more will talk about spending cuts in sequestration. >> for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that i think same-sex couples should be able to get married. host: with those words, president obama has ignited a national conversation on gay marriage. that is our conversation this morning in the first section of the washington journal. we want to get your views on what the president had to say yesterday. the numbers are on the screen for you to call. please allow 30 days between

your calls. can also contact us via twitter or make a comment on our facebook page where you can continue the conversation. finally, send us an e-mail if you would like to make a comment. here are the front pages of a lot of the papers this morning. here's the wall street journal -- and the washington post -- -- york timesnew york time and the new york daily news -- and "usa today" -- and here's the "washington times -- and inside the wall street

journal, here is a little bit of the story -- 40% of americans oppose gay marriage. other surveys show similar levels of backing for same-sex marriage. now the new york times article this morning --romney reaffirms

opposition to marriage or unions for gay couples. here's what he had to say yesterday in oklahoma city in response to a question from a reporter. >> i have the same view on marriage i had when i was governor and that i've expressed many times. i believe marriage is of relationship between a man and woman. the states are able to make decisions with regard to of domestic partnership benefits such as hospital visitation rights, benefits and so forth, of various kinds can be determined state-by-state. my view is marriage is a relationship between a man and woman and that is my own preference. klein no other people have differing views. is is a very tender and sensitive topic as are many social issues, but i have the same view i have had since running for office. >> in the new york post is this article -- obama evolves at last. valerie is a democrat in baltimore.

go ahead. caller: good morning. i disagree with the president, but i respect his opinion. do think it's ok to expand the definition of marriage to include two men or two women, then it should also be ok to include polygamy? why not? if your answer is to call me a name, then you're really don't have an answer. host: valor, you are a democrat. would this affect your support for the president? no, this is only one issue. host: our next call comes from a republican in trenton, new jersey, david. caller: good morning. it was written that mere

tolerance is a virtue of men and women who no longer believe in anything. tolerance is a very easy thing to do. anybody can tolerate anything. iyou don't have to take a stand on main thing -- on anything. hundreds of thousands of american men have died very slow and painful deaths because of sex outside natural law. it is an abnormal way of life. for years, people were locked on television shows, guys like me. i was involved in that lifestyle starting back in the early 1980's. got into it through drugs and alcohol, through manipulation, through recruitment. it almost destroyed my life. i turned my life around in my early 30's. is a very dark and perverted way of life.

thomas sexually is not just sitting on the front porch with lemonade according to one another. it is a meat market. it is very transitory. you come in and out of a man's life. are a few small percentage of people who were born that way. but you would not believe how mechanical man can be in sexual ways, how many have died. host: are you married now? >> yes, i am. i remember on the phil donahue show years ago there was a guy on their, they mocked him and laughed at him. you can get yourself out of addiction and pornography and homosexuality. maybe i was not born that way.

maybe there are people who are. i have met many good gay couples. >> are you against gay marriage? >> of course. most palma's sexual probably are, themselves. -- most homosexuals probably are. host: we will move onto and neck, a democrat in new york city -- to nick. >> i think politically it was wrong, but morally it was right. i am not a gay person, but the previous couple callers have the wrong. i live in new york city. lot of gay people are here. it's not only about sex for gay

couples. it is about love and relationships and humanity. it is not only about sex. heterosexual couples can also just about sex. it is live and let live. i do want to say i think it was the wrong time. i don't know if the comments by the vice-president pushed president obama's hand. i wish the president would be as verbal about things like to big to fail -- too big to fail and high risk investments by the banks. we put in our deposits to make our money safe. the banks make crazy bets and risky investments and banks close and then the fdic has to step it. host: we're getting a little off

topic. we want to hear your comments on what the president had to say to robin roberts of abc. our next caller. caller: a bastard child. marriage is for a man and woman. host: katie, you are on the air. caller: hi. i grew up around a very homophobic father. i have an older sister who is

gay. i have a twin brother who was gay. it caused a lot of tension in my family when i came out. i see a lot of straight couples bashing anybody they think is gay, they say they must be investigated and must be in their proper place. what happens to them when they get caught in an act of adultery or their husband gets caught? host: are you in favor of gay marriage? caller: it all comes into gay marriage. what i grew up with was constant homophobia.

with obama finally saying it is ok takes an enormous burden off our backs, saying you can finally let down your guard. host: francis, a democrat, lake charles, louisiana. caller: good morning, peter. i would just like to say that i think that everyone deserves their equal rights under the law. i am not going to sit in judgment of anyone. neither would i want anyone to sit in judgment of me. i think that is what happened to germany. i hope to god that this country lives up to its constitution and

all the rights it has given to all people. as a black american, i understand that more than most people. i wish other people would just recognize that god made us all and that is something that no one can take away from us. we have to stand up for our rights. if any group stands up for their rights, they should be heard. i've understand people's feelings and i wish they would just think about that we should treat each human being with the dignity and grace that we expect to be treated ourselves. host: let's leave it there. from "politico" --

and this is from richard kim --

next call comes from ed, and independents in fort myers, florida. caller: i wonder why this was such a big issue. it really does not matter if gay folks get married or not. if they do, it does not infringe upon my marriage or encourage me to be gay. if they don't marry, it does not stop them from being gay. it is just an issue to divide folks. people have been, sexual back to the roman era and the greeks. there are issues we should be voting on like term-limits, that sort of thing. >>

host: chuck is a democrat in charleston. ♪ i would like to respond to the woman called and tried to make a link between marriage equality for gay couples and polygamy a. think those are unrelated issues. marriage equality for a couples has no more to do with polygamy than straight marriage. using her logic, i could just as easily say if you allow a man to marry and one woman then you just automatically have to let him marry as many women as he wants to. polygamy is completely separate and unrelated. getting back to obama, while i support obama and his acceptance of gay marriage, there is one thing he said that it had to be left up to the states to decide. the problem with this is that

most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage comes from the. -- and protections of marriage comes from the federal government. if you have a gay couple that is legally married in iowa. say they are allowed to declare each other social security beneficiaries. then for economic reasons they have to move south to missouri, where they are not allowed to be married. they become unmarried in missouri. does that mean they give up all their federal benefits? most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage comes from the federal government. that's why i think the supreme court will ultimately have the last say on this. host: from the washington post

style section -- and the inside story --

next call comes from michigan, sandy is an independent. what are your thoughts about what the president had to say? you have to keep the volume on your tv turned down. now to a republican in south carolina, lilly. please turn down the volume on your tv. caller: ok. my thoughts is that he is

undermining the whole moral standards of this country. marriage was defined in the bible. that is where it all started. it is a union between a man and a woman. to take this to this other level -- i think he is doing it just to get back at southerners, which is totally wrong. i do not appreciate this man as president and i cannot call him president. host: jerome is an independent in chicago. please go ahead with your comments, we are listening. caller: thanks, peter. i think the entire nation, republicans and democrats, are looking at it in the wrong way. it is an issue that has been around long before there was government. i think the only thing the

government should recognize this civil unions. as far as marriage, they should leave it to the churches or mos ques or synagogues, if they want to approve same-sex marriage, so that should be left to those religious institutions. the only thing the government should recognize is civil unions. host: here are some facebook comments that have been made --

those are some of the facebook comments. here's one more. farmington, missouri, thaddeus on our republican line. good morning. caller: yes, good morning. the way i look at it is these people should live and let live, just like straight people. i don't think it's a big deal. i think it should probably be with the state's. a gentleman talked about the benefits, the tax benefits from the federal government. maybe that should go to the states as well. what i don't understand is this

is kind of like a real big issue right now because obama finally took a side. he could have done so much earlier when he did not have the democratic popularity. now he is kind of like 50-50 and republicans are 50-50. they figure it's not that big a deal and they can make visible up for everybody. it is not really news today. gay marriage is something that we should have, but i don't think it is a federal issue or something for the president to really decide. are really think that if people really wanted to listen to someone who believes in live and let live, they should be listening to ron paul. he has been on the subject forever. he did not just bring it up last-minute. host: how old are you? caller: 44. host: do you think there's a generational difference between

younger and older people on this issue? caller: i do. i think younger people are definitely more relaxed about gay marriage. older people are definitely not going on the opposite side. not all older people, but for the most part the older people are kind of stuck in a rut where they just believe one thing, does like republicans always vote republican and democrats always voted democrat. i think it's changing. host: we played mitt romney's comments on this. what do you think? caller: i think mitt romney had to choose a side. he felt pretty safe because it is 50-50. mitt romney does not have anything to lose now. host: thanks for calling. next call comes from honolulu. bruce, thanks for calling. please turn down the tv.

for all the callers, turn down the volume on your tv. we can hear you through the phone, i promise. jay in pensacola, florida, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my comment. the president said in 2008 that he believed marriage was between a man and woman. he already has a homosexual vote for the most part. the reason he did this is he is forcing romney to speak about religion. i think the question will turn into is it the president's job to support the constitution or promoted religion? i think that is the biggest thing. romney is mormon. a lot of people don't know about the mormon religion. i have my issue with that religion. i am a christian. i don't think gay marriage is right, but two grown men have

the right to make this decision. there's a lot of things christians don't agree with that goes on in society. i think it is sad that people consider themselves christian have not taken on this issue in a better way. if there's many ways you can talk about, sexuality. a man can use a hammer to cut would. i don't hate him for that. i just don't believe a hammer is designed to do that. to cut wood. i believe a chain saw is meant for that. we will see what happens later in the election. host: jim is another independent. caller: of wanted to make a prediction about -- back a few

years ago i went to morocco. they have a tourist attraction. one of the attractions is a palace where a king lived. he had 365 withes. he died with 500 kids and 900 and grandchildren. -- 365 wives. the next thing that needs to be asked is about multiple marriages, because i think that is what is coming. somebody from the news agency needs to go ask joe biden what he thinks about multiple marriages before we go into this any further. that the next thing that is coming. i will take my comments off the air. host: a lot of editorials in the morning papers.

