relationship. just now had a meeting with the south -- secretary panetta in the atmosphere of candida's and friendship. we discussed many issues -- candidness and french. we discussed many issues. we have reached many agreements

during that meeting. i can candidly share with the media that we have reached the following agreement. the first agreement reaffirmed the china-u.s. military to military relationship as a central components, committed to building a sound, stable and reliable military to military

relationship in accordance with precedent hu jintao barack onma's shared a vision based mutual respect and mutual benefit.

both sides reaffirmed the need for continuous, strategic communication and up held that the two sides should enhance strategic mutual trust through dialogue and consultation and properly handled differences and seventh -- sensitive issues. the chinese side invited u.s. secretary of defense to pay a visit to china at the second half of this year and a time convenient for both sides. just now, secretary of another released that news. -- secretary leon panetta released that news. the defense policy court in this -- coordination talks and

the defense ranked as important channels to deepen understanding, and improve mutual trust and reduce differences. both sides agreed that the two militaries should continue to strengthen pragmatic exchanges at all levels across all areas. with a view to expanding common interests.

both sides agreed to enhance exchanges and cooperation with respect to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, military, environmental protection and medical, educational, cultural archives and other fields.

both sides acknowledged that the security situation in the asia- pacific region has been complicated and that cooperation in security areas is conducive to peace and stability of the region. in response to the full range of security threats and challenges, the two militaries to further advance exchanges and call are -- and cooperations on the nontraditional security fund. both sides will conduct joint exercises this year.

friends of the media, i will ensure you that the cut -- chinese side will implement these agreements with our -- u.s. friends and secretary leon panetta to employment those agreements. -- implement these agreements.

at present, china-u.s. relationship is on in the starting line in history to build a new type of china-u.s. military relationship based on equality, cooperation which is in accordance with the level of china-u.s. cooperative partnerships. the defense department's of both countries and the common aspiration of other countries. china would like to work with the u.s. to implement these important the concurrent resolution is agreed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the

gentleman from california, and agree to house concurrent resolution 117 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 117, concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the national peace officers memorial service. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. resolution authorizes the use of the capitol grounds for the national peace officers memorial service. one more vote after this one. later this week, federal spending for commerce, justice and science programs. the white house today said they vetoed a bill charging offers budget last summer's pact and cutting programs.

we talked with a capitol hill reporter about that. a staff writer -- congress return to the capital today after a break. something commonly referred to as defense sequester. what is that about? >> it is a provision that was included in last summer's debt ceiling agreement which was supposed to be the hammer to force the house and senate to get together to find a long-term solution to the deficit problem. they were unable to do that last year and this is what will be forced on the government if they do not come up with a solution before the first of next year. a lot of the cuts are coming from the defense side of

republicans want to shift most of those cuts into the domestic side of the spending budget. so this is the beginning of their intent to do so. >> what is the house committee budget chairman trying to do with the bill? >> with the is trying to do is set down to things -- a basic marker where republicans think the cuts should come from and to try to steer some spending bills that will be down later on this year in that general direction. >> why is it top priority for republicans? they feel like the cuts being made are very deep. they are concerned about the affected will have on the military. a lot of it is also political. they see it as a winning issue for them to be able to go to republicans and democrats are refusing to protect the military. leon panetta has said it will

devastate the air force, navy and army. >> what is the timetable of getting this through the house? but this will mike get to the house realistically until after the election. we may see efforts in the house and senate, a democratic alternative. before the election, it is a nonstarter. >> in the house -- what about the senate? >> the senate may feel political pressure to pass something, but it will not go into the senate. it would just show the concern about these remarks on it. but it woman happen before the beginning of november. >> how is this turning attention to the first appropriations bill to keep the federal government funded in 2013? what can you tell us about that

bill? >> this is commerce, justice, and science, a bill that will be one of the few to get through congress and get enacted this year. it is what provides funding for the commerce department and science programs, and is one of the least controversial bills that congress generally does. it will be one of two or three that get done this year. right now, one of the big things on deck is the transportation conference between house and senate, to set up in the before-year highway authorization to spend money on roads and bridges. it is unclear how that will resolve itself. house republicans rejected the conference version and passed

their own narrowly. >> john stanton is a staff writer at "roll call." the house budget committee is working on the defense sequester mentioned in the interview in two parts. members voted 21-9 on a plan to cut spending on food stamps, medicaid, meals on wheels, and other social programs. the committee will continue debating a related bill that would protect $109 billion in spending cuts expected in january. the budget market is expected to continue late into the night. our live coverage will continue on c-span to. -- 2.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 377 nearks are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the concurrentres. solution greed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the item under consideration is the motion on on co---

concurrent resolution 118. the clerk: concurrent resolution 118, authorizing the use of the capitol grounds for the district of columbia special olympics law enforcement torch run. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 374, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 375, the nays are 200, without objection -- the -- 2/3 being in the affirmative, the motion is agreed. to >> i ask that my name be removed of -- as co-spon or of h.r. 361. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend.

