at/t is the purpose for th what is the cost? hat?pays for wi the banks are too big to fail. we need to help them. there are very strong policy signals. we made available $1 trillion. there were no strings attached. the money does not have to be reinvested for small and medium- size enterprises. the money can go into risky investments. at the same time we are told we do not have the money to continue. in the crisis we have seen that those countries with the strong protection floor are the most resilience. my own country has the lowest

unemployment in europe. they still have a functioning social system. people do not drop out when they lose their jobs. they do not lose their social benefits. it makes our size society resilience. we do not need all of that. we continue our concentration at the last 15 or 20 years. what will the consequences be? what if we cannot provide jobs for young people? look around. look what happened in north africa. the main driver was this among young people. the people had no future. they do not provide the future for them. this is why they lost their trust in the state.

this is the biggest danger we are facing. we have not been producing jobs. the numbers are abysmal. how do we reject sub-saharan african cities are going to double the population. unemployment rates 75%. imagine how do we control social tensions there? how could be next campaigns look like if some politicians who are less responsible are fighting for votes? how do we deal with that? how do we create opportunities?

in the united states you have 120 million. if we increase energy efficiency you have a lot of work to do. they have one building was 6500 windows. they would regain their investment in three years. if we raise energy efficiency, you have large generations of young people. today more people are employed in the solar industry. versus past versus future. how do we do it intelligently? how do we become energy independent? they are spending $2 billion a day in imports. the macro economic cost are $4 billion. they are not counting the army

that protect the energy flow. how long can we afford these enormous costs which are subsidized with taxpayer money? >> if i could add something. one minute. >> we're running a little bit out of time. i want to have time to speak about specific questions about do you believe el salvador and smaller nations are represented in the united nations enough? can these be heard among giants like china and the united states? >> i think yes. they do this. this happens. they show that sometimes we are

doing this one direction or another. it just happened recently in the wind. the decisions are not necessarily all in your hands. there is at least a voice. >> you are being asked how a young person can get involved with the red cross? do you volunteer? do you have to do any particular training? >> it is all there. you could just go and check the website. i would say first what the mayor of chicago organized comedy

visits in the schools and the fact -- >> to confine the rest of this conversation at c-span go.org. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] steny hoyer will be unveiling a jobs plan. >> we are honored to have him here talking about manufacturing and economic growth. since the founding we have been focused on how to ensure a strong and stable middle-class. we understand that this is central to a stronger economy. it sounds like this is a basic fact, one that should not be in dispute. as we see now in our national debate and discussion of how to foster growth, that issue is a

central pillar of growth. we have seen that this question about how to do this is central. there are two visions. there was a debate about lowering taxes and insuring what i would call trickle-down economics. that is how we foster growth. the other side is a broader agenda based on insuring that they have the income and wages they need to build demand. if we look at an economy that is growing, we see challenges are central to challenges in the economy. he has been leading an effort on manufacturing for several years. he is focused on how we deal with manufacturing.

it has been sent to our ability to create jobs. it is that engine of growth or we have middle-class jobs that create demand for more products that american company create. this is really a big challenge in our economy right now. we are particularly excited to have him here today. he will be laying out new ideas. we look forward to looking and talking to him. congressman who a yeahoyer? >> i am always pleased to be here at the center for american progress that is doing such a wonderful job. thank you for researching those issues that are important for the american people in making decisions on where they want to go.

congratulations to you on your leadership. i gave you my best to john here is out there in the netherworld. i know that tom is here, my former colleague. you are a vice president that does such a wonderful job. you are such a wonderful friend. good morning. good afternoon i guess i should say. as he prepared to take office, president kennedy spoke to a nation troubled by anxiety of america's leadership and uncertainty over whether future americans would have a strong and secure a economy. he offered a rousing appeal on the call to action. he spoke to a generation of americans and ask them not to shrink from their responsibility, to advance across a new frontier of science

and commerce. today i suggest we confront a similar anxiety with much greater global competition. it is therefore essential for us to seize the initiative and education, innovation, technology, alternative energy, and advanced manufacturing. our leaders have secured. our economy will remain the strongest on earth. americans will continue to find good jobs and have confidence that they will make it in america. the key to success i believe is a renewed dedication to the kind of individual responsibility and commitment that made this country the great country that it is. america's history has been one of innovating and developing. better products and services. it has been a history in which

manufacturing goods has played a major role. americans believe that making things in america must be an important part of our future. if we're going to be successful. manufacturing has been a bright star in our current recovery. over the last three years we have seen strong gains by manufacturers. we witnessed 28 consecutive job growth months. manufacturing has added many jobs since 2010. productivity driven 6% in the first quarter of 2012. and gesture production is driven by reserves and has surged 20% from its lowest point in june 2009. we went up 7/10 up 1% in may. manufacturing is also driving a

rise in u.s. exports. in the first four months of this year, total u.s. goods and service exports were up 6% or $41.4 billion from the same time from last year. in that same time manufacturing exports were up 9.1%. after having watched four years as american manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, where bearing witness to some of those jobs returning. companies are recognizing the rising costs of productions and are looking once again for the talent and experience of american workers. last month google announced a media device that is being manufactured only a few miles from its headquarters in california. when asked why they decided to make it here in america, google decided among several reasons the benefit of its engineers being able to travel easily

between the design lab and the production line. they have announced that it will be on construction on its first u.s. manufacturing plant last year and alabama. that facility will support 1000 new jobs. over the past two years other businesses have chosen workers to manufacture their products including caterpillar and ford. despite these recent gains, americans are still worried about our economy, and sure over whether our recovery will continue. uncertainty over consumer demand hangs like a dark cloud over the bright horizon. americans are looking at the financial crisis that continues to plague europe and hope that it does not spread here. now is not the time to hunker

down. it is most the time to go on offense. as president obama declared in january, "we have a huge opportunity at this moment to bring manufacturing back. we have to cease its. it is time to stop rewarding businesses to ship jobs overseas and reward them this right here in america. he is right. this is our moment to pursue policies that capt. lies on this. they make certain the positive trends in our recovery. we must make a strong and serious effort to create an environment that grows this so companies can hire for jobs that will stay here. our overseas competitors are doubling down on investments in their own work forces and

innovation and providing the tools that nurture manufacturing growth. not only are other countries surging ahead but they're pouring money into basic research and technology. the national science board reported that china and nine other countries have increased their research and development spending to match our own. the wealthiest country in the world we will lose only if we fail to invest the priorities of success. we have seen the manufacturing sector gain momentum. congress must pass a comprehensive jobs plan. two years ago democrats introduced such a plan. it is called "make it in america." it can help manufacturers make

it, grow it in america, it then it will help all of our people make it in america, succeed and sees opportunity. a combined business tax reforms that encourage manufacturers to bring jobs back in education, job training, innovation, green energy, and infrastructure. there would be able to base this on the best economic outcome. business judgments, not tax a judgment. our plan has recognized that our current system of taxation is too complex. there is a consensus that we should lower rates, broaden the base, and maintain at minimum revenue levels. businesses will make things in america only if it is profitable

to make things in america. we must also address regulation. in a state of the union address, president obama call for smarter regulations that will keep americans say and help business grow. he said "most new jobs are created in start-ups of small businesses. let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed, tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow." i would add needed regulations to insure regulations without impeding growth and investment. and i can and must be down. addressing taxes alone will not do it. again and again we have heard from manufacturers looking to invest that they simply cannot find enough workers with the skills and training they need in

engineering and advanced machine operation. we need to ensure that americans have the skills and knowledge to perform the jobs created by advanced manufacturing enterprises. our economy will benefit from the enactment of a comprehensive immigration reform that helps attract and retain talent here and invest in the strengths of our immigrant entrepreneurs seeking, as so many of the previous generations have done, to make it in america. rejecting the most skilled from our shores is neither consistent with our tradition of welcoming those who wish to make america great. make it in america is a comprehensive jobs plan our country needs. it takes the best ideas from both parties. we have already had some success with 10 and make it in america

bill signed into law including the american compete act, the actis, and smallents business technology transfer programs. we work together to jump-start our business start-ups, a bipartisan package that included a number of proposals from our make it in american agenda. just last week the institute of supply management reported that june was the first month that the manufacturing sector contracted since july 2009. today u.s. manufacturers are expected to announce that growth and first quarter earnings this year were the slowest since 2009. it is not time to hunker down. it is time to go on offense. we cannot let this become a

trend. members must set aside their political differences and take action. this was the title of the book [inaudible] if we are going to make a national commitment to building things again, it is going to require a new approach to government. we will not succeed without a comprehensive economic strategy, one that extends across policy areas, across cabinet departments, and congressional commitments. the government at its best creates a climate in which companies can fulfil their potential. that is what american business needs. the action. not been action. dedicated attention not indifference. this was expressed in our meeting with the national association of manufacturing which has been a strong advocate for bringing government and the

private sector into agreement when it comes to boosting competitors. that is what our competitors are doing. we should not shrink from that. we saw what things ought to be when 147 house republicans and every member of the democratic caucus joined to reauthorize the export/import bank. this was a major component. it doubles the exports by 2015. the fact of legislation that you still have nearly unanimous support of so much effort on to concern us all. i hope those who came together on bipartisanship that day will continue doing so to pass more make it in america bills and in the day to come. i am introducing additional steps congress can take right away.

to the crafts are putting forward several new proposals as part of our make it in -- democrats are putting forward several new proposals as part of our make it in american plan. first is the bring jobs home act sponsored by bill that would eliminate this for companies shipping jobs overseas. it would keep it for those bringing jobs on shore. it would further provide a new credit for companies moving jobs back home. congress should pass a miscellaneous term to eliminate duties on certain ones not produce in the united states, particularly raw materials and input i used by manufacturing to make it in america. this will reduce their production costs and help make these manufacturers more competitive. the third and fourth in the items being added will help us close the skills gap and connect

more out of work americans with will plant manufacturing jobs. one is a reauthorization and modernization of the work force investment act sponsored by john. the other is kathy's bill that grants $1,000 per student tax credit to employers that partner owith colleges and trade schools to provide skills necessary. president obama proposed manufacturing innovation that will bring manufacturers, academia, and government together to create an infrastructure that will accelerate the development of manufacturing technologies. in a couple of weeks we will be introducing legislation to implement this proposal. as much as the ought to be addressing this we also must invest in improving the physical network of rails.

we passed and of the structure bill before the july 4 break. it was the last day at the last minute. it shall not. the confidence of long-term planning that america needs to make so that we can make it in america. the act will lead to the development of a strategic transportation plan to assess the needs of our aging networks and create a national freight in for a stretch for grant program. -- infrastructure grant program. we need support and freight facilities that can accommodate them. we must make sure that other companies -- countries are playing fair.

the bill sponsored by linda sanchez and congressman billy long will establish new procedures for investigating claims against foreign manufacturers for countervailing orders. it'll help us better enforce rules and prevent illegal imports. in addition to these measures, the committee came together in a bipartisan vote last month to send to the house floor and make it in america bill sponsored by bill of illinois. it is called the american manufacturing competitive act and calls for the development of a strategy. you cannot win the game if you do not have a playbook. you cannot win the game if you do not have a strategy to do so. the strategy will bring together public and private sectors to create a comprehensive plan of action and

require that it be updated at least at the four years. any business executive will tell you that you ought to have a carefully crafted strategy before undertaking a large project. i hope the full house will pass the bill and to so quickly. it passed on the committee overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote. taken together with the other legislation with are introduced, these measures will help us invest in out educating, out innovating, and out-building our competitors. they all agree that manufacturing is ready to take off and carry other sectors of our economy with it. it will push our manufacturing sector appeared it is a strategy all americans can agree on.

this is what we need to do if we're going to remain competitive in this century ahead. as i have said many time, congress must work concurrently on achieving a big solution to the deficits and death that confront us. if we're going to a for the investments contained in our plan, our competitiveness is dependent on congress and our country acting with courage and determination to address our fiscal challenge, namely this one blooming at the end of the year. that is why i have called on congress to go big with a balanced solution before the year is over. we will have to address deficits to the onset of sequestration.

a number of items are scheduled to expire. as well as the estate tax in the alternative minimum tax. all of these we will confront. we need to confront them with courage and will. greece does not have the resources to solve its problem. america does have the resources. all we need is the political will and courage to do so. we will have to put everything on the table to make strategic choices. if we do not address this it will not be this. we have always been a solution driven people. common sense carried as across

this fast company. they drove us forward to achieve in science and medicine. they carried us to the moon and safely back to earth. we must embrace them once more. we must strive for solutions. we must substitute confrontation with operation. if we can achieve this, and the effects will not only be felt in our time. it is up to us to some of the challenges we face. we must recommit ourself with solution driven politics, one that will enable us to achieve what americans deserve, solutions that will help more of our people make it in america. only working together, not as democrats or republicans, but as americans, can rise to meet our challenges. i know we can do it. i hope you know we can do it.

we have done it in the past. we can do so again. thank you very much. thank you so much. if you will identify yourself and ask your question, that would be great. >> what he mentioned about having a solution for america, made in america is very good. you need something concrete. you need a future for america. we need a future for america with 6 billion jobs immediately. they are taking this to establishing that.