"usa today" -- they always have an opposing editorial. this is written by byron, senior counsel with the alliance defense fund. he writes --

that is a little bit from "usa today" this morning. frank is a republican in baltimore. what are your thoughts on what the president had to say? caller: thanks for taking my call. the president is trying to change the topic. the people like everyone else have been suffering under this president. he stated that he wants to fundamentally change america. gay marriage is not civil

rights. here's the reason why. when you look at every new legitimate civil rights problem, whether it is slavery or women's rights or the holocaust, you can time wherepoint in a specific person or group of people fought for a pre-existing right. there is not the same for gay marriage. no one ever stepped into systematically violates anyone's pre-existing right. host: mark is an independent in new york. as we take the call we will show you some more front pages. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a gay male in new york city, 22 years old.

i want to applaud if obama for having the integrity to stand up for what he believes in. whether it was a political move or not, it's better for him to come out with it now than to win the election and come out with it after, because that just shows he does not have the inner strength speak to say what he means. i really believe that this guy is a good person. i saw some polls posted on a network last night. there is a majority that support gay marriage who are white and a majority of females who support gay marriage and other female politicians like hillary clinton have come out in support of this.

i think that barack obama as a man and a christian and a black man coming out is hopefully going to change the views on this. a lot of the people who are against this are of those characteristics. hopefully, it is bringing some movement with this. host: we will leave it there. from "politico" --

next call, beverly from hartford, north carolina, a democrat. you are on. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just wanted to clear this up. when the president spoke, he spoke about his beliefs. it is not law. getting back to this woman who called in and said that obama is getting back at the south. i don't understand what that means. is the south supposed to be all christians or something? they are the ones who have the most hate for obama and blacks, full of hate. christianity deals with 10 laws. if you obey them, i guess you can get into heaven or wherever we are supposed to be going. peebleses separate church and state. it does not work. i agree with obama. every man in this country should

be treated equally, because we are all created equal in. host: this twitter comment from sam -- and the new york times lead editorial -- that is the new york times

editorial this morning. here's the washington post -- now to the wall street journal this morning -- the washington journal --

that is a little bit from the wall street journal. now back to your calls on what the president had to say yesterday to robin roberts. john, a republican in burnett, texas. caller: hi. he has been for this before in

the late 1990's. then he switched, he was undecided. now he has turned all the way back around again. it is just like his voting was in the house or senate in illinois. blows with the wind. this is nothing but a political strategy to get everybody's eyes and mind off the real issues at hand. it is the economy. remember that james carville said it is the economy, stupid. he is playing a game. he does not want anybody to think about jobs and the economy, because he is a complete failure at both. this is not going to work

because the people in this country are not that stupid. host: fort scott, kansas on our independent line. caller: i think we have bigger fish to fry in this country. gay marriage, no matter what side you come down on, clearly separation of church and state decides that. it has nothing to do with politics. we are wasting time trying to decide something that is really out of their power. it did not have anything to do with it. that's my opinion. host: from the financial times this morning --

next call is ellen in miami on our democrat line. hi. caller: hi. i have heard so many times that this is a generational problem or a misunderstanding. first of all, i am a senior citizen. i, too, have had some evolution on this matter. i have had family members and neighbors who are gay. i see they're committed relationships. i was very touched and moved and impressed by the president's statement. it really raised my spirits to see how far we have come. it must be very liberating to be able to say once and all that you really believe. so many politicians say things they don't believe. it is annoying.

i just wanted to lend my support and i'm very proud of our president. thank you. host: chris is a republican in orange county, california. caller: i am not surprised about bama's decision, because he co -- claimed that he was a christian back when that contraceptions thing was going on. but his actions speak louder than words. i am not surprised that he said this. i am in california. we ban same-sex marriage, but then the courts wanted to overrule the people who decided marriage was between a man and woman. quite simple. eventually i think this thing will go all the way to the supreme court. i feel frustrated because i see

a president getting ahead of the people. recently in north carolina they passed a law banning same-sex marriage and defining it as a man and woman. i think the country has made its decision already. host: we will leave it there, chris. from st. paul, minnesota, this e-mail -- i want to let you know about a new series that will begin on c- span beginning in february of next. next regular viewers know that we often do series. we did the american presidents

in 1999. we did the contenders last year. people who competed for the presidency but did not make it. we have a new series kicking off next february. that is going to be a series on first lady is. it begins on president's day in february 2013. we will look at all the first ladies beginning with martha washington and we will go through the first half of the first ladies from february to about june. then we will pick it up in september for the second half, eleanor roosevelt. all the way to through roosevelt that series begins in february. -- the second half will begin with eleanor roosevelt all the way to michelle obama. i just wanted to let you know about that. the washington post has this --

junior, independent, fort lauderdale, good morning. caller: i really enjoy your show. i am a young african-american male and i have had an evolution. i used to be insulted when people compare the civil rights movement to the gay movement. but when i see what they are going through a and a lot of despicable and harsh comments that a lot of people on the right like the tea baggers make, it is discouraging.

so i appreciate what the president is going. there was a time when interracial marriage was against the law in the united states. there was a time when civil rights was against the law. there was a time women did not have any rights. and that was a popular thing. for the last gentleman to say that the majority of people in california are not for it, there was a time when racism was the majority. so he took a stance and i commend him for that, the president. it is a generational thing. it used to be taboo for a lot of the subject that are considered just a regular life right now. in another 50 years our kids will look back at this and laugh like how silly this is, in my opinion. host: the "washington times this morning --

milton, west virginia, lorraine on our democrat line. what do you think about what the president had to say? caller: i am glad that he did say it. i have disagreed with the president on this issue. as a heterosexual marriage 25 years, i have the legal rights of this country. if marriage were just a religious right, it would be different, but there are legal

ramifications. it goes back to the constitution. the people that disagree with it, usually are very constitutionalist. it is just like the person said before me, we should not be fighting this fight. how can we teach our children about the constitution when we have people that are left out of our rights that are in our constitution? like i said, if it were just a religious issue -- and i am a christian, but my favorite quotation is "do not judge celeste ye be judged." lest ye be judged." host: thank you, lorraine. three quick articles we want to

share with you. the washington post, edwards repeatedly called a lawyer at w -- at trial. and from the washington times -- and also from the "washington skipping the g-8 summit. we only have a two-hour washington journal because the house is in at 8:00. the new gop nominee for senate from indiana, if richard mourdock will be joining us from indianapolis to. after that, representative gwen moore, democrat from wisconsin and member of the budget committee will be here. we will be right back with richard mourdock. >> these men go through things

and have scars that no one can understand except each other. >> the first thing that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and herbert hoover, two political leap and personally different man and who ended up forming an alliance that neither of them would have been dissipated and ended up enormously productive and form the foundation of what became a very deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they had become to one another if are extraordinary. >> the most exclusive club in the world. the private and public relationships of the american presidents. from truman and hoover to george h. w. bush and bill clinton. sunday at 8:00 on c-span. >> i thought it was important to write a book that took people's movements seriously. the movements that elected obama, how did they build over

time? also, the tea party movement, which seemed to come out of nowhere. its origin. and occupy wall street. i thought those were important if things do look at from a we the people perspective. >> former white house adviser van jones on social movements in america today if. saturday night at 10:00 eastern. also, this weekend, the american spectator founder contends that modern liberalism is flawed and has no answers for today's political issues. sunday night at 11:00, on c-span 2. >> washington journal continues. > host: joining us is richard mourdock, who defeated senator richard lugar in the primary on tuesday. thanks for being with us.

if we could, let's start with what we were talking about with our audience earlier this morning. that was president obama's statement endorsing gay marriage yesterday. guest: i was surprised that he made the statement, this being a political year. especially a presidential election year. as i've traveled the state of indiana in the last 15 months, if i have not heard the issue, up more than twice. in a state like indiana that is very conservative that the president won in 2008, it will work to his disadvantage here and i see that happening in the other critical swing states. states with large independent voters, that will be negative for the president. host: what about your personal view? if you make it to the senate and it comes before the senate, and what would your view of the? -- view be? guest: i believe marriages

between a man and woman. 30 other states have passed the so-called gay marriage ban amendments,. that has happened in indiana. i appreciate the fact a lot of states are picking this up as a statewide issue. it is a fascinating issue in that so many states are trying to preemptively act ahead of what the federal government might do. in other words, those states fear what the federal government might do. it is a very unusual thing. i cannot think of another issue where states have so rushed ahead of what they expect some federal judge might do in the future. why do you think you beat richard lugar? guest: first, senator lugar had been in the u.s. senate 36 years. especially during the last 10 years he has really lost touch with the people of indiana. a big issue that came up in the race is that he is not -- or

physically had not decided in indiana since 1977. during the midst of the campaign he filed a lawsuit to make a legal argument that you cannot make me live in indiana. the hoosiers were very offended by that. i could feel it, like a shock wave going across indiana. the hoosiers are pretty simple people. we like to know who represents us and that they share our values. that they would want to eat corn on the cob with us at the county fair. i think mr. lugar had separated himself from them, especially republicans, in that regard. host: i want to get your reaction to what he said in a statement. "if mr. mourdock is elected, i want to be a good senator, but that would require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to washington. he and i share many positions, and his embrace of an

unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of government and my experience abroad brings results for the. hoosiers in the. " the senate." guest: we have a lot of failures in washington right now. let's not forget bipartisanship as we have had it over the last number of years has taken us to the brink of bankruptcy. we don't need bipartisanship as much as we need the principle that says we live within our means. when it comes to negotiating to get the things done with the other side, i can certainly do that, but we need to stand on the principles that say we live within our means. your first question of why did we win this election, i think it's because the hoosiers right now are incredibly proud of their state. i have heard democrats and they identified themselves as democrats, to me and say i am so proud of indiana because through

the entire financial meltdown since 2008 there have only been two states that kept up their head above water fiscally. indiana is one of them. we have cut back spending and reduce the size of government. our credit rating has gone up while the nation's has gone down a. people in indiana want to see that kind of leadership in washington. they know we have to have people who will stand on those kind of solid principles and they know that i will. host: you sued the federal government regarding its bailout of the auto companies. is that correct? guest: let me set it aup. as state treasurer, i present -- represent indiana state police pensioners as a trustee for their pension fund. they are the owners of secured debt by chrysler corp. in 2008 if when the federal government organized the bankruptcy of chrysler in may of 2009, all of the rules of secured creditors,

all those bankruptcy laws that have been in existence since the first congress of the u.s. was thrown out the window. as a result, are secured creditors, who happened to be not just police officers but retired teachers in indiana, had their property ripped away from them in an unprecedented manner. in that case i did file a lawsuit. we went to the u.s. supreme court, first time they failed to take the case and the second time they ruled in our favor by vacating the earlier court decision. host: is the automobile bailout of 2010 different than when chrysler got bailed out and dick lugar was part of this, the 1978 bailout? was that a different situation? guest: totally different situation in the financial structure of the deal. the u.s. government stepped forward to offer loan guarantees. if in the chrysler and the gm case as well, although indiana was not involved in the gym bankruptcy, it was a totally

different deal. secured creditors -- not to go to much into the weeds, but it sounds like complex finance. it is not. if you are secured creditor, it means you have loaned money to business and they have guaranteed you in the event of a bankruptcy but you'll be the first in line to get back your money. the other types of creditors are called non secured creditors and they have no guarantee there will ever get any money back. left overatever money is goes to the non-secured. in the case of chrysler, there were adequate securities, adequate resources, adequate value in a normal bankruptcy to pay back the secured creditors 100 cents on the dollar,. but the government decided that is not what they wanted to do. so they turned the rules upside down arbitrarily to say that secured creditors were going to the bottom of the pile. then the hand selected the the unsecured creditors, put them at the top, most notably the united auto workers.