>> the house shall be in order. would all members please take your conversations from the floor? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman veck niced for one minute. mr. roe: i rise today to recognize eagle scrout ralph boyes, age 93, who has finally been recognized for attaining

the status of eagle scout 73 years after astaining the rank. he met all the requirements as a sophomore in high school but his family moveden and was never able to appear in the court of honor to receive his award. he enlisted and after the war, he served in germany, vietnam and at the pentagon, retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 1967. after his retirement, he began to search to find his qualifications for the status of eagle. after finding that the last of his scouting records perished in a fire, he went through the requirements with a family friend and found his merit

badges and merits over the years more than qualified him. he was the third generation of his family to be an eagle scout. as an eagle scout myself, i would like to welcome ralph to the ranks of eagle scout. congressman mulvaney asked me to associate his remarks with these. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to recognize teacher jackie rail for being named this year's minnesota teacher of the year. out of more than 300 teachers nominate, jackie was reng niced for his outstanding work in retchigse achievement gap. by using teaching methods to engage different students from different backgrounds, she was able to teach students more effectively and help improve test scores. after several years of

researching teaching methods, jackie and her team recently gained approval to merge advanced placement classes and regular english classes into one course to ensure that all student she is teaches are able to be challenged and excel. she has shown passion for her teaching, her students and her community. i wish her much success as she continues teaching and inspiring minnesota's youth. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek reck nizz? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. thompson thompson thank you, mr. speaker. this is national substitute teacher recognition week. recognizing the 270,000 men and women who fill in for permanent teachers every day in the united states. mr. bishop: research by the substitute teacher institute shows that approximately one year of every kid's k through 12

education is conducted by those extraordinary individuals who are willing to take on the challenge of providing quality education when the permanent teacher is out of the classroom. i taught for 28 years. i have substituted my colleague's classes. it is a miserable job. but these members of the community fill the void in education are worthy of our recognition. i'd also like to recognize and commend the substitute teacher institute, which since 1995 has been providing activities and tech evening ins to subs tight -- techniques to subs tights and providing leadership in their service to districts and substitute teachers nationwide. the substitute teacher institute works to revolutionize the role of substitute teachers into opportunities for educational excellence. i commend them and i wish to commend all people who are substitutes in our nation's school system. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the housele the following request. the clerk: leaves of absence

requested for mr. carrer -- carson of indiana and mr. jones of north carolina for today and for tuesday, may 8. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker very much and i ask unanimous consent that members may have five days to submit their statements into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: this evening, mr. speaker, i'm pleased to be anchoring the congressional black caucus hour on voter protection. at the same time that i have the privilege of hosting this very important discussion, let me

make note of the fact that our very distinguished member, congressman charlie rangel, is being toasted and recognized by our members and i know that many of them will be commemorating congressman rangel, who is a dear friend of mine, who served as an assistant u.s. attorney, a korean war vet, who understands when soldiers go to battle they go to battle so that others might have the opportunity for freedom. and certainly embodied in freedom has to be the idea of being able to vote. so this evening as i discuss these issues, i am delighted to acknowledge him and as well to acknowledge that this is really a bipartisan -- and it should be a bipartisan concern.