-- the route to a sousing that is simple. >> can you get to a question? >> we need real legislation. we need a national banking system. we need this manufacturing process. will you commit yourself to signing on as a sponsor of glass siegel legislation this week? >> it will not shock you that i will not commit to that today. we passed a major reform of banking regulation in the last congress, as you know. that was absolutely essential to put in effect the referee on the field. we have had some major events happened since that passage. jpmorgan chase in particular, which i think will focus the congress and the american people

on the necessity to ensure that the regulatory part of the banking world works and it works to the protection of the american people and the creation of solid competition. i think in that process you will see a lot of a preview of what was done previously with respect to that. what is being done to the proposals in the financial reform at to see whether they are going to work to accomplish this. >> another question in the front row here. and by yourself. as the question. >> thank you. >> as the president' [unintelligible] do you support the level the

president is supporting or those making a million dollars or more of? >> i believe that what ever you figure you choose, and i do president, but itdent' will be a metaphor. our republican colleagues will not support increasing revenues on any persons in america matter how much to bthe make. clearly we want to make sure that the working americans continue to have the ability to purchase goods. we are a consumer driven economy. we need to grow good paying jobs to make an agenda. american just a 20 to serve more than other jobs in our economy -- 22% more than other jobs in

our economy. he has a initially right at 250. i would be prepared to go lower sometime in the future than that. our economy is still struggling. going lower than that would have an adverse impact. i do nothing going higher will have an adverse impact on the economy. >> thank you very much. my name is jerry. i represent the eir magazine. the question is this. i do not know if you are aware that a leading circle in britain connected to the financial world have publicly now called for a full glass-steagall. their argument was that a volcker rule or regulation, they will say it will not work. the system is so bankrupt cannot bail it out.

these are guys involved in financing. they say it is a strict glass- steagall so that credit can be made available for the kind of fdr recovery program, which i think you're talking about. there will be in national manufacturer. you have to have the credit. they're trying to bail out a system. >> we have a question about glass-steagall. >> without repeating too much to my answer before, be passed significant legislation. i understand the argument. it did not go far enough. it did not create a wall strong enough are high enough from the perspective. i think that will be subject to further discussion. i think it is a legitimate discussion. >> hnicolas with the day the

caller. i wonder if you think the health-care laws requirements and small-business is that there were 50 employees. could that affect their incentive to grow? >> i think this requires personal and corporate responsibility to provide for them. i think to growth and our health care system has helped employer based insurance. but in small and larger businesses. we have seen that eroded because

the rapid escalation of health-care costs. the bill as an effort to stanch that rapid escalation. stabilize them and give people help you need a getting insurance and spreading the risk so that everybody does have insurance. i think that is inappropriate step for us to have taken. we will look to see how that operates. i think we have to look at how it impacts small, medium, and large individuals to make sure it works aas planned. doing nothing is not an option. there are substantial sums through the legislation that has been foes. i think we will have to see whether it has adverse

impacts. >> there are a number of ways. in action lowers health care costs by reforming the entire health-care system. -- it actually lowers health care costs by reforming the entire health-care system. this would actually help jump- start the hires. aetna let me add to what he says. obviously -- let me add to what he said. obviously you can have a race to the bottom. and then you are going to have to pass that cost along to somebody. you know the taxpayer pays the purchase of health insurance paying about $1,000 per family for uncompensated care. we have tried to bring this

down. i think this was one of the efforts. this is something they are undertaking. the 31st vote to repeal health care, after every vote over the last 31, not one alternative has been proposed. >> let me check on the initiatives. republicans this week are going to stage a vote to read bill obamacare. what are the prospects of passing this before the election? to see all the initiatives as being aimed at 32nd campaign

ads? >> the probability of the latter is more probable than the former of dealing with the substantive issues. that is unfortunate. that was a hostile takeover of the corporation of which i am a member, a minority stockholder. he said weeks ago that he did nothing much was going to be done between now and the election. i think that is unfortunate. people are out of jobs. people are anxious. we need to build confidence. in the long run, i think that doing a big, bold, balance a to fiscal policy, which will pace the united states on fiscally sustainable path is frankly the best thing that we could do for

the economy. it is going to be essential if when we hit all of these things sometime between now and november 6, this congress needs to take responsible action to take us on a sound path. we will also pass substances legislation to grow the jobs bill. i have urged him to bring it to the floor. i said if you do not agree with it, fine. a vote against it. mr. john boehner said the substantive issues will be put on the floor and the house would work its will. the president has offered a very substantive piece of legislation as 2 could grow as milliomany

million jobs. we will have that on the floor. i urge him to put that on the floor. let us vote it up or down. the answer is he is saying he does not think we will do much. we will simply be offering legislation to create what newt gingrich wanted to create, wedge issues and confrontation and division. that is unfortunate to the country. other than that i do not think much about it. >> i have a radical idea. i wonder if the time has come that both education and health care should be considered infrastructure. roads and ports are necessary for manufacturing. i think a healthy educated work

force is equally important for capitalism. that may change the concept of how we should fund it. >> i have an alternative. you're raising a point. it ought to get funded. there are national security issues. education is a national security issue. infrastructure is a national security issue. as well as stabilizing our economy is a security issue. if we think of it in the context of our national security as well as our national future and the future of our children, i think we ought to consider both of those issues as national security issues. >> i think that is a great ending. thank you so much. >> thank you all for being here. [applause]

quite steny hoyer is wrapping up his remarks here at the center for american progress. on capitol hill, connors reruns a day from a week-long july 4 recess. -- congress returns today from a week-long july 43 stores. they will be dealing with veterans benefits and disclosure requirements. tomorrow they are expected to begin a republican-led bill to read kill the 2010 health care law. he come watch live coverage today as they need to set the

ground rules for -- you can watch the live coverage today as they set the ground rules. they have been doing work on a one year small business tax credit bill that is capped at $500,000 per employee year. a vote is scheduled tomorrow. you can watch the live coverage of the house here and c-span and live senate coverage there on c- span2. earlier, president obama made an announcement at the white house calling on congress to extend middle-class tax cut, which are set to expire at the end of the year. he said its would be a drag on the economy. you can watch his comments here as he arrives in the eastern of the white house. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. have a seat.

good afternoon. i am glad things have cooled off a little bit. i know folks were hot. we are here today to talk about taxes, something that everybody obviously cares deeply about. our biggest challenge right now is not just to reclaim all the jobs we lost in the recession. it is is to reclaim the security that so many middle- class americans have lost. our mission has to be putting people back to work but also rebuilding an economy where that work pays off. an economy in which everyone can have the confidence that if you work hard you can get ahead. what is holding us back is not a lack of plans.

it is a stalemate in this town. between two very different views on which direction we should go in as a country. nowhere is that more pronounced than on the issue of taxes. many members of the other party believe that prosperity comes from the top down. if we spent trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, that it will somehow released jobs and economic growth. i disagree. i think they are wrong. i believe our prosperity has come from an economy that is built on a strong middle-class, one that can afford businesses itself. they can save enough to retire on. that is why i cut middle-class

taxes every year that i had been president. by $3,600 for the typical middle-class family. we have cut taxes for the middle-class family by $3,600. [applause] i want to repeat that because sometimes there's a little misinformation out there. folks get confused about it. more over we have tried it their way. it did not work. at the beginning of the last decade, congress passed trillions of dollars of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest americans more than anybody else. we were told it will lead to more jobs, higher incomes for everybody, prosperity that started from the top and then trickled down.

what happened? the wealthy got wealthier. most americans struggled. instead of creating more jobs, we have the slowest job growth in half a century. instead of widespread prosperity the typical family sell its in come fall. in just a few years we went from record surpluses under bill clinton to record deficits that we are now still struggling to pay off today. we do not need more top-down economics. we tried that theory. we have seen what happened. we cannot afford to go back. we need policies that strengthen the middle class. policies that help create jobs, make education and training more affordable, that encourage businesses to create jobs here in the united states. that is why i believe it is time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, folks like

myself, to expire. [applause] by the way i might feel differently because it is not what i like to pay taxes. i might feel differently if we were still in surplus. we have these huge deficits. everybody agrees we need to do something about the deficit and debt. the money we are spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a contributor to our deficit. it is costing this over the next decade. these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans are also the tax cuts that are least likely to promote growth.

i believe anyone making over to under $50,000 a year should go back to the tax rates under bill clinton, when our country to 23 million new jobs, the biggest surplus in history, and plenty of millionaires to boot. this is not just my opinion. the american people are with me on this. poll after poll shows that is the case. there are plenty of patriotic and very wealthy americans to also agree. they know that i'm making the contribution they are making the country as a whole stronger. at the same time most people agree that we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses. not when so many folks are just trying to get by. now when so many folks are still digging themselves out of the whole that was created by this

great recession. and at a time when the recovery is still fragile. that is why i'm calling on congress to extend the tax cuts for the 98% of americans that make less than $250,000 for a another year. [applause] if congress does not do this, and millions of american families including these good- looking people behind us could see their taxes go up by $2,200. starting on january 1 of next year. that would be a big blow to working families. it to be a drag on the entire economy. we can anticipate that we know

that those who are opposed to letting the high in tax cuts will expire will say. they will say that we cannot tax job creators. they will explain how this will be bad for small business. folksy tree most new jobs are america's small-business owners. i have cut taxes for small business owners eight teen time since i have been in office. [applause] i also ask congress repeatedly to pass new tax cuts for entrepreneurs that hire new workers. here is a thing you have to remember. the proposal i make today would extend these tax cuts for 97% of all small business owners in america. 97 serve a small businesses fall under the threshold.

this is not about taxing job creators. this is about helping job creatures. i want to give them relief. i want to give them a sense of purpose. i believe we should be able to come together to get this done. well i disagree on extending tax cuts for the wealthy because we cannot afford them, i recognize that not everyone agrees with them. we all say we agree that we should extend the tax cuts for 98 some of the american people. everybody said that. the republicans say they do not want to raise taxes on the middle class. we should all agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle- class. let's agree to do what we agree on.

that is what compromises all about. let's not hold the vast majority of americans and our entire economy hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy. we can have that debate. we can have that debate. let's not hold up working on the thing we already agree on here . my opponent well like to keep them in place. i will fight to end them. that argument should not threaten me. it should not threaten the 98

certification of americans. they just want to know their taxes will not go up. they deserve this guarantee. they deserve this certainty. it'll be good for the economy in good for you. we should give you that certainty now. we should do it now. it'll be good for you. it to be good for the economy as a whole. my message to congress is this. have a bill. extend the tax cuts for the middle-class. i will sign it tomorrow. next week i will cite it next week. you get the idea. -- i will sign it next week. you get the idea. as soon as i get it done, we will have a debate about whether it is a good idea to also extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest

americans. i will have one position. the other side will have another. we will have that debate. the american people can listen to that debate. next year once the election is over and things have calmed down a little bit, based on what the american people have said and how they have spoken, we will be in a good position. that is something we have to do for the long term. we will give middle-class families the security they deserve. you are the ones who are driving this recovery for words. -- forward. drivingthe ones you're this recovery for word.

i think it is time to widen the circle of intel more americans. -- and tell more americans. this is what i'm focused on every day. i told congress will help meteorite think. thank you for being here. -- me do the right thing. thank you for being here.