there were not secured and suddenly getting better than the secured creditors. it was wrong. government's role should never be to pick winners and losers. today, walking here, i was listening about the hostess twinkies company, in bankruptcy. does the government going? to bail going? no. what's the difference? why is government picking winners and losers? host: two times state treasurer of indiana, richard mourdock. he's in the southern part of the state. you ran for office prior to being elected county commissioner, correct? guest: i did. i ran for congress in the eighth congressional district, as it is known in national politics, the bloodiest district. i was the nominee in 1990 and lost. came back and ran again in 1992 and received 49% of the votes. obviously, i lost.

was urged to run again in 1994. if i said i did not think '94 would be a good year for republicans. that was the year i was elected county commissioner and i served two terms. host: have you had a conversation with senator lugar since the election? guest: i have not. i spoke with him the saturday before the election. we were at a joint appearance. we had a moment at the end of the event and i said to him, senator, i have said in hundreds of times and i've never met this more sincerely than this moment, i have great respect for you and no matter what happens on tuesday night, that will continue to be the case. senator lugar is a great man. indianapolis is america's most nearly perfect city. it was put on a course to be modernized because of mayor lugar. he was a great u.s. senator and is a great american. he is a national statesman.

i've nothing but respect for mr. lugar. maybe it is because i lost those elections that i have such empathy for him today. i have not lost a race as an incumbent, but i can only imagine the sense of frustration he has after serving the people of indiana 36 years to lose the way he did on tuesday night. my thoughts are with him. is a good man. i hope to talk to him soon and i would appreciate his support if he chooses to give it. host: let's take some calls. beginning with indianapolis, peter on our republican line. caller: hi. regarding what you said earlier, i know that senator lugar had some harsh springs to say about you. he was not at a press conference that you guys gave earlier. are there plans for an endorsement and the plan to speak with him soon? guest: traditionally, in this situation, obviously, the person who was not successful calls the one who was.

it is an etiquette that i don't want to break for fear that if i give him that call it would be kind of the i told you so. and i don't i would not put the senator in that position. we're moving forward. governor daniels was kind to put that news conference together. it was kind of the governor to step out behind this quickly. mr. lugar, if he chooses to give us a call, we would be delighted to take that call. host: louisiana, steven on-air democrat's line -- steven on our democrat's line.

please go ahead. .aller: i'm from indiana indiana has closed financial books. they are reviewing many of the dollars. how can you help fix and do you believe and social security and welfare? guest: do i believe in social security? absolutely. there needs to be fixes applied, and quickly. there is a fundamental social contract that we have with our citizens. anyone over 55, those promises

that were made have to be kept, every penny. we have to tell people today that there will be a different set of rules and we need to give them a different set of incentives for health care and social security. there is nothing more immoral than making promises that you cannot keep. i believe there needs to be welfare reform. i was the county commissioner and i crafted a unique welfare to work project. we use money from a casino to help people willing to get job training or those with substantial disruptions in their life, we made funding available

for them. it was something they could use as they needed it. it was limited. about the books of indiana -- the public records of indiana are public. there is a new website, transparency of indiana and i would encourage you to check it out. the comprehensive financial report of indiana. host: ben is an independent in arkansas. please go ahead. caller: thank you so much. you were talking about the beailout. chrysler was manufacturing m-1

tank engines. my question has to do with the relation between the federal government and the state government. it is my belief that it is the province of the state to deal with issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control and the government has little to do with these issues. there is a great deal of fuzzy logic being utilized these days. phrases like "due process" are nilly.around willly i think there are citizens who have failed to educate themselves as to what these things really mean.

host: mr. mourdock? guest: believe me, i don't know everything either. i was asking myself how it geologist winds up as a candidate for the u.s. senate? i have read the constitution many times. we were designed to have a relatively weak federal government and stronger state governments. that is why i find this issue so interesting -- the gay marriage issue. i think that saying there is an awakening at the state level for a need to get back to the more federalist principles of the weaker federal government and a stronger state government.

i think historians will note what has been happening these last few years. the government is growing larger and it is sucking up more resources that is killing our economy. so much of our revenues are going to washington. the system was designed so there could be prosperity at the local levels. today we have so much the federal government. they are utilizing resources so they can distribute them as they see fit. somethinghe cusp of that will be seen as historical. host: is there anyone in the senate did you admire the most?

guest: senator jim demint. mike lee from utah. we first met. the senator walked in and stuck his hand. his first words were, "what to the words 'promote the general ?"lfare' mean to you but ihe youngest member think should i be successful, he would be my mentor. host: a large op-ed -- we have an e-mail from an illinois man --

host: your thoughts. guest: the comments i've made about bipartisanship. the obama bill was passed and i don't remember any conversations about bipartisanship. not a single republican voted for it. the democrats have the votes. they were going to jam it through. the highlight of being in this business of politics is the opportunities i have to sit in front of a camera or standing in front of a microphone and conflicting my opinion upon

them with the idea that i may change their way of thinking. i am more frustrated with republicans right now than i am with democrats. they are not coming back to their homes or their districts or their states and they're not getting in front of the unfriendly crowds to make the argument why their vote was the right vote, why limited government is a good thing. i want to be on the campaign trail and putting up that message so republicans who think like i think can become the majority. then i'll be happy to have bipartisanship. host: mr. mourdock has a master's degree from ball state

university. what is your masters in? guest: in geology. i worked in the energy business. i headed it has been spitting a to think that i would be in this wonderful position. only in america. host: how much did you spend in the primary? guest: probably about $2.6 million. we were outspent about three to one. if there's a moral from this race, if i may, i was many times

called a tea party candidate and the democrats are trying to label me as a right wing extremist. i released a list of 3/4 of chairman who signed on to support me. after that, the tea parties came on board and there were a tremendous source for volunteers. this was an overwhelming victory. when people get motivated and they are committed to work for a candidate, they can make all the difference in the world. we identified 1300 critical republican precincts that we wanted to make sure we had somebody attending on primary day and every one of those precincts had a person

there. we had 18,000 man hours on election day. it was an incredible thing. host: his opponent will be representative joe donnelly who represents the south bend area. "washington journal" has invited mr. donnelly to appear on this program, as well. caller: i have been in the army eight years. some died trying to rob me -- some guy tried to rob me. how would you handle this situation -- how can he handle

that situation to where it seems like i'm being stereotyped. they do not have an idea i was honorably discharged. i can understand -- if there'ss see anything there that mr. mourdock wants to respond to. guest: thank you for your service. i urge you to talk to the folks with the local civil rights or get good legal counsel. as a veteran, we appreciate your service to the country and you deserve to have full benefits. host: maurice e-mails into you

-- guest: it may be a stretch to go to three. they have done a better job in opening up a better area of negotiation for the economic ties we have in southeast asia. the emphasis on asian trade is a good thing and a healthy thing. we need to be looking to make sure we have those doors open for us. with china and india and vietnam, there will be more and more trade from the united states and they deserve kudos for that. host: steven from missouri. caller: you mentioned hostess filing for bankruptcy. the last year, the top

executives gave themselves a 80% raises. now they are filing for bankruptcy. i would like to hear your opinion. guest: thank you for the question. i was making that parallel between the chrysler workers who were losing their jobs and they were getting protection from the government. in the hostess case, those people are not getting a be ailout. there has been disparity over the last 20 years where we have seen in public companies and a lot of executives getting bonuses and raises that are way over the top and that is not something that i think is appropriate. i believe in employer stock

ownership program. i have been a member of an esop. i'm concerned about the direction of american competitiveness. i hope to have more employee- owned businesses in this country. the employes would make sure the types of abuse that you talk about will not happen. is there a risk? of course there is. but we have to find a way to encourage entrepreneurship in america. we need to have -- it doesn't mean they have to be experts, but they get to benefit in the long term from their labor. that is a wonderful concept.

this was an area where there was total by partisanship. the republicans said social security was going to have some trouble meeting its obligations and this would be a way for people to help saving for themselves. democrats were willing to say, let's look out for the interest of the working people. you have better distribution of what the company makes based on the approval of the stock owners, the employees. host: george from orlando, --rida, e-mails int guest: well, that is an issue where the states get to decide.

marriage should be between a man and a woman. i understand that other people can disagree with that cornepoit of view. host: jeremy from alexandria. caller: i have a comment and a question. if you want good information about why same-sex marriage has problems, i suggest he look up a law professor at george mason university. my comment relates to the state's interest in marriage. the state has an interest in promoting things that are good for society. there is good information --

host: we are running out of time and we will leave your comment stand there and take this last call from julie in st. paul, minnesota. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. pertaining to social security reform, i am a 54. how does this fundamental social contract affect me? has heard that paul ryan received his social security benefits, so i want mine. guest: i have no idea are common on your reference to mr. ryan. we have to quit making promises we cannot keep. at some point, there will be a date that there will be some

fundamental reforms. the only way to be as fair as is to be able to say to groups above 55, that is the contract. if what i said ever happens, this will have to come that we tell people honestly what they can expect from government. right now we are not doing that. we're sitting on a time bomb of a $15.7 trillion debt. if we're ever hoping to meet the obligations of our national debt and social security, we have to get the economy growing again. we cannot tax or cut our way out

of this problem. we have to grope our way out of bed -- we have to grow our way out of it. i believe the glass is half full. we need to rebuild america and i want to be part of that. host: a criticism that senator lugar campaigned on was all the outside india not money that was coming into your campaign. guest: he made the point there was special interest money coming from outside the state. they're called conservatives. they expressed the same things that i've spoken about today. they are concerned about the future of this country. we have to turn things around.

it is a beautiful thing to be 60 years old and to run for an office that i did not have to have and i get to make the hard decisions that a lot of americans do not want to make, that a lot senators and congressmen do not want to make. if we start to scale back government, some will see that as difficult. we have some choices to make. host: richard murdock is the republican nominee for u.s. senate in indiana. he defeated richard lugar on tuesday. thank you for being on teh "washington journal." the house will be in at 9:00 a.m. this morning, working on some budget bills. coming up, we will be speaking with gwen moore.