because in essence we should not be at this moment speaking about who you vote for as much as we are speaking about allowing you to vote for the person of your choice, but to be able to cast your vote unfettered. and, mr. speaker, that is what my discussion will be about tonight. but as i do so, allow me just for a moment to be able to share a, if you will, point that i think we can all adhere to. this is going to be a tough election season. there are many actors, if you will, that will be involved in this process. this is a presidential year, mr. speaker, and so it's going to get particularly feisty. but i do believe that there's a certain collegiality and

collaborativeness or collaboration as it circles around voting and the idea of voting and voting with a equal opportunity. but i will -- even in our words we need to try and make sure that we are listing the vote -- lifting the voters up. and i heard a comment that i hope -- though it was tongue in cheek with a little humor, someone who was introducing the intended republican nominee, indicated in his remarks very loudly, osama is dead. and in the midst of it, he indicated, i mean, osama bin laden. and i assume he was trying to make a play on words. but i really hope that we can

stay above the line of deansy -- decency as we recognize we live in difficult times. remember the homeland security committee, we just heard publicly about a particular effort to attack our aviation assets. was just announced today as breaking news. and we realize that we live in challenging times. for that reason i think this discussion on voter protection is extremely important. and so let me just say to my friends that until now, historically the voting franchise has only been expanded . this is most evidence in the -- evident in the constitutional amendments that have been patsed to protect and expand the right to vote and since the passage of the voting rights act in 1965 it really has been a bipartisan

congressional prerogative to ensure access to the ballot. president johnson, one of the presidents that has been touted as having the best legislative record, had to cobble together republicans and democrats from the deep south, then called the dixie crass, moderate republicans from the north and midwest, he successfully passed the civil rights act of 1964 and successfully passed in 1965 voting rights act. it was a bipartisan effort. and i might say that many members who have reflected to have had a chance to encounter, some still in this house. i remember most famously jack brooks, after it was all said and done, felt that they had done the right thing. today i was at a middle school dialing and i indicated to them that i would be on the floor of the house discussing voter protection. and i was inspired by those young people. middle schoolers.

who were attentive to learn what their government did and as i left, telling them not how to vote but that they must vote, there was a great excitement in the room. i'm on this floor today for them and all middle schoolers, high schoolers, college students, senior citizens, new immigrants who have taken the oath of office with such great pride, long-time voters, new voters, voters who have the right to vote. that's what we're talking about. and unfortunately a series of laws do not go after those who do not have the right to vote, but these series of voter i.d. laws and new rules and regulations to stop people from voting goes after documented legal voters with legal voting certificates who have done nothing wrong. shame on those who would do so. i just read recently that the lead person opposing the voter

i.d. law in pennsylvania, if i am correct, i believe it's my recollection now, would be 93 years old. that's who we're hurting. senior citizens. people who have toiled and worked and paid their taxes, paid into medicare and now because of when they were born, such as my mother, they do not have a birth certificate. we tried, we looked, we still have an inquiry in. god bless her soul, my mother has since passed. while we are in the midst of looking for the certificate for a number of reasons. but she had her voting card and she was eligible to vote. but under new voting i.d. laws, she would not be eligible to vote. an here's a woman who raised her children, paid her taxes, self-educated herself, achieved a status of a vocational nurse in times when education was not

gifted to her. a recent report by the brennan center for justice of n.y.u. law school concluded that the newly enacted state laws that would affect more than five million eligible voters will disproportionately disenfranchise young, low income, elderly and minority voters. in 2006 the brennan senter completed a nationwide survey of voting-age citizens and found that african-american voters are more than three times as likely as caucasians to lack a government-issued i.d. but the real nonsense of it all is that voter i.d.s are to avoid voter impersonation. and voter impersonation is aify neat, -- finite, small part of any kind of voter fraud. in fact, under the bush administration there was less than 20, if you will, that were

prosecuted. 20. we're talking about a country of 300 million. and this is by recollection. i think there was some 180 cases that were brought forward and they only wound up prosecuting a small finite number. but the heavy burden on minority voters seems patently unfair and it seems to be a direct result of the great enthuse yasms of all voters in -- enthusiasm of all voters in 2008. i want to see that all the time. and sometimes we win and sometimes we lose. isn't it interesting, when the wave of tea party voters had such an impact in 2010, and meap of them were new -- and many of them were new voters. i didn't farewell in that. meaning my -- fair well in that. meaning my party's particular position. but it was the american way. all of a sudden, even with these new voters, and the will of the people being adhered to, all of a sudden these new laws come out of the very people who are new

to the voting process, many of them, and were excited about voting in 2010. now comes a sledgehammer to prevent others from voting. in texas, thanks to new voter i.d., students may not use their school-issued i.d.'s to vote which is part of an effort to restrict student i.d.'s as a valid form of identification. this is the same state that will allow texans with a concealed weapons permit to use their permits to vote but a student who is trying to get an education, who has a state-issued i.d. card, is not afforded the same privilege to use their student i.d.'s. mind you, the case established, a supreme court case, that students could vote where they go to school. i remember that. thaws -- that. because we marched some seven miles-plus down an interstate to a&m. thousands, to determine that students have a right there, that set historical supreme court decision.