>> on capitol hill, congress returns from a recess. there will be in briefly about an hour from now, returning for legislative work on seven bills dealing with veterans benefits and atm fee requirements. in the senate, lawmakers will resume work on a one-year small business tax credit bill currently capped at $500,000 per employee year. also a vote for a judicial nomination tomorrow. he come what live coverage tomorrow on c-span. today we will have coverage of the house committee as it meets to set the ground rules for debate on the repeal measure. that is live on c-span3 at 5:00 eastern appeared next to rob portman speaking at a fund-

raiser trip in new hampshire -- eastern. next rapport misspeaking at a fund-raiser trip in new hampshire. >-- next robert portman speaking at a fund-raiser trip in new hampshire. >> do you say they gave the party a suggestion? congratulations suggestion congratulations to you and mitt romney. in part -- i think he is going to win here, in part, because people know who he is. he inherited $3 billion deficit and turned it around to a $2 billion rainy day fund. essentially, working with it democratic legislature. and he was able to get things done, which is what we were --

we desperately need in washington right now. i think he will do very well as he did in the primary. some of you have been asking whether i have been to wolfeboro. the answer is no. but i have been on four college campuses in the last 40 hours. i'm here with my daughter and she is 17 years all i just left her in hands of some of my sons older friends. i hope that works out well. it has been nice to spend some time with her and to work on the political front in new hampshire. the republican party has reached out and ask me to help them and undiluted -- delighted to do so. it will be an opportunity to see

a lot of old friends i was up here in the primary for the republican candidates, including bob dole, and george w. bush. i have been involved in six campaigns. it is great to see steves resolve as an entrepreneur. we used to talk about what it was like back home and it is great to see this place and the other ways he has created jobs here and engage in the campaign. if your and entrepreneur, a risk taker, you need a business in

government and part of that will be dictated by washington. and right now, with taxes and regulation and to all of the unpredictability in the economy, it is difficult to get people to take a risk. i come out of that background of small business in ohio. my dad left his job to start his own business. in his later years i asked him whether he would do it again and he had to say he did not know. there's so much uncertainty out there. you have a government that does not seem to get it. they're making it more difficult and not easier to get jobs. steve has taken risks and is concerned. as all of us are. on monday i will be helping our around the victory effort in boston. i will be speaking at a couple of that there, helping to raise money for the campaign and doing whatever i can to help those in the victory effort which is separate for the

campaign. in ohio i am the chairman of the campaign. we have volunteers that are plugged in already. we're working very hard. ohio is like new hampshire. it is a classic swing state. we have a few more of a tour bo -- electoral votes. it looks like to us that it is a dead heat. there are a group of voters that are undecided. some pollsters say 15% of the voters, some even 10%. they are looking carefully. they are looking carefully at what is happening in the economy. what they're seeing right now unfortunately is a continually weak economy and real concern being expressed across our state and here in new hampshire and across the country.

i am so engaged because i am truly concerned about what is happening with the economy and the direction we are headed. the job numbers yesterday are further evidence of an economy that is not performing to the point of putting a lot of middle jobs at risk. it is not giving us to get the growth we need to get us back to the kind of growth we have seen since the 1980's. these numbers are not just bad. they are part of the trend. if you look at the last three months, the last three months abide are the worst we have had in two years. -- three months combined are the worst we have had in two years. we have the first downturn in manufacturing in three years. we may be looking at a double- dip recession. this is before we look at what is happening at the year end where economists and analysis

and the federal reserve analysis say that unless to resolve this deficit cliff coming up that we may see the economy go back into a recession. these are very troubling times. it requires leadership. we have not seen that in president obama. we have seen policies and promises that he has not been able to keep because the policies are not working. president obama put through congress on a total partisan basis a stimulus package, spending almost $1 trillion, unemployment today would be under 6%. instead we have over eight%. we had it for 41 consecutive

weeks, which is the kind of job performance -- months, which is the kind of job performance that has allowed people to look at the alternative. there is a relatively small number of voters that have not made their mind up, they're looking for a better way. the understand with the high employment numbers and manufacturing number is taking a dip, that the policies president obama has put in place simply are not working. the good news is we have a candidate running who did very well in the new hampshire primary. he is now spending a lot of

time in ohio and other swing states. he has a very clear idea over where this country ought to go in terms of the economy. he has the record. he has the experience. he has the policy to turn things around. this is precisely what we need. i talked about his record in massachusetts where he was working with the democratic legislature. that kind of leadership is lacking in washington right now. he is a risk taker. he greeted over 100,000 jobs in his business career. he took the lead it at a time when they were mired in scandal -- he created over 100,000 jobs in his business career. he took the olympics at a time when they were mired in scandal. he will get the country back on track. when you that it obama's and that promises -- look at obama's unmet promises, they simply indicate that his policies are not working. then you have a governor romney who has promised from day one that he will move forward on an aggressive economic plan including reforming the tax

code. including an aggressive national energy policy with domestic sources of energy, and improving the keystone pipeline, on day one. he will bring new regulations to get the burdens of small business owners around the country. he will begin the process of repealing the dodd/frank legislation, which has created problems in terms of credit in small business is getting the loans they need it, and the president's health-care plan which has been a big topic of conversation. he will begin the process of getting our economy back to where it should become a growing economy where our kids and grandkids generations will be able to see what we see, our grand kids being able to pass it on to their generation. we have one candidate who have put in place policies that he thought were right and make promises as to what the results would be.

they have not worked. we have another candid with the record, experience, and policy to put it around. he's ready to go to work to create the opportunity we have all been looking for, restoring the american dream. with that, questions, comments. >> we've identified by name and organization. -- please identified by name and organization. >> do you plan to meet with romney or his senior staff before you leave? >> on questions on the vetting, i've said that is really up to the campaign. i will not address them. i am here mostly on college tour with my daughter. i am helping out a little bit with the new hampshire

republican party also. >> do you have plans to meet privately with the governor before you leave? >> i will not get into it. no, i have no plans. >> would you care to comment about the current situation in syria? >> where president obama has not led is really in three areas. one is the debt and deficit. rejecting his own fiscal commission's recommendations showed a lack of leadership. yes thought receptive congress. in terms of the economy, the policies have not read it he has not reached out to congress. -- he has not reached out to congress. in terms of the economy, the policies have not worked. the rhetoric mix harder to keep the economy back on track.

whether it is iran or north korea or syria, america has not shown the leadership we should. the situation is complicated. i had the opportunity to meet with leaders both in the arab world and israel and also within afghanistan. we have a lot of conversations about syria. america ought to take a more aggressive stance. we should be assisting some of the forces that are trying to defend themselves. you have probably seen some of the press reports and coverage of the terrible atrocities being committed. it is a humanitarian tragedy. the united states can and should play a more aggressive role working with our partners including turkey. turkey is very interested in working to make sure the opposition to assad have the ability to defend themselves. it is appropriate.

>> i am wondering if president obama and a vice president biden are ramping up their attacks. would it be advantageous to the governor to select a running mate earlier rather than later? >> you know, i am not sure. i think macdonald would have a comment on this. there are plenty of circuits out there for mitt romney as well. some of those are on the so- called list. others may not be. i do not think he has had any shortage of interest in republicans getting out and talking on his behalf in ohio or here in new hampshire.

we all share this deep concern about the direction of the country. i think there are still plenty of their get out there. it seems to me, i have been involved -- surrogates out there. it seems to me, i have been involved, that there are more surrogates out there. party loyalty around it romney is there. our party will come back together strongly. every republican leader i know is for the camp. they want to get out there and say why. >> when do you think would be the best time? >> i do not know. there have been different

strategies sometimes with dan quayle, the day before the convention started, and with sarah palin it couple of weeks before. i am not sure it matters a great deal. what matters is that we have energy and enthusiasm on the republican side. i see that this year. i certainly see it in ohio. we are willing to make sure there is a change for themselves and their families. >> in many previous cycle to have played the role of debate prep. has the romney campaign asked you to play a simpler role? >> i would refer you to the campaign on that. i want to help every way i can.

my understanding is that they are not in the process yet. debates are still a ways away. there are only three of them on like the primary where there were 19. i think they are putting it off for a while. i do have a big job which is representing my state in the united states senate which i love doing. i spent a lot of time doing that. we have a really aggressive legislative agenda. we passed three laws last week. we continue to pass hard on a number of initiatives including energy efficiency. i am going to continue to focus on that. as chair of the campaign in ohio, we have a big task ahead of us.

you saw the numbers today. it looks like the obama campaign has put more money into a higher than any other state in terms of their media. there also put together an extensive operation as -- they also have the together an extensive operation as have their allied groups. we're in the cross hairs. both candidates will spend a lot of time and effort there. we have a little catching up to do. we have a primary and they did not. they have a lot of resources early on and we did not. we are starting to develop more of a grass-roots infrastructure in ohio. if you have seen on the fund- raising totals, the romney campaign is not only catching up, and they are doing better than the obama campaign. prior to that time the opposite was true. frankly, we have our work cut out for us somehow. i have a big focus there.