>> 8:22 am eastern time. the president is drawing a distinction between him and mitt romney. a web video was released today. the video opens with president obama saying same-sex couples should be allowed to get married. that follows with a clip of mitt romney expressing his opposition. investigators are looking into who leaked information about an al qaeda plot to detonate a bomb. the terrorist operation was disclosed by al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. the most up-to-date underworked bomb was turned over to the cia

. there was a drone strike. an air strike killed five al qaeda militants earlier today. it was not specified if the aircraft was piloted or a drone. capturing territory. the inspector general has issued a report critical of medicare oversight of prescription billing. medicare paid more than $5.5 billion. there will be hearing that starts in about an hour. you can watch it on c-span3 television or listen to hear it on c-span radio.

[video clip] >> i got to pocahontas. this makes a rectangular space. pocahontas gets married in this church. so i guarantee you i am standing a little deeper than she was but this is where she stood when she got married. >> tour the jamestown colony. it has yielded more than 1.5 million unique artifacts. join in the conversation as they answer your question on saturday, 2:30 p.m. eastern. "washington journal" continues.

host: joining us is representative gwen moore, a democrat from wisconsin, a member of the budget committee. thank you for being on the "washington journal." guest: thank you for having me. host: if we kick your comments about what the president said about gay marriage yesterday -- if we could get your comments. guest: he said this has been an evolution over time. he is speaking for himself and for many americans. i'm 61 years old. i can remember a time in my life when i thought that homosexuals were not within the range of normal people. i came to learn that they are regular people and that this is like being left-handed.

10% of the people and i came to understand these were our neighbors, friends, relatives and this was something that evolved over time. and then it bigotry falls away when you encounter people in your family or work environment . host: is that in issue in the fourth district of wisconsin? guest: we have gay people in the fourth district, for sure. i have always affirmed the 14th amendment of the constitution, the right of everyone to experience equality. that seemed so clear to me as an elected official. no matter what my personal beliefs were or where i was on the evolutionary rung, the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to everyone.

host: we invited you to talk about what the house will be working on today. this new budget reconciliation bill -- what is the house going to be voting on and debating today? guest: this is a bill that has two major components. the first component is to tear down the sort of a fire wall that the budget control act created so that there would be eight sequester requiring equal cut between defense spending and non-defense spending. one element of that bill tears that wall down and places most of the cuts disproportionately on social services programs, food stamps, it eliminates the

social services block grant, and really increases defense spending immediately and over time, up to $60 billion more. it also takes recommendations from six different committees. the target of finding $100 billion in cuts and is now grown to $300 billion in cuts. the agriculture committee was a task with finding the rebellion dollars -- $30 billion in cuts. not one penny was cut from the corporate farmers but all the cuts were taken from food stamps. host: if this bill passes and it

is predicted to pass, does it negate the bill that passed last year, the sequestration bill that passed last year? guest: i did not think it will fly in the senate. the second portion of the bill is the reconciliation bill. the notion of reconciliation is that we have to agree. this would avoid the filibuster rule. they will not be able to avoid a filibuster in the senate because the senate has not agreed on this package. i think it is a real political documents. i think that it really elucidates the differences in democrats and republicans.

republicans are preserving and protecting defense spending, preserving and protecting tax breaks and tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. they are putting things like food stamps, medicaid for nursing homes, meals on wheels for the elderly -- these are where they are taking their cuts. they are making it clear where their priorities lie. host: gwen moore is our guest. she is in her fourth term representing the fourth district of wisconsin and she is a member of the budget committee. first call comes from tallahassee florida, dmitri. good morning. caller: i'm doing ok.

thank you for the job that you do now. i know it is very trying right now. i agree with the president 100%. it is about civil rights. i cannot vote against people's rights. the so-called bill -- that is what we want to talk about. guest: absolutely, dmitri. where are the jobs? this bill focuses on slashing benefits. there are no job opportunities. it cuts job opportunities for folks like postal workers.

about civil rights, i could not agree with you more. there are lots of risk for the president in stating his belief in the constitution, in the 14th amendment, that everybody has equal protection under the law. i think it shows leadership, that he is taken that risk and to stand up for what is right and what is constitutional. host: have the democrats crafted a budget bill? guest: absolutely. we put a bill on the floor that raised revenues. not one penny in the republican bill asks anything -- we had a more balanced approach of making sacrifices, making cuts in programs that are sacred

cows to democrats, but realizing that people who make over $1 million a year could pay more and many have stated they were willing to make those sacrifices for our beloved country. host: 70 go, steve -- san diego, steve. caller: i have a question about agricultural subsidies. what is the theory behind paying farmers not to go crops? guest: that is the question. i think it came from days gone by when there were surpluses. with the growth of these corporate farmers, there are no

longer necessary. i notice that you called on the republican line. there are many people in the republican party who agree it is time to look at these huge firms and to move in a different direction. the agriculture committee didn't put any of these cuts on the table is telling with regard to people's priorities. many of these so-called farmers are new york lawyers who do not grow a single thing. host: where would you support cuts in the federal budget/ ? guest: there have been cuts made. federal employees have taken a pay cut. it is not theoretical about where cuts could be made.

host: what would you support? guest: many tax expenditures, tax loopholes that could be closed. it is not only of farm subsidies. fossiltill subsidizing fuels and oil companies. why? they are making tremendous profits. i would do other things in the area of health care. support the affordable care act goal of reducing health care. there is no reason we can bring some of those benefits back home. this repatriation of moneys taken overseas -- i think that would generate billions of dollars.

i think the military has indicated that there is a lot of waste in the military. as we wind down these wars, there are actually opportunities to realize a peace dividend. i think there are lots of opportunities to do it without counting our safety net programs, without destroying medicaid. i hear my colleagues say that we did not want to turn our safety net into a hammock. it is hard to visualize a woman in a nursing home using medicaid as lying in a hammock. here is someone trying to live out her last days with dignity and we vilified her in may. and made her a lazy bum

that is taking advantage of the public good. there are many opportunities to do is shared sacrifice. i have an unpopular believe that we should get rid of all the bush era tax cuts, not just for 0,000 and for25,0 those making over $1 million, but for everyone. we realize $4 trillion that would come back into the treasury. i am for getting rid of the bush tax cuts and reforming the tax code. -- t: your felt wisconsin migh

wisconsite --as cancer nig guest: i think it would be easier to talk about reform in mandatory spending programs if we could move him off the notion that you could do at some out without raising revenues. i think that -- that dog don't hunt. the numbers do not add up. to say you can cut programs, cut food stamps, cut the social services block grant, eliminate meals on wheels, eliminate programs for abused children, cut medicaid, turn medicare into a voucher program that will require seniors to pay on average $6,000 a year more for

their premiums and somehow you will get to that balance, that $60-can continue over a 6 some billion, and not taking one hair off of military spending. the arithmetic does not add up. host: these areas are exempt from sequestration -- guest: that is the current sequestration bill. what the bill does is teardown

that fire wall. it tears down the fire wall. so all bets are off in protecting these programs. host: part of your story was you were on welfare when you were a single mother when you first started school. as someone who has experienced that firsthand, what reforms would suggest making to the welfare program? guest: i have a bill to do that. it would be wonderful to get some partners among those democrats and republicans who supported welfare reform. for the welfare reform program to help people escape from poverty. i do have a bill, the reauthorization to ensure rising

out of poverty. we provide education and training for those people who are capable of moving forward. there were strict prohibitions against women getting substantial education and training. turning women into a permanent underclass. every politician says there is a need to let education and training in our current global economy, and yet the bill does not provide a way forward for women. for those with other problems -- mental health problems -- to have a program that identifies and addresses those incapacities. even things like parity skills

-- parenting skills. a bill to provide the work support that they need. guaranteed child support. as soon as you get the first job, you're not forced off of some marginal tax rate, some sort of cliff. you give your first job making above minimum wage and you suddenly are not eligible for medicaid or food stamps or child care. that is like taking one step forward and three steps backward. we should live up to the rhetoric of helping people escape rhetoric. host: back to your phone calls. caller: good morning. all of bust logically -- all of

us logically would like to reduce the deficit but why does no one speak to the issue -- if we eliminated all the popular social programs, the deficit would not recognize that? you had a gentleman on yesterday who spoke about the number of people who do not pay taxes. the working poor have to know that they are going to get ahead. they will live in safe neighborhoods and they go every day and the minute you get ready to move forward, you want to eliminate programs that may assist those people for the greater good. guest: well said. it is true. as a look at our neighbors in europe, they are not doing so well with this deficit reduction program only.