and by the way, this was not in essence a liberal court. this decision was made under the bush administration that determined that students can vote and now the state of texas is suggesting that they can't use their i.d. shame on them. frankly this seems out of whack, a student should be able to use their i.d. to vote. 11% of u.s. citizens or more than 21 million americans do not have government-issued photo identification. also as many as 25% of all african-american citizens of voting age do not have government-issued i.d.'s. voter i.d.'s have a disproportion unfair impact on low-income individuals, racial and ethnic minorities and this has a heavy burden on hispanic voters in texas. we've found out that many hispanic voters live in counties where there is no department of public safety office for them to even go to. mr. speaker, do we get an airplane? a helicopter?

what do we tell individuals who have toiled, who have worked and are second and third generation texans, but just because of their aging status, maybe because of health reasons, they cannot get a voter i.d.? senior citizens, voters with disabilities and others. many of these individuals do not have government-issued i.d.'s or the money to even acquire one. yes, under texas law they can vote by mail. but i tell you, getting information to people is very hard. if you're used to going and voting on a sunday, if you're used to being taken when your family members have the time to take you, which is weekend voting, and you're used to taking your voter certificate and now the new law says no, what an outrage. but i have relief. as it relates to texas, i have

just spoken to the justice department and have been reissued a letter that indicates that the texas voter i.d. law is invalid as it relates to the voting rights act of 1965. a cause for celebration. our primary will be may 29 and that law will be invalid for both the primary and the runoff. and i've asked the state of texas to not hide that information and to come out with a clear annunciation, not a negative announcement that says the justice department has found or stopped the texas voter i.d. law, that doesn't help anybody understand anything. you have to come out, your duty is to be impartial as a state election officer and are you to come out and say that the current law, not the voter i.d. law that is invalid under the voting rights act, until a

further court determination can be made, which is not until the july, 2012, court hearing. it is important for to us work together as state officials to let everyone know your voting certificate is an appropriate document to allow you to vote. that is what government is supposed to do. give fair and impartial information no matter where it falls. i look forward to working with our state government to ensure that impartial information is now promoted to all people, everyone. your voth certificate saleh jit mat dumont. if you do not have a voter i.d., state-issued voter i.d., you can vote in your primary whether it's republican, democratic or any other primary that's viable in the state of texas. why is that so difficult to do? more than 21 million americans do not have government issued photo identification which

includes, again 25rk% of african-american voting age citizens, more than 5.5 million people. 16% of those earning less than $35,000 a year, and more than six million voters 20% of young voters, 18 to 29. much higher in the hispanic community. according to the photo i.d. proposals are not new, with them emerging out of the 2000 presidential elections when conservative watchdog groups contended that the national voter registration act of 1993, known as motor voter, had opened the door toils legal voting. that's impossible, mr. speaker. didn't look like the folks who thought they were losing suffer tooched in the 2000 presidential election. candidate of their choice was elected. was ascending to the presidency. i can't imagine why they would feel they'd been violated by the 1993 motor voter which

means you could register to vote at your various sites around the community including the motor vehicle department. but just -- the justice department under attorney general ashcroft said cracking down on voter fraud will be a top prior thoif justice department, though ultimately the justice department found little evidence of voter impropriety. it established uniform voter identification requirements, prompting calls that states should go further. mr. speaker, this is for everybody. i can't stop or investigate who sitcoming to the polls and suggest that if you are this party or that party, stay away. why would we want to -- why wouldn't we want to help everyone? since 2001, more than 700 voter identification bills have been introduced in 46 states, according to the national conference of state legislatures. a dozen states have passed new voter i.d. laws since 2003 but

only eight states require photo i.d. of voters and only two have laws as strict as those being proposed this year. that was before. now, we have in essence, a new day. we have some tough laws that are hurting voters. we're talking about voter protection, but we have to overcome voter suppression. if you look at this map, you will see that we are being overwhelmed by photo voter i.d. requirements. almost 2/3 of the states have inappropriately and incorrectly believed that they are going to make voting far more secure. let me tell you what an i.d. does. it stops you from impersonating another person. that has been the lowest level of voter fraud because you're silly toimpers nate because you're going into a place that