>> since the ruling on obamacare and whether it is a penalty or a tax, i wonder where you fall on those things. >> it is that up to me. -- it is not up to me. it is up to the supreme court. they said it is a tax. as i said long before they announce the case, whether it is constitutional or not, whether the commerce clause was appropriate as a way to pass legislation, it is still unaffordable to american families because of our health care costs keep going up. it is unaffordable to businesses. many businesses in ohio and i'm sure this jury in new hampshire are saying -- and i am sure this is the same in new hampshire are saying this is a hard way to go.

it is unaffordable to the budget. it will bankrupt the country. despite these claims that it is deficit neutral, the cbo has come up with a report saying it is not. it only would have been if you took $500 billion out of medicare and put it in the new entitlement rather than saving medicare. it would add $500 billion in new taxes not including the penalty taxes. this health care law does not work for our families, job creation, or our budget. that is the central issue. i will go ahead and answer this. this notion that somehow president obama and governor romney have similar positions on health care is ridiculous. they could not be further apart. there will be a contrast here

for voters to look at. you have one candidates strongly defending the health care of all that he said would reduce costs to american families by a couple of thousand bucks a year. the opposite has happened. there are 21 new tax increases. it is something that is not affordable to our country and family businesses. with regard to mitt romney you have someone who said from day one he will dismantle this legislation including a waiver to all 50 states. he believes there is a better way to get at the costs of health care through more transparency in competition and be able to help family is up for health care. huge differences. i think this will be an issue in the campaign. it relates to directly to a central issue, jobs.

it is difficult to see the economy ticking off. >> [inaudible] >> i know governor romney has talked about this. he made the point that we are 50 states which are laboratories of democracy. it is different in some the at the federal versus state level. every state is different. it related to 8% of the massachusetts people that are uninsured. they're very different laws. one is federal level. -- state level. one is the federal level. this will be an important distinction between the candidates. for the boaters to have not made their minds of, they will carefully at the impact of this law if we do not change direction and replace it with something that works better.

i hope that will be one of the considerations. >> mark halprin. but the conservatives -- a lot of conservatives have been critical of governor romney's campaign. [inaudible] how you respond? do you have any worries? >> mark, we talked about the number of campaigns i have been involved with. there has never been a campaign where there has not been sniping from the outside. and second-guessing. that is particularly true where there is a republican primary. there have been back and forth

from democrats. i hear the same thing for the democratic side in terms of the bombing campaign. -- the obama campaign. that is to be expected. i think mitt romney has been very aggressive and laying it out. any not the there's question that when they listen to both candidates where they stand in terms of the economy. there is a huge difference of opinion. president obama thought the private sector was doing fine. he said the problem is we're not hiring enough workers at the state and local level. it is a totally different philosophy. he will save the private sector is not doing fine. the answer is not more government. the answer is to get the private sector moving again by providing the tax relief and regulatory relief. these are domestic sources.

we have huge differences here. mayor romney has been very aggressive. this'll be a hard-fought campaign. people have to look carefully at the facts as they are hearing all these debates back and forth in terms of paying capital. iran has a proud record. he was actually in the business -- mitt romney has a proud record. he was action in the business. he can create an environment for job growth rather than a disincentive. that is a fundamental problem in our economy. he understands we have some structural problems. but the antiquated tax code. like the overregulation. like we're spending more energy [unintelligible]

last year we produced 14% less oil on government land at a time when gas prices were a record high purity is there's a different approach here. i think he'll -will be- -- record high. there's a different approach here. >> only the fighting back on specific allegations -- will he be fighting back on specific allegations? >> he has a record to be proud of. i wonder why the obama campaign want to talk so much about his private sector experience. i think that is a huge advantage. a lot of undecided voters want someone who actually knows what it takes to create a job. and knows what is needed in washington to create the environment for job growth. i do not think that is a

negative. i think that is a positive. as we have seen with president obama, he has surrounded himself with folks that do not have experience. it has resulted in overregulation, overtaxing, the kind of jobs scarce -- and jobs care policy that hurts the economy. he does not realize the potential of domestic energy to create jobs in this country. he has not been as tough on china as governor romney would like to be if he is elected president. i think people are looking for somebody that actually understands what this problem is. but is very evident from those disappointing jobs numbers yesterday, from the manufacturing numbers of three or four days ago, that our economy is not recovering.

i know a lot of smart people on the obama campaign. i know they have thought through this. but the fact that they are after him because he has private- sector experience, i think that is what people are actually looking for because he knows how to turn the economy around. things are said to have happen in the campaigns that are unpredictable.

so much can change. it there is a fundamental problem in our economy. america and if we do not fix this we will not be able to continue to lead the world. we've got to read a strong economy in order to project force about syria and in this discussion about north korea and what is calling on today in iran, we've got to have a strong economy. i am on the armed services committee and i'm concerned about what we are seeing in the debt and deficits because it affects our ability to be the leader of the world, to be the country that promotes human rights and fights corruption in

democracy. and for us to continue to have a strong medal was -- a strong middle class and provide opportunities for future generations. mitt romney has the experience and the record and the plans and policy to be able to do that. in the end, i think that will be a fundamental issue. other issues will come and go, but over the next few months, that will be the question that people ought to ask. who is better at getting this economy back on track. president obama's policies, by his own standards, they have not worked. i think these are the fundamental issues ohio will be looking at in the next few months. >> of george w. bush left office.

-- when george w. bush left office [unintelligible] >> i served there in the office of management -- management and budget. we had deficits that we would die for today. we had won six of today's deficit. it was about 61 billion. i was able to lower the deficit over five years because president bush was able to make some tough decisions. growth, unemployment 4% to 5% and we had the possibility there of actually getting america back on track. so, i am proud of that record and proud of the fact while i was there we put all the earmarks online and proud of the fact we were able to work on

congress to come up with better spending bill -- spending bill. again, to be able to balance -- yet the980's -- recession but then the economy comes back and we're not seeing that this time. in fact, unemployment was higher in 1981 than it was this most recent recession. at this point, about 49 of 15 months we had gained back over 7

million jobs. in this recession unfortunately this recovery, the weakest since the great depression, we are still down $4.9 million so instead of gaining 6 7 million jobs we are down 5 million jobs. again, these jobs reports are additional evidence of the fact that this is not working. we are not getting back on our feet. remember the jobless recovery back in the 2001 recession. at this point, after the 2001 recession we had gained back hundreds of thousands of jobs compared to the day we are down almost 6 million jobs where we were. we talked about the fact that the indicators on manufacturing, consumer confidence, and jobs are all going the wrong way. the news is we've got a candidate who understands how the economy works and the role washington needs to play and has specific plans and ideas that he

would implement on day one to begin to turn things around. i am excited to be working for him. and i am hopeful that here in new hampshire and ohio, about a handful of states make me different, people will take a long and hard look at the distinct contrast between the two candidates and look at the fat. if they do so, i think they've worked out well for the american people and for mitt romney. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> that have been public -- has been public. one of you guys put about there. >> over on capitol hill today, congress returns from a week- long july 4 recess. convene gristly at -- convenes about a half an hour from now and will return for work on

veterans benefit saleh and atm fee disclosure requirements. samaras and the house, expect it consideration of the republican- led -- tomorrow in the house and expected consideration of the republican-led bill to overturn the health-care law. and then the senate will work on a small business tax bill and also a vote scheduled on the judicial nomination for tomorrow. you can watch the house live here on c-span and the senate over on c-span2. next, a look at the week ahead in congress from today's "washington journal." host: senior watch what it -- sr. was editor at congressional quarterly. we have been hearing that president obama is poised for a new fight in extending tax cuts. he plans to announce today from the white house he would like to see the middle-class tax cut for those making less than 250 -- $250,000 extended. how will congress reacts

question on guest: they will presumably react the same way they had when the president made this push and the past. this is not a new endeavor for president obama and the senate has held votes previously on this push for extending tax cuts only for those incomes of less than $250,000 and the senate also had beauts for extending the tax cuts for those under $1 million, pushed by new york democrat chuck schumer, and that simile went nowhere and failed to get the 60 votes normally needed to overcome the filibuster in the senate and no reason to expect it will be any different this time. >> congress returns today after the july 4 break. we had the journalists on talking about whether or not anything would actually get down the summer before they head out for campaign season. how much do you expect to see happen in the coming weeks?

>> honestly, like most people i am not terribly optimistic. signs are not pointing in favor of getting the whole lot done between now and the election. certainly when they come back in september after the august break we will have to deal with funding the government beyond september 30. and the house has been working through an appropriation bill and they will keep working and appropriation bills but they have not been doing that in the senate so far and there is talk they may take one or two out before the end of september but it does not look like there will be very much change in that regard, either, so we are looking forward to some sort of continuing revolution -- resolution to keep the government going. host: if you would like to talk to our guests about congress and the week ahead, here are the numbers to call --

right before congress left for the july 4 recess the supreme court upheld most of president obama's of the law. we heard republicans talking about repeal. what will we hear this week? >> this week house will take up a bill that would repeal all of the health care components of the two pieces of president obama's health-care law. that bill is expected to pass the house. and as is also to be expected, go know where once it reaches the senate where, of course, majority leader harry reid and the democrats are in control. there may be a push by some senate republicans to get a vote on repeal or at least a vote on repeal of the provisions that were called into question by the supreme court about the tax penalty. and chief justice roberts calling the mandate a tax have given some new fire to people trying to repeal that, although

that similarly isn't expected to go very far in the senate. host: let's get to the phones and hear what bill has to say, a democratic caller in chicago, illinois. good morning, bill. caller: hey. what i can understand is how the republicans want to keep tax cut for will companies in texas, for companies to move offshore? this does not make any sense at all. and romney made a lot of money with these offshore tax cuts. i think they should give companies tax cuts to stay here. how can republicans justify that? host: let's go to niels lesniewski and hear what he has to say. guest: in the next couple of weeks senate is likely to take up the measure that would do something of what you're talking about. specifically it would provide tax benefits for returning jobs,

affectively returning jobs to the country that have previously been moved overseas. again, it is part of the democrats attempting to show a contrast with governor romney. that a bill, like the tax cut to being extended from the bush era only four under $250,000 is not expected to go very far. host: here are some headlines from "congressional quarterly" today. health care repeal likely in the house. and below that, house agenda set up for political contrasts. the house is offering a july agenda that republican leaders will demonstrate that legislative work has not yet ground to a free election hot. although the first significant item from the schedule is a message bill with no chance .

what else do we see likely to come up? guest: one of the other items that might be coming up in the next couple weeks, and house they're looking at moving forward on the preparation bills but they're also looking forward on several regulatory overhauls, bills designed to reduce the regulatory burdens for businesses according to the house republicans. but those bills similarly -- some of them have opposition from environmental groups and other groups that make them unlikely to the advance in the senate as well. host: pennsylvania, independent caller. good morning. number good morning. thanks for taking my call. it seems to me would be fairly irresponsible for congress to respond to the president's push for these tax cuts. after rob, you don't even have a budget which congress, the

democratic senate, has not passed a budget for how many years now? so if you don't know what your budget is out and you adjust the revenue coming into it? it is just politics as usual. until harry reid and the rest democrats admit that they are the ones obama is planning, nothing is going to get done until the senate passed a bill, it can't even get into conference committee. guest: thank you. the one point democrats in the senate, particularly budget chairman kent conrad, makes about this statement about the budget -- about the senate not having passed a budget in multiple years is that the debt limit law from last year did set the budget level for the next two fiscal years. so, it is not entirely that there is no budget, but there is not sort of the same kind of plan that there has traditionally been since the 1970's. host: james asks on twitter with the budget increases are built

into the continuing resolution that congress is passing. any chance we could ever see a real cut in spending? guest: the continuing resolutions generally make some adjustments for the budget levels. they don't make too many. but certainly you would not ordinarily see the large spending cuts through a continuing resolution. now, one of the things we do see some times of the customer situation is the sequester which is schedule to be enacted at the end of the year, which would provide automatic spending cuts of about $1.20 trillion over 10 years, which a lot of lawmakers are trying to avoid that this point. but those cuts are coming at some action to the contrary. host: here is the "question science monitor" explanation of the sequestered.