if you destroy the middle class, destroyed the ability of people to go to mcdonald's or go to target or to take the family out for a movie night or to buy school clothing, those people lose out as well. byre eating our own seed focusing totally on deficit reduction. there has to be a balanced approach and i think you said very well. most of the people who are poor receive food stamps, they work. 2/3 of people receiving food stamps work every day but qualified for a food subsidy because they're income does not

carry them above the poverty level. i know some of the people who are working two, three jobs just to make ends meet. the notion that they are lazy is a narrative that is false. host: wisconsin is again in the news for a recall election. guest: the wisconsin people have taken this seriously. we did not go into this recall willy-nilly. this governor has managed to offend just about everybody. people like to characterize him as the union bosses that are mad because he took away the bargaining table, not just cut their benefits. he also raised taxes on elderly

by taking with the homestead tax credit. it raised taxes on the hardest working americans like the previous caller. people who get the earned income credits -- raise taxes on them. even welfare recipients. but sick people on waiting lists. applied to the department health and human services because he wants to throw people off medicaid. offended women by trying to get rid of contraception, has offended women by repealing the fair pay act that has been in place in wisconsin. he cut $1 billion out of public

education. cut $250 million out of the big 10 school system, has offended environmentalists, meanwhile giving tax breaks to corporations, tax breaks to big investors, being in cahoots with big donors. he has managed to offend many. he has raised gargantuan dollars, $25 million, and yet his popularity has not grown one iota. the governor cannot buy love. we are poised to make history by recalling this governor and reminding politicians that the

power lies with the people, not in your big donors. host: waco, texas, mason. caller: i'm 80 years old and i'm black. i am a republican. can you hear me now? i am a republican. the black caucus was controlled -- and the committee assignments like she's a part of the budget committee -- i have found that the main problem especially among blacks is willing to beat we naturally

are, conservative. we have always had problems regarding not spending more than and not leaearn consistently taking handouts. we have got to become more productive and less being consumers. we have not made the progress that we should make and we are not heading in the right direction that members of the black caucus have right now. host: let's get a response. guest: thank you for calling. congratulations for a living this long. my grandparents were republicans until the day that they died because this was the party of

lincoln. this is not the same old party of lincoln. black people did enjoy it a lot more opportunity i think at a certain point of time. you cannot deny that there is an imperative for us to avail ourselves of some social service advantages. we did not have -- we have not inherited our property to the same extent that whites have. there is a legacy of discrimination in allowing that to have educational opportunities. african-americans, some of our best and brightest students who l grant, because

their parents -- veterans -- a whole generation of white men went back to college under the g.i. bill, and we were proud to be able to do that. when blacks want an opportunity, we want to call that socialism or welfare. that is a double standard of being self sufficient to which black americans are being held. certainly black people want to be entrepreneurs. what happens when the bid for contracts on the city level, to do electrical work and they are constantly outmaneuvered or outbid by white contractors? there is some element of old boys club.

we do not have to call it racism. there is an element that the old boys are in their. i want you to appreciate the struggle that african-americans had. i do think it is importance for african americans to make themselves present in both parties. i would hope that when african americans are republicans that they would hold their feet to the fire. host: your relationship with representative allen west? guest: all cbc members are not the same. we are diverse. we welcome alan west into the congressional black caucus.

we have a candidate from utah that says if they will tear the cbc apart -- we all represent different constituencies from different regions of the country. the congressional black caucus -- there are similarities among african americans that we want to call us all around and not focus on the differences. there is a cbc member who wants to focus on representing false impressions of the african american community or is joining for the purpose of tearing it apart. that is not welcome. host: just a few minutes left with our guest. caller: i am a retired

electrical worker. host: we are listening. caller: i want to speak to mrs. moore -- they do not need to take any cuts. start a committee to investigate all the corruption that is in these programs that the government already has. if the take out the fraud and the corruption and the problems is the insurance companies and the medicare system is so corrupt. they need to take the fraud -- host: thank you, sir. guest: he is right on point. it is frustrating to see that

some of our republican colleagues want to take away personnel from the fbi, wants to destroy the affordable care act, which focuses on hiring and putting together the infrastructure to make sure that medicareut route out fraud. there is not enough enforcement. we could garner many savings from reducing fraud. host: 0 was your position when the simpson-bowles budget proposal came? -- what was your position. guest: simpson-bowles did not

have some of these draconian cuts. simpson-bowles proposed there would be revenue increases. it was not a perfect document. i was not at the table to make certain proposals. there was some unreadiness. but i think it was an honest conversation about how to have an honest approach. host: how would you have voted? guest: i probably would not have voted for it. there are elements that could have been put to a vote. that is true of all huge packages like that. you can find common ground. host: scott in woodbridge, virginia. caller: good morning.

i called for one reason. i was listening while i was on hold to some of the comments you made following the elderly gentleman's call. a resemble some many of your comments as far as being a veteran myself and using the g.i. bill, growing up poor as a child. i grew up in the projects in indianapolis. disgustedry and so and so offended that i do not know where to begin. host: if you could just very denunciate one comment. caller: i called originally -- it seems like you're perpetuate

a misunderstanding of how the tax revenue and fiscal policy are interrelated. if you overtaxed above a certain amount, you will not increase your revenue. you will decrease net revenue. guest: you do reach a break-even point. i don't disagree with that. everybody knows that you cannot just -- everybody depends on government. all these contractors -- we see the roads being torn up and being rebuild. those are not welfare recipients doing that. making millions of dollars to do that. when you see

a paper being delivered, the customers of the united states government -- the government spends a lot of money hiring private people to do things. it is a fine for everyone to come to the public trough -- except for low-income people. it is not ok for our kids to get a pell grant to go to school but it was ok for the veterans to get a pell grant. it is ok for some researcher in science to do research at a university and get a university grant to do that, but it is not

ok for some committee-based organization to get some research to rehab low income housing. that's all i'm saying. host: we have been talking with representative gwen moore, a member of the budget committee. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us on this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day. bless the members of the people's house. help them to think clearly, speak confidently and act courageously in the belief that

all noble service is based upon patience, truth and love. during this week, we ask your blessing on america's teachers who give their lives and talent to empower young americans with the tools they need to create, mold productive lives. bless the millions of foster parents who have generously provided homes for young people in need of safe and secure shelter. may they be ensured of their appreciation of a grateful nation and may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentlelady from kansas rise? ms. jenkins: i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's

approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal is approved. the gentlelady from kansas. ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. today the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman. mr. coffman: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i rise to address the house for one minute. the speaker: does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute? mr. coffman: mr. speaker, i ask

unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. coffman: mr. speaker, today i'm announcing my intention to offer an amendment on the defense authorization bill to reduce our military footprint and spending in europe. in january, the pentagon announced that two u.s. army combat brigade teams would be withdrawn from europe. i don't think that goes far enough. the current proposal is only a step in the right direction. we should retain only the things necessary for capabilities and withdraw all four combat brigades from europe. in order for the u.s. military to modernize and move forward towards a more agile strategy, we must close bases up in europe. there is no longer strategic

reason to maintain nearly 80,000 troops in europe. additionally, only four of our 28 nato allies are spending more than 2% of their g.d.p. on defense. the reason why they could get away with spending so little on defense is that they are relying on the united states to provide it for them. we currently spend 4.7% of g.d.p. on defense but we should have higher priorities for our defense dollars these days. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek rick anything? -- seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: i rise to honor tim ernshaw who was named investigator of the year by the investigation services which is the largest commercial provider of background investigations to the federal government. he was chosen out of a group of nearly 2,300 full-time employees all across the country based on his exceptional perform ons shown

through production and quality metrics, mentoring others, community leadership. he has worked for them for the past 7 1/2 years, lives with his wife, colleen, in my district in north providence, rhode island, where they're active in several charitable and nonprofit organizations. i was honored to welcome him to my office recently and congratulate him on winning this award. we all take great pride in his accomplishments today. his professionalism and work ethic are a great example of rhode island's first congressional district. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i seek permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from arkansas is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today to remember the service of joe landers, chief police of lowell, arkansas, who died friday morning, may 4, as a result of injuries suffered in a hit-and-run drunk driver accident while on vacation in florida april 27. chief landers was a dedicated

public servant, everything you could want in a leader. mr. womack: he loved his job, his community, those under his command and the people he served. it was evident in the way he carried out his duties. he began his career in 1995. he was promoted to chief in 1997 and the last 15 years led his organization during a period of unprecedented growth. he was responsible for the development of the lowell motorcycle patrol, dispatch center, k-9 unit and a special response team. in tweef chief landers was a law enforcement advisor in iraq. mr. speaker, our state and nation has lost a valued member of the law enforcement community. tomorrow will be a sad day when we say our final goodbyes. i speak for arkansas' third district in expressing our deepest sympathy to his family, the city of lowell and the great state of arkansas and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, we honor american teachers nationwide this week who day in and day out work to make a future brighter for america. mr. costa: we have had at least one or more teachers who shaped our lives and believed in us. my was mrs. collins who taught me in the first and second grade. this no-nonsense woman with a texas drawl was determined that despite the fact that i could be a handful i was going to behave and learn and learn i did. after a few years back i made an effort to have lunch with mrs. collins and she made the comment i would be successful if i only applied myself and she was right. her guidance back then showed me how much i could accomplish with hard work and he focus. in the san joaquin valley and nationwide, teachers meet the

challenges in the classroom with grace and grit every day. as we recognize these teachers throughout our country, we thank you for what you do every week of the school year. god bless you, mrs. collins, for all the students whose lives you touched. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, it's my great honor to congratulate the michigan red devil. the 107 fly the a-10 and returned from a redeployment to afghanistan where they performed so bravely, made us so proud. it was one of the units scheduled to be eliminated under the president's proposed budget but fortunately the house armed services committee will prevent a defense re-authorization bill scheduled for a floor vote here next week

which reverses that and saves the 107th along with protecting the air national guard across our entire country. instead the air force will do a cost analysis of the air national guard which is good because they perform 35% of the flying missions for just 6% of the budget. that is the best bang for the taxpayers' buck in these very restrained budgetary times. this house, mr. speaker, is going to do the right thing for the great american patriots of the air national guard, and i urge our colleagues in the senate to do the same. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> i do. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, in congress it's our job to help protect the american dream. mr. deutch: we have to remain the land of opportunity where anyone willing to work hard and stay focused can secure a brighter future. yet, if congress fails to act,