might subblingt you to an arrest. in the state of texas, precinct judges have the status of a district judge on election day this map will show you how bad it is. look at the yellow. look at the red, excuse me, requires voter i.d. texas. that's why i need the state to announce that the voter i.d. law sin valid for the may 29 primary because it looks fazz we have a requirement that does not exist nor primary. someone hear me. we are only gated to tell the 21 million-plus texans they have the right with a voting certificate if they're registered to vote for the may 29 primary that red is getting pretty strong. blue, photo i.d. requested. the red was photo i.d. required fork toe i.d. only. nothing else. how absurd. in essence, we're taking a match and burning the voting

certificates that people have work sod hard to get, that allows people to vote that you tell people to be registered again. it also disallows organizations like the league of women voters, put as a very heavy hand on what happens when you register people to vote and how you have to get those registrations in. the big stop sign, that's why it's red. it's the stop people from voting law. then look at the voter i.d. requested, blue states. then look at the voter -- photo voter i.d. legislation propodse, it covers 90% of america. how absurd. and i would be open to finding a way to ensure that that diminished, limited amount of fraud is taken care of but this is what it does. it puts a red stop sign, stop from vote, it frightens people from vote, it keeps people from voth.

speaker, i ask unanimous consent to sub in it goo into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speerk. and then of course, another big fat red map shows states where voting changes were pursued in types of changes enacted. i'll show it in a moment, it includes legislation introduced, big red, photo i.d. requirements passed, white, proof of citizenship passed, restrictions on voting reg strix, restrictions on absentee voting, passed, making it harder to establish voting rights, you can see the couldn't vi predominantly red, with a big stop sign, stopping people from voting. i beg of you, why would we that have the privilege of having a dumont that gave citizens due

process, gave us the freedom of speech, petition, assembly, all strog do with petitioning your government and then we have a movement that literally stops us in our tracks. then we have citizens united. that dumps money into elections. and literally skews who gets to be selected by the people. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to submit this red dumont into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i want everyone see how much we need to overcome voter suppression by, in essence, protecting everyone's right to vote. may i be very cleern this, everyone's right to vote. a dozen states have passed, as i said, new voter i.d. laws since 2003.

however, voter i.d. proposals have a forceful momentum this year not seen in years past. this year, mean 20g12, 2011, going back to 2010. this is part of a broader legislative movement to limit access to the political process for disenfranchised groups at a level not seen since post-reconstruction era laws implementing poll tax and literacy tests. now, we have to know that there are those of white house come from states where the literacy tests and poll tax have not gone away even for 60 years, meaning that we have not even had that relief for 60 years. there were lawsuits in the 1940's that ultimately generated an opportunity for constituents not to pay a poll tax. i remember beulah shepard who came to texas, the late beulah shepard, if there ever was a person who talked about voth,

it was sister beulah shepard out of acres home. she used to recite a poem, just one vote. the gave a whole list of what one vote, one person could do she proudly talked about how the fact that she paid a poll tax to vote and she paid a poll tax, i think she said, for her husband and others who needed to vote. that wasn't too long in america's history and future, mr. speaker. what a shameful turn of events that now the late beulah shepard is no longer here and how she's be crying, turning over in her resting place to realize all the toiling she did to register people to vote, to empower those who had been disenfranchised, now could not vote. susan b. anthonys and sojourner truth, who could not vote

because women weren't land owners who worked a and were ridiculed and now to find that some elderly woman who doesn't have a voter photo i.d., and i say, you cannot get a voter i.d. if you don't bring something like a birth certificate and this is where our senior, either can't get theirs or they're old enough or too elderly to have access to their birth receive certificate. maybe they were in essence brought into this world by volunteer or mid wife, family members, there's no birth certificate. maybe in the deep country, in the deep of night, dark of night. where mom and baby did not get recognition until days or weeks afterwards or living as long as they've lived, the birth

certificate has been lost. i've heard of veterans whose veterans dumonts were burned up in a fire. they were still veterans, they servednary country, we see them every day. here we have a situation where you're disenfranchising groups at a level not seen since post-reconstruction era laws, i.ing poll taxes and literacy tests and just since 2011, photo i.d. proposals have been proposed in 32 states and passed out of one legislative chamber in 12 states. lawmakers have pinpointed photo i.d. ss a top legislative priority. the governor of texas called it an emergency to allow it to be fast tracked. the rules were prefiled before legislative sessions began in half a dozen states.