are you expecting to see any movement on dealing with the sequestered before the lame-duck session? guest: no. we really are increasingly looking like that piece of the puzzle, along with the tax rate, and perhaps the debt limit -- though, that could slip into next year -- all of those items looked like they are more to be moving and going forward into at least the lame-duck, which is setting up to be quite a show after the election, but it doesn't look like any of that will be get done before them. host: the debt limit, a cat congress sets on how much still of that the government can occur from borrowing, currently $16 trillion. it was created by law in 1917 --

this fiscal to cliff -- -- fiscal cliff -- host: niels lesniewski, what are you hearing from congress in terms of talks going on behind the scenes. if you are not optimistic anything will get done until after the presidential and congressional elections, what is still happening at this point to lead the groundwork question 1 guest: well, there are groups of lawmakers that are working somewhat behind the scenes to try to put together a plan based in part on the simpson-bowles deficit reduction plan that would put together by a group of insiders and outsiders, led by erskine bowles and former senator alan simpson, to try to

come up with a deficit reduction package, also using some of the provisions from the so-called gang of six senators. but those plans, in the past that the least, have not gained the favor of leadership, particularly, when not really a ball in the effort, other than senate majority whip richard durbin. so that is sort of the site plan that people are working on, but it does not look like that plan will be coming up right away, although in the lame-duck, it is a different ball game because we don't know who will control the senate really or, of course, whether or not governor romney will be the president in waiting or president obama will be reelected. a lot of the cards that are paid in the lame-duck the band on what cards you are holding in your hand are based on what is coming up next year. host: that ties into what joseph is asking all twitter, whether the bowles-simpson plan as a

solution to budget issues. tell us more about the details of that plan and how much traction it could get this time around with it didn't before? guest: well, it looks like it might get some more traction, particularly when you have lawmakers who may not be around anymore, frankly, retiring lawmakers are some times more likely to vote for things that may not be politically popular. but the plan itself is a combination of discretionary and mandatory spending reductions as well as a closing of tax preferences thomas some of which are very popular with people. people don't necessarily like singing these tax preferences eliminated once they know what they actually are because they are things the claim on our own tax returns. so it probably is a more likely

thing to happen in a lame duck session than any other time because you got people who might be willing to the trend and the voters, perhaps, because they no longer have to worry about this, frankly. host: evelyn joins us from the atlanta, georgia. caller: two things. it is not a tax increase if we take back the taxes that bush -- the two taxes that bush put in to action. and it was only supposed to last for 10 years. ok? that is not an added tax. that is just taking back some of my money -- which i don't make hundreds of thousands of

dollars -- and giving it back to me. if they would take that money and say, i am going to build a road, it is not just of the cement people, the construction people -- it is the ironworks people, it is the office people. if we worked on our infrastructure and took the bill and put our money in our country instead of everybody else's country, our people could go to work. host: let us throw your question to niels lesniewski. guest: evelyn, among the things that actually happen not to long ago -- you brought a public works projects. the house and the senate and president obama were actually able to come to an agreement on a 27-month transportation

package that passed right before the july 4 recess, on that friday. so, that bill provides for federal funding for surface transportation projects, construction of highways and similar infrastructure, over the next couple of years. so that is actually, in some ways, counter to the trend -- or ben the narratives of people were trying to talk about regarding a do-nothing congress. they did actually reach an agreement, so there would be -- will be road construction projects. host: one of our tweeters -- guest: the senate passed the .arm bill perr saves about $23 billion over 10 years, relative to where the existing foreign policy that we had for the last five years

would lead us. the house agriculture committee is taking up its version of the farm bill in committee this week. it would not surprise me if somewhere on the c-span universe you could watch the mark up of of the farm bill in the agriculture committee. that bill will then at some point reach the house floor, although it is not necessarily going to be this month. there is some talk that it might be, but it could flip -- slip until of timber. they are really very different bills that the house and senate have. i have not reviewed all of the details yet, but they are not really the same measures. so, there is going to be a lot of negotiating that will go back and forth particularly coming -- when it comes to payment limits and payment rates for certain crops. host: boehner's farm bill

challenges. you can see the future speaker of the house in that picture. early in his career he was a rare skeptic of farm subsidies. guest: the farm bill -- well, there is both a farm bill and in agriculture appropriations bill. the way farm programs work, the money is in different accounts. there is some question as to whether or not the agriculture appropriations bill will come to

the house floor before the farm program bill will come to the house floor. that will be one of the things we will be watching the next couple of weeks. host: niels lesniewski, senate watch editor of congressional quarterly -- "congressional quarterly." randy on the republicans line. caller: we had fire is out here so i have a call off this morning. let me ask a couple of questions but i will take my answer of of the year. i have not heard anything about waivers since the big hurricane. i think they still exist in obamacare. whenever congress comes back into session and we talk about how the killing the affordable air act, are they going to address waivers? i am anxiously looking forward to them addressing the waivers in obamacare. last year, if obamacare is such a good thing, why would the waivers even exist? host: live view thing waivers

are so important? caller: i would just say the common sense thing. president obama -- this is the trail he is taking us down and he believes wholeheartedly. why would the grant waivers to particular unions and the ticker businesses and corporations if this was the answer to health care? why would waivers even exist? guest: well, as far as where this stands as part of the piece, obviously the waiver provisions do exist in the law. there are waivers for minimum coverage requirements and other provisions that have been granted to businesses, to labor unions-provided plans. the bill the house is taking up is a straight repeal of the whole law. clearly, if you repeal will hold

law, you are repealing the labor -- waiver provisions, and all goes back and reverts to the system we were under before the law came into effect to begin with. i don't know if there is an effort that will be made specifically to address the waiver issue in congress, at least in the near future. host: here is the commenter resection of "the washington times" this morning. editorial piece written by governor rick scott of florida. scott says the -- history shows the cost of many government programs far exceed projections. good morning, ken, joining us from new york. caller: thank you, and mr. niels lesniewski -- must be difficult to work for "the quarterly" these days. host: why you say that?

caller: let me follow up -- and ask if he is free to editorialize at all. does the "quarterly" will offer editorial opinion on the state of congress? guest: we actually are one of the few media organizations that strives to avoid getting into the editorial comments. i will tell you that sometimes we get into situations there will where we will call a spade a spade. just because we do not editorialized of not mean we did not point out information that may be favorable for republican or favorable to democrats -- we will call the shots as we see them. but we did not editorialize specifically. host: are you still with us? caller: malloux? if i could ask one question, which you are free to ignore if you need to. you probably remember dick

durbin that the comments that the banks and finance from the senate -- just a few years ago. i thought it was remarkably candid remark and it kind of died on the vine and oppressed quietly walked away. do you remember the comments and do you have any comments? guest: i remember the comments and what i will say is we know some of my colleagues at "roll call" -- and we are all one company -- we go through the annual financial disclosures and contribution disclosures and there is a lot of money that comes in frankly to both congressional and presidential campaigns from people with significant stakes on wall street. host: niels lesniewski is senate watch editor at congressional quarterly and also spent time as house committee editor of " gallery watch" and contributor to "roll call."

focusing on legal affairs, budget, and the proportions. talking about a week ahead in congress as the house and senate return from their july 4 recess. oscar, a democrat from virginia. caller: good morning. in a, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by the devil is proving he did not exist. the real problem is not taxation, whether and not you raise are lower taxes. the whole purpose is to eliminate taxes because the federal government is operating under mob influence. back in the 1940's and 1950's, the mob ran gambling and protection and insurance and it was all an underground economy. now the states have gambling, the republican party has judges, and you think a credit-card insurance anywhere you want. the whole deal is we have been hoodwinked by our government. that is my contribution and i

will take any response of the air. host: you have any response to that? guest: one of the things we actually do look at -- because covering the senate, i spend a lot of time dealing with majority leader harry reid, and one of the things that of course comes up in those contexts -- and i have written about -- is the legalized gambling question that we have seen. and there has been sort of an increase. there is currently a push to legalize online broker, for instance, so some of that has been happening. host: betty, republican from pennsylvania. welcome. no. -- caller: of thank you and good morning. coming from years ago a small family business in ohio and the idea of not allowing at least a million dollars -- not that that was where my family business was at the time -- is a joke.

land, business -- bring in your equipment, high your your people, cover everything that is involved with covering employers today, $1 million is nothing. small business is 80% of this country. just look around, ladies and gentlemen we do not all have an boeing and we do not all have a general motors and our neighborhood. host: talking about the proposal by some in congress, including senator chuck schumer, democrat of new york, to raise taxes for those making over $1 million. caller: yes, i and start, way back to the i listened for such a long time. host: it is a fair question to talk about. let's ask niels lesniewski about how small businesses and issue betty brings up comes into play in the discussion right now. guest: thank you, betty. part of this is the way small businesses file their tax

returns. so, sometimes this could affect people who file their tax returns as individuals for their small businesses. but one thing is important to remember is under that proposal, a lot of the deductions would remain in on one hand the democrats are proposing allowing tax breaks to expire and tax rates to go out. >> to confine the rest of this as we head to the floor of the house. returning from a weeklong recess, they will be begin one minute recess. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 9, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable andy harris to act as speaker pro tempore on this day.

signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. as the members of this assembly return from days away, celebrating our nation's birth, grant them safe and restful journey. may they return ready to assume a difficult work which must be done. we pray for the needs of the nation and world and all of creation. bless those who seek to honor you and serve each other and all americans in this house through their public service. may the words and deeds of this place reflect an earnest desire for justice and may men and

women in government build on the tradition of equity and truth that represents the novelest heritage of our people. may your blessing, o god, be with us this day and every day to come, and may all we do be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: 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. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from minnesota, ms. mccollum. ms. mccollum: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 29, 2012, at 5:01 p.m. that the senate passed senate 3238, senate 2165, senate 2239, senate 3363. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 29, 2012, at 4:39 p.m., that the senate passed without amendment h.r.

6064. with best wishes i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 4 of rule 1, the following enrolled bill was signed by speaker pro tempore thornberry. the clerk: h.r. 4348, to authorize funds for federal aid highways, highway safety programs and transit programs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, thousands of dead people and citizens of other countries are reportedly registered to vote in the battleground state of florida. texas, however, has passed a law that would require citizens to display a photo i.d. when they vote, but the justice department isn't interested in

fixing voter integrity. even though the supreme court has said voter i.d. laws are constitutional. the d.o.j. ignoring the supreme court decision it doesn't like, sued texas anyway, claiming the law discriminates. the d.o.j. with its battery of high-dollar lawyers has apparently yet to find any evidence to back their claim. it brought in a hired gun to find support for its allegations, a biased liberal group called catalyst. so much for the d.o.j. being objective. instead of attacking texas for constitutionally enforcing the law, the d.o.j. should focus its resources on protecting the sanctity of the ballot box. it seems people who would be disenfranchised by voter i.d. laws would be dead people. the d.o.j. is on the wrong side of justice again, and it's just the way it is.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota rise? ms. mccollum -- without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. mccollum: this do-nothing republican tea party congress is killing jobs. this week's gimmick votes repeal the affordable care act is a meaningless vote to demy millions of americans health care. meanwhile, the failure to pass the wind energy tax credit to producers of all american energy is killing jobs. 37,000 american jobs in the wind energy sector are at risk. minnesota is the leader in wind energy production, but because of its refusal to act, this congress is causing businesses to lay people off, killing jobs and harming our clean energy

future. the wind energy tax credit supports clean energy developers, manufacturers and construction companies in america and in minnesota. this republican tea party congress needs to stop the gimmicks, stop killing jobs and instead immediately pass the wind energy tax credit, to save jobs and to create more american jobs. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: the newspaper carried stories that only 31% of texas doctors are accepting new patients who rely on medicaid. in 2010, the last time the survey was taken, it was 42%. in the year 2000 it was 67%. the texas medical association conducted the survey in a tribute -- and attributes to

dropping numbers for lowering reimbursements. doctors appear to be losing patients with government-funded health plans and government-run health care in general. shortly after the supreme court decision, all of the cable talk shows talked about its free riders that are driving up the cost of health care in this country. no, it is not. the biggest freeloader is the federal government with the medicare and medicaid programs being structured the way they are is actually causing the cost of health care to skyrocket in this country and that's something that needs to stop. they're free loading on an underfunded program and it's costing us money. more important, it's inexcusablely hurting patients. the affordable care act is bad law. we all knew it was bad law when it passed. it was written by lobbyists in the white house. it got forced to the house. this house will hold a repeal vote this week. i suspect it will pass. i urge the senate to bring up this repeal vote so we can get

on to reforming the system in this country and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 1421 veterans memorial drive in abbeville, louisiana, as the sergeant richard franklin abshire post office building rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as the house agriculture committee considers farm bill legislation, i rise in strong support of responsible policies for all of our agriculture producers, especially sugar, rice and soybean industry. mr. scalise: it allows for industry expansion under the 2008 farm bill. last week the st. mary parish chamber of commerce passed a resolution on the sugar industry in south louisana. it supplies more than 16,000 jobs. i'm pleased to see the chairman's initial draft language also includes multiple

risk management options benefiting south louisana. i aplatt their effort to work with all commodity works to come up with an excellent final product in this farm bill. as the farm bill moves forward in the house, i urge my colleagues to support policies that will work for all agriculture producers, not just some, but all, including louisana farmers. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire rise? >> tore address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> my state, new hampshire, has one of the largest per capita veteran populations of any state in our nation.