seven million college students across the country will see their student loan interest rates double to 6.8%. i met some of these students last week at palm beach state college. and whether it's the young man who works 85 hours a week while carrying 12 credit hours, the first in his family to go to college, or the young man who described with passion the 14-year path he's embarked upon to serve out his dream by becoming a surgeon. they're pursuing higher education as a path of opportunity. if we want to protect the american dream here in congress , then we should give legislation that keeps interest rates low a fair shot. after all, that's all america's students are asking for, a fair shot at the american dream. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, for almost 40 months unemployment has been at or above 8%. that's too high for too long. mr. johnson: right now over 88 million people are not even considered in the work force. these are people who have given up on searching for a job. it's time to restore economic freedom to america and put americans back to work. this will happen when washington stops being an obstacle to job creation through its overtaxing, overspending, overregulating practices. and starts promoting an economic environment where our job creators can do what they do best, create jobs. americans are ready to go to work. i sponsored a job fair in east liverpool, ohio, where hundreds of ohioans showed up for a chance to get in the work force. many job seekers actually left the job fair with a renewed

sense of confidence, a belief that the american dream still might exist for them. we need to see more of this, mr. speaker. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i have watched saddened as this house, led by the republican majority, has fought to gut those things that made and that will make this country great. i'm reading a history of the u.s. house of representatives right now and early in that history this body when this nation was barely yet born pulled together the resources to build the erie canal, coming together to do great things which benefited the nation. mr. himes: the list of those things goes on and on. the louisiana purchase, public education, land grant colleges, g.i. bill. i could go on for a very long time. today, the republican majority, transportation and infrastructure, which is key to our businesses, they say kill

it. to medical research, kill it. to education, kill it. mr. speaker, that instinct is utterly inconsistent with who we have always been as a country and why we are great and powerful and ultimately economically prosperous. it is not stewardship. it is not governance. it is barbarism and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today i rise to call attention to the nato summit that will take place next week in chicago. mr. dold: nato was founded with the signing of the washington treaty in 1949, to safeguard the freedom and security of all of its members. since then the alie abc has been the main stay of the -- alliance has been the main stay

of the trans-atlantic treaty. all 27 of our nato allies, including 22 nonnato partners, have served shoulder to shoulder with our troops in afghanistan helping to make sure that country doesn't become a safe haven for terrorists. in chicago we will continue important discussions on the transition of security responsibility from isaf to the afghans. particularly in today's global economic environment, mr. speaker, it is essential we recognize the value of nato as a proven force multiplier. the alliance is working sure to make sure that nato is well prepared for future challenges. as we welcome our friends to chicago on may 20 and 21, we affirm the vitality of this trans-atlantic bond and of our continued commitment to our common defense. thank you, mr. speaker and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 648 an ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 130, house resolution 648. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 5652, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 112-21 shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one, two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. if i could i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from massachusetts, pending which time i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i'd also like to ask for -- during consideration of this resolution all time be yielded for the purpose of debate only and all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: i appreciate you coming in early to be with us this morning. this is a big day. this is the reconciliation bill. i serve on both the rules committee and budget committee, mr. speaker, and as you know we have had some tremendous successes in the appropriations process. this week we have been working through the commerce, justice, science bill.

it's a bill that's reduced spending to those levels that we had in 2008. doing those things that the voters sent us here to do. and we are going to vote on that bill today in final passage, but an appropriations process we have control in this house that process where we reduced spending from 2010 levels down to 2011 levels, they'll go down again for 2013 levels to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, those are overwhelm 1/3 of the taxpayer dollars. 2/3 of the taxpayer dollars that are spent in this town, i mean borrowed and then spent, come on what they call mandatory spending programs. mr. speaker, as you know mandatory spending programs are dollars that go out the door whether congress acts or not. appropriations bills require congress to act affirmatively. but mandatory spending goes right out the door without any oversight from this body. until you get to reconciliation. reconciliation is that process

that democrats put in place wisely years and years ago to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker.

to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker. we are talking about a bill that has been put together by almost every committee of jurisdiction here in this house and assembled by the budget committee, brought here to the floor. it's been the subject of countless hearings already. we look at whether or not we would be able to bring a substitute, democratic substitute to the floor. none was smithed that fly with the rules of the house. so we have one bill on the floor today. an up or down vote on whether or not we are willing to engage in the first serious reconciliation process on this floor. some folks might say 2003, i say 1991. it's the right thing to do anyway as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. in this case these aren't reductions for the sake of reductions. these are reductions for the sake of complying with what i would argue was a very good deficit reduction agreement between the president and the senate and the white house last august. and as a part of that agreement we put in some blanket cuts to national security, some blanket cuts that some commentators have described these cuts, mr. speaker, as being intentionally so crazy that they would never happen but would be used only as a tool to get the joint select committee to act. as you know, mr. speaker, the joint select committee did not succeed last fall. it's a source of great frustration for me and the members who served on that committee, had an opportunity to bring an up or down vote to both the house and senate floor on anything they came up with, mr.

speaker. they didn't have to get the whole 1.2, they didn't have to get 1.5. they could have just gotten one. half of one. they could have gotten quarter of one. but they got nothing. so where are we? well, in the words ever secretary of defense leon panetta, he said we are at a place where if these cuts are allowed to go the impact of these cuts would be devastating to the defense department. i happen to share his concerns. again, these were yoord cuts, put in place to be so intentionally crazy that congress would never allow them to occur. it would spur the joint committee to action. i happen to have supported, mr. speaker, an amendment offered by chris van hollen of maryland, the ranking member on the budget committee when we were going through the process last year, he offered an amendment that said, everything's got to be on the table. that includes the defense department. i agree with him. the defense department does need to be on the table. the defense department is undergoing $300 billion towards

the reductions today. this bill does nothing to change that. $300 billion being reduced from the defense department as well it should, it's not easy but it should happen and it is happening, this doesn't deal with that. this is dealing with additional cuts. again the words of secretary of defense, leon panetta, former democratic member of this house, impact of these cuts would be devastating for the department. so we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to do what i would argue you and i came here to do. not just you and i, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do those things not just that happen year after year after year, those things that have 12 months of efficacy and go away, but things that can be set in permanent law to change the direction of spending and borrowing in this country. candidly, mr. speaker, it's more about the borrowing than it is about the spending. there are priorities in this country. i would argue we did a great job of focusing on the plyors. when you are borrowing 40 cents

on every dollar from your children and grandchildren, we have to redefine what responsibility is. that is irresponsible. and this bill then takes the step in two directions. one, turning back the second round of defense department cuts, not the first round, but second round, the round that leon panetta described as devastating to the defense department, and setting us on a path to bend that cost curve going forward by tackling mandatory spending programs for the first time in almost a decade. with that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from georgia, my friend, mr. woodall, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. mcgovern: i rise in very strong opposition to this rule. it is totally closed. and it denies democrats led by mr. van hollen the substitute. we are not asking for dozens of amendments or something that hasn't been done in the past with regards to reconciliation bills. all we are asking for is one vote on a substitute. one vote. on what we believe is a better alternative to the republican bill. last night in the rules committee every single republican, every single one of them voted to deny democrats that opportunity. mr. speaker, as one who does not believe in arbitrary and thought fest across-the-board cuts, there is a way to balance our budget, i want to support mr. van hollen's substitute in order to avoid the implementation of the budget control act see quester. -- sequester. in my opinion to allow this to go into full effect would be bad for the country. we are here in this awful mess because the so culled supercommittee failed to reach agreement last fall on a

comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction plan. due in very large part to the absolute refusal of republicans to put revenues on the table. bowl simpson, and the gang of six all had deficit reduction proposals that sought to be challenged with both spending cuts and revenues, sought to be fair. they realized you can't -- you cannot solve long-term fiscal problems by slashing and burning the last century of social progress in america. but today my republican friends have brought to the floor a reconciliation bill that actually makes sequestration look good. what's going on here is very simple, very troubling but very simple. they are protecting the massive pentagon budget and demanding no accountability by exempting it from sequestration, and finding even deeper cuts in programs that benefit the people of this

country. the bill before us would create a government where there is no conscience. where the wealthy and well connected are protected and enriched and where the middle class, poor, and vulnerable are essentially forgotten. i have never seen anything like this. it is outrageous. it takes my breath away. my friends won't cut billions in subsidies from big oil at a time when oil companies are making record profits and gouging americans at the pump. they won't address the inequities of the tax code which allows billionaire warren buffett to play a lower tax rate than his secretary. the revenues on just these two policies alone will result in billions and billions and billions of dollars in deficit reduction, but the republicans have protected big oil and the billionaires. however, my republican friends take a meat axe to snap. formerly known as food stamps. this is a program to help poor people afford food. my friends on the other side of

the aisle should heed the words of president john financial kennedy, i quote, if a free society will not help the many who are poor, they cannot save the few who are rich. mr. speaker, we are one country. we should care about one another, especially those who are most vulnerable. that's not a weakness or something we should be ashamed of. rather it's something that makes us strong and great. as my friends know, i spent a lot of time and effort in congress on the issues of hunger and food insecurity and nutrition. tens of millions of our fellow citizens don't have enough to eat. and every single one of us, democrats and republicans alike, should be ashamed. and that's why i am so outraged by the $36 billion in snap cuts. this notion that snap promotes a culture ever dependency, snap is a golden ticket to prosperity is jeong. some on the republican side have even claimed that snap enslaves americans. give me a break. in fact, even in 2010 when

unemployment was close to 10% and jobs were scarce, the majority of snap households or the nondisabled working age adult were working households. working households. working families are trying to earn more. no one wakes up in the morning dreaming to be on snap. but these are tough economic times. some people have no choice. but we know that snap enrollment and spending on snap will go down as the economy improves. as families see their incomes rise and no longer need snap to feed their families. don't take my word for it. this is directly from the congressional budget office. of course last night in the rules committee we heard the tired line that there is a lot of abuse in the snap program. we heard that there are countless numbers of people receiving benefits who do not deserve them. that, mr. speaker, is simply not true. it is common and -- it's a common and unfortunate misconception that snap is ripe with fraud, waste and abuse.