let the mank -- let me thank chairman cleaver for led leading out not only members of the congressional black caucus but collaborating with other organization and let me thank my colleagues who have work sod hard on this issue, let me thank congresswoman christensen who is detined at a matter she had to attend to who has been anchoring these hour-long discussions. what you do to others comes back to you. the idea of limiting a person's access to voting and being able to vote on the cause of how you think they will vote and how you don't want toes theme -- those people to vote comes back to americans who want to vote in which ever way they do.

stop me from voting, you get stopped from voting. the idea of a voting i.d., a photo i.d. is not a respecter of race and if you're elderly and can't get to the department of public safety office or in another state you can't get somewhere, if you're inhibited or prohinted -- prohibited, it is an impact on you no matter what background you come from. thank god for the congressional black caucus that is a respecter of the rights of all people. we are fighting for our children, we are fighting for young people, we are fighting for the elderly, the disabled and no natter who you are, if you're blocked to vote because of the voter i.d., this is voter suppression and we want to have voter protection. the governor of texas, the governor of texas designated photo i.d. as a legislative emergency in order to allow it to be procedurally fast tracked through the legislature. photo i.d. proposals were prefiled before legislative sessions began in a half a dozen states.

i don't know why that happened. we're bogged down with a redistricting case. the secretaries of state in a number of states have listed photo i.d. as a top priority. mr. speaker, it does nothing. the bush administration showed they couldn't find any fraud worth prosecuting for people who were impersonating a voter. photo i.d. proposals have garnered significant momentum in a very mistaken manner that is going to do something. it is not. let us point out voter fraud. let us in essence carve it out. but are you not going anywhere with voter i.d. laws who discriminate against the elderly, who discriminate against minorities, who discriminate against those individuals who have lived long enough and served their country long enough that they just might not remember where their birth certificate is. or even their marriage certificate.

significant momentum is going on this and it is wrongheaded. and opponents are having difficulty waging effective counterattacks that curve the movement on these bills as majority leader shifts emboldinned by their increased numbers are more committed than they ever have been. let me congratulate the state of ohio, congresswoman fudge, where the people of that state defeated that draconian law and they will not have the burdens of their voter i.d. law in the 2012 presidential election. yeah for them. a battle ground state where the people can vote as they choose and we're going to all realize that ohioans will not be encumbered by draconian laws, they will battle it out in the democratic process and they will vote. and no one can block them from voting. in 1890 the state of mississippi, although african-americans made a 58% of

the population due to the structure of voting laws that year in mississippi, the 134 elected delegates, only one was african-american. and that was during reconstruction. it does not take a genius to recognize that the african-american vote was deluded. we cannot allow history to repeat itself, that is why we have the voting rights act and why we are ever-vigilant to guard against any encroachment on the right to vote. and so my argument is today that we're going to go across america and i appreciate my colleagues who have joined in this effort to go across america and we're going to introduce voting protection seminars, to ensure that every voter, that minority voters and elderly voters, have a right to vote. in order to ensure that even in

my own state, mr. speaker, i'm very glad to have spoken to my state officials today. and i ask unanimous consent to put this letter to texas state officials, i ask unanimous consent to put it into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: with that in mind, in the name of so many great leaders from our early presidents who valued this historic democratic process to the drafters of the constitution that began to open the words of this great book, that we have come together to establish justice, first to form a more perfect union, to ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity to ordain and establish the constitution of the united states.

voter i.d. laws do not equal to liberty. they do not equal to giving to our posterity. our children, combrand children, the grandchildren's children and children, great-great-great grandchildren, the voter i.d. law is oppressive and it denies the right to vote. i cry in my heart, mr. speaker, for we have fallen victim to a distortion of the right of people to vote and a distortion of the blame game and so state legislatures have attempted to say they're doing something and, mr. speaker, they are not. they are not. and so i ask finally to put into the record a letter from the department of justice dated may 4, 2012. i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: finally as i said, mr. speaker, as i hold