nearly 128,000 former service men and women call the granite state home. at its name indicates, the veterans compensation cost-of-living adjustment act would provide a much-needed benefit increase starting this december 1. it provides a similar increase to social security recipients receive, our disabled veterans made the special sacrifice during their time in uniform and we live with that result each and every day. increasing their monthly benefit check is a small price for a grateful nation to pay. our military armed forces answered the call when our country needed them the most and i believe we must be there for them. and i urge my colleagues to join with me in passing this important cost of living increase for disabled men and wrim who have given so much to our country and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

4:00 p.m. today. >> i do not mean to sound like i want to go crazy and regulate the internet. i do not believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law. >> walt mossberg on the future

of the future of technology tonight at 8:00 eastern on c- span2. >> according to election officials in mexico, at the red lucida a party candidates won the recent presidential election. he was declared the winner friday. he had 30 aides term of the boat appeared earlier today they hosted a discussion -- had 38% of the vote. earlier today they hosted a discussion. this is two hours. >> good morning. i am the associate director at the mexico institute. i want to give you a special welcome to the woodrow wilson center. i see that some of the fourth of the july vacationers are slow to

arrive. i am sure we will be joined by a number of other people. we did want to get started. we want to welcome folks who are viewing this online through the web speed and also folks from c- span have joined us this morning. we will give them a special hello. mexico held a historic election on july the first. it is historic in many ways that we will discuss this morning. one is that it appears to have resulted in the election of the president of mexico. his election has now been confirmed. well there still remain some controversy out there about the results and how they will be interpreted, we feel like this

has been a very positive, a good exercise in democracy. we have assembled this morning an excellent panel to help us discuss the results and what they mean, what they tell us about the thinking that pervades among the mexican electorate and what this may mean for the future of mexico and to some extent the u.s. mexican elections. it our first hour -- our first panelist has been delayed. i wanted to turn now to our colleagues and friends who have joined us this morning. i will briefly introduce them and they will come and speak briefly. this.ll have sometime we will begin with him.

he is one of the top consulting firms. well known for their public opinion in mexico. he also did some really interesting polling for the dallas morning news about public attitudes toward the issue of public security, the role of the mexican military. we have asked him to dive into the question of polling and public opinion. polling in mexico has been a subject of great debate. questions about the reliability of it, the neutrality of it. what better opportunity to then hear from one of mexico's

leading pollsters and public opinion survey years. thank you for being with us. we will also hear from a professor. you will hear him come up numerous times, one of the leading public universities. it is the center for research and economic teaching in mexico. we have had a very close relationship. joy is an expert on mexican politics and democracy and has been working most recently on the issue of the pri that has now regained the presidency after a 12 year hiatus. it is very appropriate and timely research for us to hear from joy on the meaning of this

election. then we will hear from a very good friend and colleague, francisco gonzales. he is from the school of advanced international studies at johns hopkins university. he divides his time between washington, d.c. and mexico. we appeared together last week on the diane reems show. he is a very insightful speaker. he spent a week or 10 days in mexico and around the time of the election. he has a lot to tell us from his own academic research. last but not least, we have invited our new wilson center visiting scholar,mauricio merino, who is also a professor at mexico city zero on a

yearlong sabbatical. he is working on a book on accountability which has been one of the instances. we are looking at how government in countries still with the issue of accountability. we are welcome to have him here. i should point out also that mauricio was a citizen counselor in the 2000 election, a member of the federal electoral institute. that was a historic moment for mexico when they held their first presidential election under the guidelines under an independent institute. he was part of the people that oversaw the election and saul lose thei

elections for the first time. 12 years later they're winning again. we are delighted to havemauricio with us as well. i will invite jorge to come forward. >> thanks for the introduction and the invitation to attend this incredible conference. i am going to start speaking of what has been a major scandal about what went wrong with the

policy. in general, public opinion polls have said that pri had under estimated. this is something that affected the majority of the polls. i would try to give you an explanation of what really happened. there in the early stages of research. i have found it hypotheses that it is more profitable of what went wrong. the first thing is you can look at this graphic. it's probably not look that well. this was published during the campaign. these polls are adjusted by the actual results. you can see that. they gave the pri a share of the vote about4% or 6% points.

let me first point out that, there was not a single poll that had been other outcome then this. secondly, all the polls show how salvador got into second place. by may it was clear that he was in second place. now there has been talk by th

that there was a conspiracy. if you look at two weeks before the election, there was not even a single public opinion poll that is different from the others. they had a 20% the vantage point. -- advantage point. they were not publishing the results. some of the campaigns and not like it. the results were an advantage of nieto by 10 or 11 percentage points. it is a good advantage for him. there was a divergence at the end.

the question is what happened? what went wrong? i think just to put into context and to give you an idea of what i think is the most possible explanation, this has to go with the new electoral law. basically for the first time since 1988 all parties have to appear separated even though they were nominating the same candidates. that means there are before potential candidates. -- four potential candidates. in 2006, all parties were nominating the same candidate and on the same logo. actually, what they reflected

was a strain of the candidates. this was not so in 2012. i think this is important. look at the actual official results. it is a nightmare. this is more or less. look at the compilations. there was eight percentage point of the electorate that crossed the green party logos and the pri. there were about 16 percentage poitnnts that voted for different combinations. i do not think in ed them were able to measure this accurately -- any of them were able to

measure them accurately. they were saying that this would happen. this reflects a very complex voting pattern. we have not seen it before. -- the9, ed electoral b electoral law applies. we have seen this. this was really important. obviously, this affected us very much. what does this mean in terms a measurement? what was more important was to measure candidates strength. they would have the same structure of the official dialogue. we would not be able to capture

this. this is obviously due to the fact that the different parties nominated the same candidate. if you follow the mexico campaign you could see nieto asking for the boats of the green party. he could see the workers party asking for the votes for obrador. it was very clear that the same candidates were asking for the votes

>> whome would you vote for?

i think that many of the firms that mediate the official results -- i think that what we have to do in mexico is get the simulators. it's not measuring in a good way what's going on -- you use telephone polls to try to reflect the dialogue that takes place, the same, identical dialogue.

especially in a candidate. this said, i will show you some of the reasons and the patterns of voting. this is based on exit polls that i just mentioned. the bursting, regarding turnout, this is a comparison -- the first thing, regarding turnout, this is a comparison of the exit poll and the electoral register. as you can see, there's no bias in the turnout rate or the difference in economic groups. what we have here is -- this is really surprising. usually, the younger people go to the polls in a lower proportion than the rest of the population. here, we find the same

proportion to what this tells us is that -- unlike other elections, and this is a hypothesis that we have to wait for the official results -- unlike other elections, younger voters have not abstained the way they have in the past. they have voted in the same way as other groups. this is a profile of support for each of the major candidates. first, even among female voters -- at least a little bit better or as well. lopez obrador, female voters.

this is a pattern we have registered for many, many years. the motors -- female voters do not go as much for the left as male voters. also look at young people. this is a tie. people between the ages of 18 and 29, they represent, more or less, 1/3 of the electorate. the fact that lopez obrador did quite well within this group, and also the fact that this segment voted at a very good rate. it was very, very important to explain -- look at the other age

groups. nine percentage points. nine percentage points among the 49 to 59. what you can see is pena nieto did much better among people with primary education. this is and also a very important factor. another thing is that these groups -- younger people tend to be the more volatile. they tend to be the more independent. this suggested the independent vote -- to summarize the

results -- i was thinking about something. this is the same pattern the pri had when it was in power 30 years ago. we have gone back to this pattern of voting. the people who went to do -- less educated, supports the pri. this is a pattern of coming back with a vengeance.

president calderon, 18% of voters. those who approved, obviously, were more likely to gvote. you can see that was favored -- that lopez obrador was favored. he was identified more as an and opposition candidate. how can a position candidate become a candidate of establishment. the mexican voters did not perceive pena nieto as an

opposition candidate. in some cases. everyone was talking about his record. pena nieto became the candidate of the establishment. this really did not work well for him. lopez obrador was able to gain the support of the people who were more unsatisfied with presidential performance. if you look at the people who thought it was going on the wrong track, also, as it gets

worse, support increases. it does not benefit that much. pena nieto presenting himself as a more institutional candidate did not work out that well for him. we do not see, in terms of priorities, the economic route of security, that there is in a bandage for any of the candidates. we do not see any evidence from strategic voting. in general, the percentage of votes for each of the candidates, depending on the

reason -- a sincer vote -- as you can see, pena nieto lost among the users of social media, among facebook users, among twitter users. in general, among the people who use more heavily these kinds of instruments. thank you. [applause] ok.

try to get joy's presentation up here. give me a second. >> excellent. thank you. hello, everyone. thank you for coming. i am currently finishing a book that explains how the pri has been able to react to the new realities of electro competition. in 2000, when it lost the presidential mansion, people started joking with me that i was no longer a political scientist, and i was going to

have to be a historian. i said, just wait. 12 years later, as it turns out, i can now be a political scientist. eric asked me to sort of present something to explain why the pri won these elections. i think there are two basic causes there are structural factors. beijing spoke to very strongly about some of the -- does spoke about some of the conventional factors but i'm going to focus on the structure of power pri had that helps explain why it was able to come back, really come back with a bang. first of all, strong in all regions. this is not a regional party. the pan is a center-right national action party. prd is a party of the democratic revolution. those are regional parties. they have a regional basis of power.

the pri is a national party. it has electoral power in all regions of the nation. second, there were no major interparty splits or divisions. they did not rapture over the selections of the candidates. they almost did in 2006. third, and this is more of a contractual factor, they had a very strong candidate. you can complain and you can make fun of pena nieto, but he was an extraordinarily strong candidate. it was not just because he was handsome. there are other reasons that explained. the two people i have up here, by the way, this is manual. he will probably be the next pri leader in the lower house. he is an extremely powerful politician. he is not closely linked to pena nieto. we will talk about that a little bit at the end. this is the head of the -- i had a very good picture of her. i did not make fun of her.

she is the head of the extremely powerful and very large national teachers' union. she was somewhat connected to the pri. she is certainly not an enemy of pena nieto. many people expect her party to be able to be fairly easily convinced to support the pri bills in congress. let's talk about why the pri is so strong. first of all, as i will show you, there is tremendous power of the pri governors. the pri governors are the basis, one of the most important basis, of the party today, and have been since the loss in 2003 as i will argue, even before 2000, the governors with the base of the party. why? the governors when elections. the pri avoided fragmentations. in the 2006 presidential election, the northern governors basically said no to the pri's