many think it is being traded for alcohol and other things, it cannot. the usda is cracking down on it. snap is both effective and efficient. the error rate in snap is not only at an all-time low, it has the lowest if not the lowest of any federal program. if only we could find a program in the pentagon that had such a low error rate. last night we also heard about categorical eligibility, a process in which a low-income person is automatically eligible for food stamps if they are already enrolled in another low income assistance program. categorical eligibility, it's important to state this because there is such misconception here, but categorical eligibility makes it easier for poor people, those who are already approved for other low-income assistance programs to receive snap benefits. but it also makes it easier on the state to have to administer these programs. this saves time and money and

paperwork because the people who are already eligible for similarly administered benefits to not have to reapply for snap and states do not have to waste hours processing paperwork for people already eligible based on incomes. it does not mean that people who don't qualify -- who don't qualify for snap get those benefits. to the contrary people still have to qualify for the program to receive food, any claim this is a fraudulent practice or ripe with abuse is just another falsehood and smear against one of the most efficient federal programs, the demonization of snap and other food and nutrition programs by republican friends it must come to an end. we have an obligation in this country to provide a circle of protection for the most vulnerable. cutting $36 billion means that more than 22 million households will see a cut in their benefit, this means 22 million families

will have less food tomorrow than they do today. . two million people will be cut from the snap program altogether. my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like to hear this but sometimes the truth hurts. if this bill before us becomes law, it will take food out of the mouths of children in america. all in the name of protecting tax cuts for wealthy and increase pentagon spending. the republican reconciliation bill threatens medicare, it threatens children's programs, it threatens educational programs, programs that support our infrastructure. in short, if this were to be adopted into law it will threaten our economy as a whole. and the bill not only protects the pentagon budget, it increases it by billions of dollars. does anyone here honestly believe that there's not a single dollar to be saved anywhere in the pentagon? if you do you're not read be the newspapers. it's there in front of us every single day. the abuse that goes on.

no mid defense contract. i can go on and on and on. we will continue to have the strongest military in the face of the earth, but at some point national security must mean more than throwing billions of dollars at unnecessary nuclear weapons or a pie in the sky star wars program that will never materialize, but national security has to mean taking care of our own people. it means educating our children. it means that infrastructure that isn't crumbling around us. it means clean air and clean water and a health care system that works. those should be our priorities, but sadly those are not the priorities in the bill before us today. now, of course, senator reid says the bill is dead in the water in the senate and the press conference yesterday, the senate majority leader said, and i quote, as long as republicans consider a more reasonable approach, one that asks every american to pay their fair share, the sequester is the only path forward, end quote. that's a pretty clear statement that the senate will not

consider this bill. quite frankly, it's the right thing to do. a reasonable approach is what the american people want. yes, they want it to get our fiscal house in order. they want us to reduce the deficit in a fairway so the wealthiest among us pay their fair share. but mostly the american people want jobs, something that house republicans leadership continues to ignore. the american people know the best way to bring this deficit down is through job creation. they want the economy to improve. they want their lives to get better. this bill does not do that. mr. speaker, let me concloud by quoting president dwight eisen hire in a speech he made in 1953. i quote, every gun that is made, every war ship launched signals a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed, end quote. i'm afraid, mr. speaker, that president eisenhower wouldn't recognize today's republican party. we should reject this closed rule and the underlying bill and i reserve the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: to say to my good friend as the republican budget chairman said to him yesterday, i appreciate his passion on this issue. what brings us to the very best decision that we can make in this body, mr. speaker, is having folks who work hard day in and day out, educating themselves on the issues. they can bring the very best case for the american people to the floor. and that's why i would ask my friend whether or not he believes it actually helps that debate to get involved in some of those rhetorical feats of mind, i guess we'd call him, because he knows as well as i know under the law of the land in 2002 food stamp benefits, snap benefits would have gone up about 40% over the last 10 years. and democrats and republicans came together over the last decade and increased those

benefits 270%. 270%, mr. speaker. now, this proposal suggests that instead of going up 270% we allow those benefits to go up 260%. that's the draconian cut. i mean, we see that in the same rhetoric in the student loan program, mr. speaker. everyone in this body knows the law of the land was the student loans rate at 6.8%. a below market rate of 6.8%. they were lowered for a very small fraction of the student population for a very temporary period of time to 3 kp 4% and the law has it back to 6.8%. they talk about that as a doubling instead of returning to common law. and, mr. speaker, to continue to suggest as he knows is not the case that republicans are unwilling to focus on the

defense department, let me say it plainly. i believe there is waste and fraud and abuse in the defense department and i stand here willing to work with you to eradicate it all. i supported ranking member van hollen's amendment to put defense on the table. the budget that this house passed, the only budget that's passed in all of washington, d.c., reduced defense spending by $300 billion in recognition of exactly that. and, mr. speaker, again, the rhetoric just gets a little overheated from time to time. candidly i think it gets in the way of us doing business. when i say to you that secretary of defense, leon panetta, on august 4, 2011, if these defense cuts happen, and god willing that's not the case, but if it would happen, it would result in a further round, because we already cut once. in fact, we cut twice. a further round of a dangerous

across-the-board defense cuts that i believe, leon panetta, secretary of defense, would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families. i would say to my friend, how does it advantage us to make this a republican-democratic issue, when the democratic issue of the -- when the secretary of defense said this would be hurtful to our troops and their families? how does this make a democrats and republican issue when leon panetta, the o.m.b. director, said this would be dangerous across-the-board cuts to troops and their families? when president clinton's chief of staff, leon panetta, former o.m.b. director, former budget committee chairman, says i believe allowing these cuts to go forward would do real damage

to our security, to our troops and to our families. do we have real choices to make? i do. mr. mcgovern: if the gentleman will yield? mr. woodall: i would yield. mr. van hollen: the democrats have a substitute amendment that would replace the sequester in a different way. it would prevent the across-the-board cuts from happening to defense and the nondefense programs. so there's an agreement that that meat ax approach is the wrong way. we have an alternative. the gentleman just talked about how we have this great debate on ideas on the floor of the house. i have a simple question, why aren't we going to get an up or down vote on our idea, on how we would replace the sequester in a balanced way? mr. woodall: reclaiming my time and i thank the gentleman for his commepts and his offering of that substitute. the reason is three-fold. number one, that substitute doesn't comply with the rules of the house. we made a decision in this body that we were going to not continue to ask for more and more and more out of taxpayers' pockets but that we were going

to try to do our own business here in terms of oversight on all of the money that's already being borrowed and spent and sent out the two. number two, that is the rules we adopted in this congress, mr. speaker. but under the rules adopted in the last congress in which you were the budget chairman, you know your substitute would also not have been in order under the pay-go rules that you instituted. under a republican house, the substitute is not in order. and under a democratic house the substitute would not have been in order. but number three, and i would argue most importantly, i would is a toy -- i would say to my friend, we have a trust deficit with the american people. it doesn't surprise me. when we talk about the five-year impact of the reconciliation plan that we passed out of our budget committee and i hope this house will pass today, we're talking about a net effect on deficit reduction, the process for which reconciliation was created of $65 billion over five years. over the next five years, $65

billion is not going to have to be borrowed from our children and our grandchildren. under the gentleman's substitute, over that same period of time, spending is actually going to go up by almost $37 billion. this is a process that is designed to reduce borrowing and spending, to reduce the burden we're placing on our children and the gentleman's substitute increases the burden that we'd place on our children. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? i don't want to take up all your time. mr. woodall: i will. mr. van hollen: i want to make our point that what our substitute does is dollar for dollar replaces the sequester, which is what our republican colleagues have said is the object of this effort which is to make sure we don't have the meat ax approach and i would just note that the gentleman said that one of the reasons we're not fg to have an opportunity to -- going to have an opportunity to vote on ours is it doesn't comply with the rules. in bringing the republican bill to the floor today, i'm reading right here on the report, the committee report, you waived three rules.

you waived three rules. and yet you can't allow an up or down vote on a substitute amendment. you know -- you know you have it within the power to allow our side -- mr. woodall: reclaiming my time. i would say what we have within our powers, the power to stop the borrowing and the spending. i'm reading here from today's "congressional quarterly" because folks get confused and we talk about the reading clerk and things gets confused. reading from "congressional quarterly" it says here democrats left open a responsibility through a motion to recommit which is allowed under the rule. my friend on the rules committee knows that to be true. my friend on the budget committee knows that to be true. i look forward to bring your substitute to the floor for a vote. i think that's the right of the minority. i'm glad we preserved the right of the minority, mr. speaker. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself

such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: just to re-emphasize the point that mr. van hollen made. you know, the rules committee has the right to be able to waive the rules to bring any piece of legislation to the floor. and mr. value holen rightly pointed -- van hollen rightly pointed out in the report on this rule, the republicans implemented waivers because their proposal without these waivers would violate the rules. and so, you know, my friend talks about, you know, this shouldn't be a partisan discussion. i would just say to my friend, the reason why this is a partisan discussion is because the republicans have made it such. by denying us the right to come to the floor and offer our substitute, not as a procedural matter, but as a real substitute. you have politicized this debate. you have shut us out and that is why there is frustration. i just want to say one other thing, again, because i am so sick and tired of the demonization of programs that

benefit poor people in this country, especially the snap program. my friend was talking about all this money that we invested in snap as if somehow we were giving these very generous benefits out. just for the record, in 2002, the average snap benefit was $1 per meal per day per person. $1. you know, with all the improvements we have made, today it's about $1.50 per meal per day. and it's going to go down next year because of cutbacks we already made in this program, unfortunately, to offset other things over the past few years. but that means in a 10-year period that we have increased this benefit by 50 cents per meal. i don't know about my friend but, you know, $1.50 doesn't go very far today. so what we're talking about trying to help people get through this economic crisis, that's what we're talking about. so this is not some extraffic