this constitution in my hand, i certainly want to add to my plea an extended hand to ensure that what our founding fathers wanted , to ensure domestic tranquility , to establish justice, to secure the blessings of liberty will be found in the 2012 election and that because of one's i get knick or racial background or age or gender or whether you live in the country, meaning, in the rural areas of the nation, that you will not have a stop sign, a red stop sign that will be standing at the door of the courthouse or the place where you vote, you will not have a stop sign that says, stop, you don't deserve

the blessings of liberty, you deserve to be treated in the ways ofiester year, when people were second class and third class citizens. i pray, as i know my founding fathers would offer, prayerful prayers for all of america, that we take this red map and turn it to a map of brightness, with a big sign, the door is open for legal voting, unoppressed, you are protected and you are given the blessings of liberty. i thank my colleagues of the congressional black caucus, i thank all those who are working on this issue and i look forward to the state of texas, that we work together to announce that you can vote under the old law and you can vote on sunday and you can go out and vote and you can have the blessings of liberty that the constitution has so given us. with, that mr. speaker, i yield

back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair lays before the house the enrolled bill. the final enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3248, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 112 south fifth street in st. chafrls, -- charles, missouri, as the lance corporal drew w. weaver post office building. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes. as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i have ago an article that stated today, monday, may 7, 2012, from the associated press, congress' intelligence heads, colon, taliban has grown stronger under obama. senator feinstein and representative mike rogers i just saw outside, smart guy, former f.b.i. agent, well respected in areas of law enforcement and security of this country. well, as the article points out, there are other articles as well, but this article, from a.p. says, the leaders of congressional intelligence committee said sunday they believe the taliban had grown

stronger since pome sent 33,000 more troops to afghanistan in 2010. the report by senator dianne feinstein, d from california, representative mike rogers, republican from michigan, challenges obama's own assessment last week in his visit to kabul that the, quote, tide had turned, unquote, and that, quote, we broke the taliban's momentum, unquote. the two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the region where they met with afghan president hamid karzai. quote, president karzai believes the taliban will not come back. i'm not so sure, feinstein said. quote, the taliban has a shattered system of governors in many province, unquote. when asked if the taliban's

capabilities had been degraded since obama deployed the additional troops two years ago, feinstein said, quote, i think we both say that what we found is that the taliban is stronger, unquote. i was in afghanistan a couple of weeks ago, was in afghanistan a couple months before that. and as one of the afghans pointed out, former ally, well, they're still allies, as far as they're concerned. this administration's thrown them under the bus, but they pointed out, you know, from the taliban's perspective they have said, we the taliban do not have to win a single battle. all we have to do is be here

when the united states leaves. now, a couple of weeks ago, of course, the administration, two cabinet members were requesting that my dear friend dana rohrabacher not go into afghanistan for one reason, that president hamid karzai didn't want him to come in. now, apparently karzai, ignorant of what is actually going on in washington, had said that my friend, congressman rohrabacher, proposed a bill that would partition or divide up afghanistan. well, i worked with congressman rohrabacher on his very good bill and basically it's a sense of congress that said, we support afghans' right to vote for their leaders. now, i understand secretary

clinton inherited a state department and a situation in afghanistan that was not of her making. i get that. in fact, we sat by and even assisted as afghanistan created a constitution based on shari'a law that has now resulted in the last public christian church closing. it's a system where the president gets to appoint governors, mayors, chiefs of police, many of the high-level teachers, slate of legislators, he gets a powerful control over so much of the purse strings. so, it was amazing to see the president overcome and doing what appeared to be a victory lap around afghanistan and back home, gee, the taliban's back is broken, things are looking good.

and we now have an agreement going forward with afghanistan. great news. well, when you find out from afghans that actually the afghanistan government has a $12.5 billion budget and all the sources of revenue that afghanistan can come up with provide $1.5 billion of their $12.5 billion budget, and the rest come from other countries, you would presume largely from the united states, and when one considers the billions of dollars that we are spending for humanitarian projects, training farmers to farm, as i've met with the teachers, american teachers teaching afghans to farm, and they were so depressed because the billions we've spent

, given basically to afghanistan to create farming projects so the people can maintains themselves when we're gone, made its way to any of those projects in that region of the country. there's one region where apparently some has made it to projects. but certainly not all and probably not most of them. so, it would seem, if you're the president of the united states and you go to a country whose government has a $12.5 billion budget and they can only come up with $1.5 billion of that, and you're the big force behind all the other $11 billion, it would seem to me that there shouldn't be a whole lot of negotiation that has to take place. what kind of person does not understand leverage?