2006 presidential candidate. they help him lose by such a large margin. that did not happen in 2012. finally, and this is very important. within the pri, there are always going to be extremely ambitious people who want's the candidacy. one way you can avoid split is to have one candidate who is so popular and everyone has this idea that he is going to win that it does not make sense for other ambitious counterterroripri leaders to sp. this was his case. basically, he was the other contender for the internal contender to the presidency. he was so far behind that he knew he would never beat pena nieto in the internal nomination process, or perhaps not even when the presidency. therefore, it made no sense for him to split off. he stayed within the party.

he was loyal. now he is about to be rewarded with another excellent job, which is head of the pri and the congress. here is the pri governorship. the pri is in the dark red. this is before the elections. in the worst moment of the party, roughly between 2000 and 2003, the pri still held 17 of the 32 governorships. in 2011, they held roughly 20 to 21. most of the reasons why the pri -- a very important state. the pri lost it for the first time. here, why did the pri lose it? mostly, one can say that, except for certain states within the sort of traditional pan

strongholds, the pri loses elections within the state- level pri. unless you have a split, the pri will continue to govern. what you have here are really powerful, national support for the party. why did you care about having governors? why should the pan and the prd being not worried about having more governors? governor's help you win elections. governors can use a wide range of instruments, both legal and illegal, or somewhat legal, to help their other pre-candidates win elections. this is extremely important when you're talking about federal deputy elections. why? the money you get as a party depends on how many seats to win

in the lower house. not only that, that will help you determine the kind of power you have in the legislature. even if you do not control the executive branch, if you have a strong, a centrist caucus in the lower house, what does that mean? that means you can always make the executive negotiate with you. that's how the state politically important during the years out 2012.wer from 2000 to 1 governors not only help you win the presidency. they help you win senate seats and federal deputy seats. this is basically a regional district.

remember, mexico had the mixed system. you had 300 single-member districts, as well as two hundred proportional representation seats. the seats are ones with five regional districts. single member district by region. in the first, this is the northwest. pan manage to win only 13 seats. the traditional stronghold. prd won zero seats in this area. they did not win a single member district. this speaks to a terrible

weakness in the north. then look at the pri. this is usually out of 60. can be 59 or 60. the pri won 47 of the districts in that region. here we go. the northeast. the pan did far better here. this is in the far northeast, where, by the way, this is something very interesting that one saw in the vote count for the presidential election. the pan's candidate did extremely well in the northeast. however, the pri still did extremely well in this region. again, look at the prd. not a single member district won. and the southeast, the prd drops -- the pan drops dramatically.

now you see the weaknesses of the pan. the pan only when five where the prd win 45. why? this is the federal district. this is mexico city. the 27 districts now in mexico city. here is the pri. it does not do very well, but its weakest showing is as strong as the pan's second-highest showing. this is the state of mexico. the pri, again, comes roaring back. the pri is a national party. the pan and the prd are not national parties. it is no surprise then that the pri, with a good candidate, would be able to come back to power. ok. here are the electoral results

for state and municipal elections. they start in 1980. look at the pri. this is in terms of percentage of votes. almost 90% of what is called a hegemonic party. this is not a dominant party, like india or japan. then it drops really dramatically, but only until 1995. then the support of the municipal and governor level levels off at about 42%. it does not drop after 2000. it does not go down. it stays steady. why? the pri is an extremely popular party, both at the municipal and at the state level. party id -- very quickly. running out of time. here is the pri. you would think in the late 1980's, it would still be a popular party. . this is the percentage that identifies with the party.

it goes down and it is still 30%. look at the pan. this is going to be sort of the tragedy for the pan. here is the 2000 pan number appeared is going up and catches the pri. then, it goes down again. in the next slide, even after the pri's debacle in the 2006 election when the canada came in third place, he still had a higher percentage of the voting population. people like the pri. this is during calderon's presidency. people like him. even during the presidency, the pan did not manage to communicate with voters. let me just go back.

the pri has enormous power because voters at the municipal and state levels always like the pri. they never gave up on the pri. they never switched to identifying the pan or the prd. they have very good governors. once they get in office, they tend to stay in office. this is a party that knows how to govern. thanks to these governors, it able to win elections at the federal level. what happens is, what was so good for the pri in this case. it had an extremely good candidate. it ran in a very good campaign. there were no splits among the different forces, thanks to the enormous popularity of pena nieto. in 2007, i went to one of these big pri lunches that they have. it was hosted by the state of mexico.

they brought in the governor. even then, it was obvious to everyone he was going to be the pri's candidate and he was going to win. they literally carried him aloft like a roman emperor through the streets. even then, that tells you the pri had been planning this for years. he was able to maintain splits to a minimum. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. francisco? >> good morning, everyone. thank you for the kind invitation. it is good to see everyone here this morning. i want to share with you a few reflections regarding the elections last week.

i have divided them into three issues. first, some surprises, then, realities. what the new political configuration in mexico will look like and what the dynamics might look like. and then some of the challenges. regarding surprises, i think it's very easy to say things were meant to be peaceful. in fact, until a few days before, there was significant uncertainty throughout society regarding the potential for violence to end the elections. many of you have seen not only increasing amounts and intensity of violence, we also see targeted among drug traffickers and state officials. you also see it in public places.

this is where many of the ballot boxes and polling stations were located. that was a positive surprise. at first, around 9:00 p.m. of that sunday, sunday the first, after the president of the federal electoral institute declared after a short, statistically differendifficult stimulation that pena nieto was ahead, many people breathe a sigh of relief. we are not back to 2006 were less than a quarter of a million votes separated lopez obrador from today's president on the right. that was good. i think, again, the

uncertainty, and how could we call it? a wave of scrutiny, which had been taking place at least since january-february. the prd and the pan had been crying wolf time and time again. pri is using more and more resources than it reports. governor pena nieto, since before he became governor, had a strategic alliance with the largest media conglomerate in the country. it has been exposed with original documents. you have the pri steamroller. that is no surprise. that's the way they operate. they are a very pragmatic party.

if they see a strong person, they can rally around, they will act like a very effective pragmatic pack of political animals, much more so than the pan and the prd. many of us made a mistake after the president of the electoral institute said -- don't worry, it's not as close as last time. immediately, you get national television presidents congratulating pena nieto. minutes later, you get pena nieto himself making what was basically an acceptance speech. all of this happened before there was the president elect in mexico. a reminder of the very beginning, one week after the election. the congratulations start

pouring in. everyone congratulates pena nieto. i understand, probably, that there was a strong conscious about the potential for conflict given what had happened in 2006. i think these shows of enthusiasm were premature. most of us were caught in them. i was right in the middle at johns hopkins. real time, telling my students what i saw. i said, yes, july 1. this is an election that yielded credibility and the white illegitimacy. three days later, i was biting my tongue. bigmouth strikes again. i have spoken too soon. even pri now admits this was not

an equal election. evidence of systemic vote-buying is out there. it continues to rage in mexico. two or three vehicles have been uncovered. one of the largest. in some states, where observers were asked not to go given conditions on the ground with the war on drugs, places like veracruz, parts of the garrido, there were no observers. we did not know what happened there. there might have been coercion. we do not know. i retracted by saying great credibility, legitimacy, to what has that become conventional wisdom, which is, the election were legal because it is impossible when to start opening ballot boxes, to distinguish different kinds of

votes. sincere from non-sincere. you cannot do it. the point is, it is out there. illegitimacy is an issue which very spirit is a matter of public opinion. today, one out of every three mexican police said this was not equal. as joyce told us, jorge before, this was from the very beginning, the candidate of the establishment. like the perspective of about pena nieto being seen and scrutinized as an incumbent. more of a referendum on him, when in fact, he should of been the opposition. that was the other surprise. legal but not legitimate. what does this mean?

probably that the p.r.i. will have to cede some more in terms of negotiations. because they did not control a simple majority either in the lower or upper chamber, some of the usual suspects, 11 deputies, will become pivotal to passing many reforms. therefore, this is someone who remains at the core of today's power blocs, alongside others. my sense is, at a bit like the aftermath of the very question in the 1998 elections, we could say those were neither legal nor legitimate because there was never a vote count. the votes went up in flames, mysteriously, in the basement of the chamber of deputies. that is a long story. the key point, the p.r.i. and p.a.n. struck a deal which

allowed this modernizing agenda to start taking effect. q could very well see p.r.i. and parts of p.a.n., traditionally a very cohesive parties, with a strong defense, now suffering internal factions. people are running to save themselves. the p.r.i. will be able to play with some of p.a.n., certainly with other parties. from that perspective, you have an executive, which for the next three years, will be the strongest than the last three presidencies. another surprise, quickly -- i will not go into it because jorge already gave his presentation. my sense is the polling industry suffered an existential crisis. the industry became politicized.

the industry depends on credibility, people believing what they say. i think a majority of mexicans think a majority of upholsterers tried to shape, rather than reflect reality, and then this was done in a consistent manner in favor of the candidate of the establishment. reality. as much as the p.r.i. wants, it is this a return to the past? all the newspapers here, in spain, the u.k., mexico, have been raising the issue. there is no return to the past, no entire power block behind you. the opposition remains alive and kicking without some of p.a.n. support, both in the upper and lower chambers of pena nieto's reforms. he will not be able to be as

ambitious as he might want them to be. particularly, labor, energy, fiscal reform, and social security. no return to the past. the p.r.i. will have to keep wheeling and dealing, but this time from a position of power. keep an eye on the questions of legitimacy, keep an eye on the social networks where we showed a clear advantage of those who are members of the generation of social media, and given the ripple effect that the social media has on the ground, and on real time, we will keep watching that. this is a new factor in civil society. i am not saying they are going to save democracy from the hands of the cynics, but certainly, there is a point that can be

made. do they become absorbed into the political system and end up like many social movements in the u.s. and europe, finally coming into one of the main tent, or do they remain out there trying to advance accountability, not only of the government, but also of the opposition? another issue regarding reality, the left, i think, strengthened its core power in the capital city. that was a 40-plus percentage point victory by the p.r.d. we saw those important numbers, by far, the largest voting in mexico city with around 7 million voters. the problem for the left is that

this is a great anomaly. they control the central area of the country and some parts of the south, but little else. my prognosis -- i wish there was a modern left in mexico. from my perspective, mexico than they need a progressive agenda at prioritizes social justice. mexico is now one of the four unequal countries in latin america, neck and neck with countries like brazil, colombia, and some of the central american countries. mexico needs and social justice. my prognosis, the left is bad. i do not think they can do too much. it remains to fractured. many of them came from the p.r.i., so they have the same habits. merkel control, nationalism, redistribution as rhetoric. more often than not, self-

serving. challenges. the candidates were trying to out-bid one another, as lopez obrador started to climb in the polls. p.a.n. and p.r.i. have gone for a relatively conservative agenda. in may and june, they had to adopt that, and therefore, adopted the language of electricity, gasoline, cheaper credit. so there are lots of promises out there. it will be a process of how to manage those frustrated expectations. with 90% + of the federal budget earmarked, there is there room for new ring. questions of how you deal with that. -- for maneuvering. a second challenge is, the

p.r.i. has been saying, we will continue the fight against organized crime. at the same time, we bring down violence. how do you square that circle? that is a big one. that, i think, could make or break the legacy of this president. they have come up with something which appears to be trying to bridge things, saying, we are going to base -- our new measure for measuring success, we will change metrics. it will not be number of kingpin's we catch and extradite to the u.s. it will not be the amount of narcotics that are indicted. it will be the number of citizens per 100,000 that are killed. ok. you can read many things into that. i like that, because i have family and friends, acquaintances in mexico that

have been terrified the last five years. middle-class, professional people going about their lives, terrified. the last one, of course, is the need to inject dynamism into the economy. you on though the story of the monopolies. of course, the great difficulty here is that the conditions which have enabled this concentrated economy to continue to thrive has basically been crafted by businessmen and p.r.i. and p.a.n. politicians, when either of them were incumbents. my sense is it is key for this person to really do something the first 100 days of his term, lay down the roots of what will be strong or leaked leadership. the p.r.i. is a pragmatic party. if his colleagues see him as an

effective person which the people like, and is gaining resources, popularity, they will fall behind him. the p.r.i. is very pragmatic. its first hundred days will really allow us to see if there is really a break with these three important challenges that i pointed out. thank you so much. [applause] >> we are going to take a advantage of dr. mauricio merino being here for two months to ask him to give us a few comments and a formal presentation. we welcome his insights. >> thank you very much for inviting me here to give some comments. i have to begin by saying, i do agree with most of what my

colleagues said before. i really enjoyed their analysis. i think their speeches were very complementary, in some sense. they spoke about the pragmatic issues of the p.r.i., about losing the way of the mexican government, which, in my opinion, is the first point to remark to say the government lost the election. among the struggles with p.r.i. and p.r.d., we are forgetting that the government's in mexico have lost the election. we have to see why the mexican government lost the election.