get, overly generous benefit. that's what it is. and rather than cutting waste in the pentagon budget, which we all know exists, you protect the pentagon budget. you know, rather than going after subsidies for oil companies and going after, you know, billionaire tax breaks, you protect all that. and where do you go to find the savings, programs that help the poorest of the poor. i mean, it's outrageous. mr. speaker, at this point i'd like to yield three mint to the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of the budget committee, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from massachusetts and thank him for his leadership on efforts to ensure that those families who are struggling most in our country continue to have access to food and nutrition and that children in our country continue to have access to health care and that's what this debate is all about

because we do have an alternative. there's no disagreement on two things. number one, we need to reduce our deficit in this country in a credible way. number two, the meat ax approach to the sequester is not a smart way to do it. so how should we go about reducing our deficit? well, we proposed to do it in the same balanced way that every bipartisan commission that has looked at this issue has recommended, through a combination of difficult cuts, and i would remind everybody that just last august we cut $1 trillion through a combination of cuts as well as cuts to tax breaks for special interests and by asking the wealthiest people in this country, people making $1 million a year, to contribute a little bit more toward deficit reduction. . mr. woodall: would my friend

yield? mr. van hollen: yes. mr. woodall: it raises $3 in taxes versus the spending cuts. can you tell me -- mr. van hollen: i'm glad the gentleman asked the question. simpson-bowles, they proposed an approach which was about $3 in cuts to $1 in revenue depending on the accounting rules. we already enacted $1 trillion in cuts. 100% in cuts. you voted for that, i voted for that, 100% cuts. what this does is for the next one year we do another $30 billion in cuts, a little over, and $80 billion through closing loopholes. for example, we say the big oil companies don't need taxpayer subsidies to encourage them to drill. they have already testified, their chief executives, they don't need that. they are making plenty right now.

we also say that millionaires should pay the same effective tax rate as the people who work for them. and if you take that approach, frankly with $1 trillion in cuts we have already made, we are still cutting a lot more than the bipartisan groups recommended compared to the revenue. so our ratio of cuts to revenue is much higher because those bipartisan groups, they recommended that $1 trillion in cuts. we adopted that on a bipartisan basis. what they are not doing, what you're not doing is taking the other part of their recommendation, frakely -- frankly, which is to say let's close some of these outrageous tax loopholes for the purpose of deficit reduction. and because 98% of our house republican colleagues are signing this pledge saying they won't take one penny of additional revenue -- mr. mcgotsche: an additional two minutes. mr. van hollen: you won't ask one penny more for people making

over $1 million a year to help us reduce our deficit. not one penny. the math is pretty simple after that. because you ask nothing of them, your budget whacks everyone else. that's why your budget ends the medicare guarantee. that's why you cut $800 billion out of medicaid. and that's why in your see quester -- sequester program here, you whack the programs that help the most vulnerable struggling families. let's talk about what the nonpartisan congressional budget office said about what your proposal would do. 22 million households with children would see their food and nutrition support cut under the snap reductions. 300,000 kids will no longer get the school lunch program. 300,000 kids will lose their health coverage under the children's health insurance program. those are the decisions you have to make because? you don't want to ask the oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidy. we say, the american people

would make a different choice, we have that different choice in the substitute amendment. that substitute amendment would prevent those cuts to the defense department, would prevent cuts to n.i.h. and biomedical research, but it would prevent those cuts without whacking seniors and children's health programs. it would do it in a balanced way. we say we don't need the direct payments to agricultural businesses. these are payments that go to ag businesses whether they are making money or not. the spigots on. we cut those. you don't in your proposal before us today. why not? instead, you cut the food and nutrition programs. so, we think the right approach is the balanced approach that every bipartisan group that's gotten together has recommended. and because 98% of our republican colleagues have signed this pledge saying they are not going to ask the folks at the very top to put in one penny, one dime more, you are smacking everybody else. we don't think that's the right

way to go. we agree we should reduce the deficit and we reduced -- we eliminate the sequester but just in a different way. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds to say we just disagree on what balance is. what our proposal for brucks is to reduce spending over $65 billion over five years. and your proposal is to spend an additional $35 billion over the same five years. we disagree what balance is. we are moving in the wrong direction under your proposal. right under our proposal i a-- i'm proud to serve with my friend. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise to support the rule. mr. speaker, i am very proud to represent the guard base home to the michigan red devils, the 107 fighter squadron.

the 107, mr. speaker, flies a-10's. they recently returned from a redeployment to afghanistan where they performed so bravely, made us proud. the 107th was one of the air guard units scheduled to be eliminated under the president's budget proposal. fortunately, the house armed services committee will present a defense re-authorization bill here next week which resources that and saves the 107th, along with protecting the air national guard across the entire country. this house is going to do the right thing for the great american patriots of the air national guard by prioritizing spending within our budget. not by spending more money. so i would certainly urge our cloogs in -- colleagues in the senate to join us. and, mr. speaker, we need to remember that the cuts that caused the obama administration to target the air guard were before the sequester, before the sequester. if the sequester is allowed to go into effect, the impact on the community that i represent, for example, would be immense. and the defense corridor we are

building as part of our economic revitalization would be stopped dead in its track. not only would the national guard again be put at risk of massive new cuts, but military contracting across the board would be faced with additional cuts. in mccomb county alone, a county i'm proud to represent, this would mean $200 million in additional cuts, mr. speaker. and obviously would count -- cost countless jobs in the defense related corridor. this house has taken steps to stop the devastation of our air national guard and now it's taking steps to stop the deaf significance of our defense base and needless loss of jobs with commonsense reforms. so i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in reconciliation today in the defense re-authorization bill coming to the floor next week. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: at this time i'm proud to yield to the gentlewoman from connecticut,

ms. delauro. five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill which chooses to slash programs that help struggling families get whack on -- back on their feet without closing a single tax loophole or limiting a single special interest subsidy. our bunt -- budget should reflect our values even as many in the faith community have argued, it should advance the moral responsibilities of the nation to provide for the common good. i note that the catholic bishops just sent a letter concluding that, and i quote, the proposed cuts to programs in the republican budget reconciliation fail the basic moral test, end quote. i'm pleased that the bishops are speaking out, as he they should. 40% of the total cuts here come

from cutting assistance to low and moderate income families, including food stamps, medicaid, the children's health insurance program, social services for vulnerable children and elderly and disabled people. but instead of eliminating the agricultural subsidies where people don't have to plant a seed and they get paid, this budget would cause more than 200,000 children to lose their school lunch. would cut the food stamp program by $36 billion. that means 46 million americans, one half of whom our children would see their benefits cut and two million americans would lose them entirely. this at a time when one in seven seniors faces the threat of hunger, and one in five children right here in america a land of plenty face a similar risk. they are going to bed hungry in the united states of america. we know the impact of hunger and malnutrition. lower performances at school, poor growth, an immune system

less able to fend off illness. instead of ending subsidies to big oil companies, this budget eliminates the social services block grant which provides childcare assistance to low income working mothers, addresses child abuse, provides care for the elderly and disabled. about 22 million people, half of them children, will lose services. instead of ending tax breaks that allow corporations to ship jobs overseas, this budget cuts medicaid, slashes the children's health insurance program, forces 350,000 americans to forego health care coverage provided by health care reform. instead of asking millionaires to pay the same tax rates as middle class families, this budget makes children who are u.s. citizens but immigrant parents ineligible for the child tax credit, harming two million families and 4.5 million children who are united states citizens. they end the medicare guarantee for seniors in this nation. these cuts have a catastrophic effect on the most vulnerable in our nation and for what?

all to protect special interest subsidies, tax breaks for the richest members of our society. by friends it's $150,000 for the average millionaire in a tax cut. that's what we are talking about in this piece of legislation. it is wrong. budgets are about choices, values, and this bill exposes exactly what this majority is all about. we need to pass legislation that strengthens, rebuilds the middle class of this country, creates jobs, invests in rebuilding our infrastructure, supports manufacturers, and supports fairness to our tax code. this reverse robin hood agenda of the house majority fails in every single regard and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. when i hear my colleagues talk, it sounds as if we have a choice

about doing one thing or another thing. and i will say to my colleagues, when you are borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children -- just a moment. i will be happy to yield to my friend. when you are borrowing $1.4 trillion a year from your children, when you are mortgaging the future of this country, it's not a choice of either spending cuts or revenue changes. we got to have both. we've got to have both. and to describe it to the american people as if we can do one or the other and get ourselves out of this mess, we cannot. we absolutely cannot. i would ask my friends, and i would be happy to yield to my colleague, when this house brought to the floor a tax cut bill that gave every member of congress a tax cut at the end ever 2011, they said we don't have to pay -- we only have to pay 4% of payroll taxes instead of 6%, i voted no. i said there is not a member in

this body that needs a tax cut. i said we have too big a problem in this nation to give tax cuts to members of congress. i voted no. did anybody else vote no with me? did anybody else vote no with me? i will not be lectured about how it is that tax cuts are distributed in this country when we have opportunities to cut them on this floor, to eliminate them on this floor, and my colleagues continue to vote yes. we could have added a provision that eliminated those tax cuts for the rich. we did not and should have. i would be happy to yield. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the fact of the matter is there are choices and the majority refuses to make those choices. let us cut. let us cut the taxes for people who -- let's not provide the tax cuts for people who are making over $250,000 in this nation. let us come back from afghanistan in an orderly way. mr. woodall: thank you very much. ms. delauro: let us cut the

agriculture subsidies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the gentlelady will suspend. the gentleman from georgia has the time. mr. woodall: i thank the speaker for his help there. i'm sorry i needed it, but i appreciate him offering it. we passed a budget in this house. a comprehensive budget in this house. and to hear my colleagues talk, you'd think this is the only bill we are going to pass for the rest of the year. to hear my colleagues talk you think we are not going to bring a farm bill to the floor and go after ag subsidies. to hear my colleagues talk you think we are not going to bring a tax bill to the floor and try to raise revenues in this country. to hear my colleagues talk, this is it. this isn't it. this is the bill that responds to the chairman joints chief of staff, general martin democracy, who said this year about the cuts we are trying to prevent today, i will tell you that i am prepared to say that sequestration will pose an unacceptable risk. that's what we are here to talk abou