this is, in my opinion, the first point to say. there is a lot to say about it. perhaps the mexican government lost the election because of the inequity, because, perhaps, security strategy, which is a very costly strategy. 70,000 people killed, assassinated in the last six years. perhaps the mexican government lost the election because the conflict into the p.a.n., the governmental party. there was a big conflict into the governmental party before the campaign, and during the campaign. perhaps the government lost the election because the candidate

was not strong, as pena nieto. she was a very weak candidate. not only a weak candidate, in terms of her proposals, programs, but also, in my opinion, her loyalty to the president calderon. he was absolutely loyal. the support of the government went to her. anyway, the cost of the social inequity, the cost of the strategic fight, organized

crime, because of the weakness of the candidate, or loyalty to the actual politics, there is a combination, a mixture, that ran through the government which lost the election. this is important to say. a second comment is that the p.r.i. won the election, as joy said before. the p.r.i. won the election long before 2012. i agree with that analysis. not only because the strong way to govern in the local fields of mexican politics, but because the p.r.d. abandoned the political negotiations. i think it was important that the prd, after 2006, abandoned

the institutions, trying to go with lopez obrador, to build a new social movement, which was a kind of organization to keep lopez obrador, and to give him the personal power to go against these new elections. so the p.r.d. went through a new struggle inside the party. the p.r.d. leads a very tough struggle between the lopez obrador movement and the name of

the leaders of the p.r.d. their names are jesus. the two of them or try to go with the party, with a real party into the institutions, and into the negotiations with the government of calderon against the position of the lopez obrador, fighting against the government of felipe calderon. so it was a great division into the p.r.d. i think this is another reason to see the p.r.d. losing this new election. i have to say as well, enrique pena nieto was firmly supported by the televisions in

francisco, -- as was said by francisco, and also we need another explanation about the polls. there was a big mistake in the results. i think it is not enough to say that the reason is in the design of the ballots. i think there is another reason, technical or political reasons, and we have to find it out. people are thinking, half of the people in mexico are thinking right now that the polls were working to make pena nieto when. this is the problem of legitimacy which we have right now in mexico.

something to explain. we need that news to explain it. i believe the last question, is there any chance, after this election, to board the democratic process in mexico? if the transition of the consolidation of democracy in mexico is going to be packed -- back as a consequence of the return of an authoritarian party. of course, i do not have an answer to this question. i have to think there is the possibility to stop the democratic process, or to get

into huge problems of the democratic process, because of three reasons. the problem of legitimacy, i insist, half of the population in mexico has thinks this was an unfair election. there was fraud. half the population. it is not easy to go on with these people thinking there was fraud. i think there is a big risk with the democratic process because the offensive of the p.r.d. and lopez obrador, i have to say, it gains electoral institutions. they do not believe in electoral institutions. they do not believe there is enough rules to go with the

elections. we cannot be sure that we are going to have another reform process in the next year, but we cannot be sure about the cost of these new elektra reforms. -- the electoral reforms. it is linked with political reform as a whole. probably the reform that we need to drop, in terms not only of economics roles, but social equity. in the next three years, we will see -- i think we can be sure about it -- a huge negotiation trying to get everything in the same pot. it could be difficult to deal

with. the second thing is the weakness of the actual government to lead with the political conflict. there is a big political conflict that could be right at the end of the period. we have to think not only in the first 100 days of the new government, but in the last 100 days of this government. this is it a challenge, a big political challenge. i am afraid there is risk of criminal organizations, which could seek to transition to a new government to strengthen their actions. there would be a real problem with criminal organizations. yes, on the other hand, we have a new and stronger civil

society. stronger public opinion. that is the truth. we have had an evolution of the free press, as we have seen with the people and especially the young people in mexico, with a new kind of agenda. not that old agenda which was about the transition to democracy, but a new agenda with problems like human-rights, public education, social inequity, and the lack of accountability. this is not an electoral agenda, per say. this is a new agenda concerned with the way the government has to govern. of course, we have to go after

the elections to get this agenda in the way that it works, i think. these are my comments. thank you. [applause] >> i want to do a couple of things since we have a reporter. i want to give or take a chance to respond. there is a public perception that the tv industry was biased in favor of pena nieto. there is a perception that the polling was biased in favor of pena nieto are one of the other candidates. i want to give you that opportunity. then we would take a few questions from the audience and then we will call on pablo gutiérrez to wrap things up. >> i think the criticism against the polling in mexico -- we can divide between political

reasons and technical reasons. addressing the political ones. as i showed you, most of the polls, practically all of them, two weeks before the election, more or less, on the same page. obviously, we have to look into what happened. of course, the easy explanation is to say electoral preference has changed. all the polls that were published were conducted before the election. we know one out of five voters one week before the election still had doubts about whom they would support on election day. secondly, as i showed you, the group where open -- lopez obrador did better was with the young people and college-

educated people. this is the more volatile, in terms of political, in mexico. but even if you look at the preferences of these groups, they show a lot of change. probably there was something to it, some volatility. but i want you to think about the political argument. when i hear the argument that public opinion shaped voting behavior, i think that is a very condescending view on voters. what it means is, the thing that matters most for voters was who was ahead in the race. it did not matter the state of the economy, the killings, the level of party -- poverty. there were a lot of reasons

behind a person's vote, and exit poll data shows the data is reacted to that. those who were unsatisfied or more likely to vote for lopez obrador, and also for pena nieto. i think we have to put into perspective all of these very large numbers of reasons behind the decision to vote. certainly, there will be some people to take into account who is ahead in the polls, but i can tell you, the people were not clear about who was in first place. basically, many people think the candidate they are going to support is the candidate that will win. indeed, we ask one week before. there was 51% of the mexican population that said pena nieto was in first place. the rest of the electorate said wasr lopez obrador ormot mota

in first place. it was unclear who was in second place. even those that say pena nieto was in first place, there were not sure about lopez obrador and mota in second place. the impact that that can have on public opinion, both in behavior -- the results of polls -- is rather limited. obviously, the results of polls affect the strategic behavior of the mexican elite. one of the criticisms is that many candidates were not able to raise more money because of the

results of polls. that might be true. the funny thing is, is illegal for a party to get more than 10% of its fundraising outside of public financing. if this happens, in the first place, they were not allowed to do so. this really can be the main impact of the results of polls. especially on the baby of the elites. going back to the technical reasons, on my side, i have ruled out sampling results. they were, more or less, in very close correspondence to the actual results. non response was not a factor.

so far, the more plausible explanation that i have found is the new ballot. it is really thinking, in a poll, somebody would cross several different parties, several combinations, and especially asking voters with a ballot that should reflect partisan identity is not as accurate as a we have to focus more on the candidates. >> thank you. we're going to take three questions and then -- we have a question here and here and right here. would you please identify

yourself and keep it short so we can get some answers. >> i am from hamilton college and my question is about vote buying. vote buying has a history in mexico. in 2000, it was outrageous and vote buying but it did not seem to have much of an effect. there is a secret ballot in mexico. i wonder if people don't just take the money or card or whatever and vote for whoever they want to. does it really make a difference? >> we have a question over here. >> this question -- given the comments made to the challengers and your presentation, do we have the old dinosaur repainted or do we have young dinosaur with a new agenda? >> and we have a question from the young man in the middle.

>> i am from the foreign-policy initiatives. my question also relates to vote buying from a slightly different angle. how is it possibly acceptable that he can a seed to the presidency when there are questions on youtube videos of people saying the p.r.i. paid for them to vote for them? >> let's go with the feet -- let's go with these three questions and then we will make the transition. >> i think this all relates back to the point about authoritarianism returning to mexico. something everyone can be happy about in terms of democracy or the old p.r.i. to return is that they don't have a majority and the congress or the senate. this is very important because

the senate sort of act as the more dodgy blockage on the crazies in the chamber of deputies. in terms of what we saw about the old p.r.i., there are questions about vote buying and relationships and questions about the ability and willingness of the p.r.i. to play by the new political institutions that have been growing since the late nineties and strongly into the 2000's, whether they will circumvent them or weaken them or learn to play as a somewhat divided property until the new political institutions that is to keep mexican democracy strong. i'm thinking of transparency -- that transparency institute and supreme court. one thing that speaks well to these points is the fact that the p.r.i. does not have a majority in either house although it can buy or convince

-- either way, it can make a majority but these are temporary majorities that are going to be based on each bill. that makes a huge difference in terms of the ability for them to steamroll the other political institutions around it. >> on the issue of vote buying, it's important -- one of the things that was constant throughout the electoral process was of people were allowed to go into the polling booth with their cell phones as evidence, this was left to states, it's a state issue. several state banned people from going into the booth, but a majority did not. that is a new and very palpable channel through which you could end up receiving what you were

promised or not, given evidence. why is this person going to be president if youtube keeps showing of these people saying here is the car or subsidized gasoline? the law does not say it's a crime. a crime is to burn ballots. a crime is to steal a ballot. but the process through which the individual electric goes through mentally and physically for the input and the output remains very lightly regulated. there is widespread evidence about the party trying to buy votes. you could show them your finger and say i will take everything you are going to give me and then do whatever my conscious says.

then not accept all of those classics -- baskets with food and medicine and make up your mind on your own. it is not illegal, believe it not. old or new dinosaur? this is more a transitional species. it is not the old t. rex by any means. i spoke with a few p.r.i. elders' statement who thinks that pena and his team are very cohesive and there is distrust around him and even within the p.r.i.. many of the old guard feel left out. this is someone who hit the ground running. he has been governor for six years and has a working team which is younger and mexico- based. the elder statesmen are grumbling that there is little i

think he can do, particularly if he manages to show -- little they can do, particularly if he manages to come across as effective. >> i want to say it is prohibited as a crime in the penal code and that is probably the problem -- in mexico, it has a very complicated electoral system. it is built upon a lack of confidence. this is the reason of the

barrick design. the point is every new election gives new reasons to ask -- to add new rules. you have a very huge building, very complicated rules, and every three or six years, you add new rules and mechanisms to avoid fraud. there are many ways to make fraud. in one of them was the changes on the penal code. it is absolutely prohibited. it is a crime to give it money.

>> handouts? >> that is better. and out. that is the problem. that is not an issue for the institution that goes with the electoral organization. they are responsible as a whole, but is not responsible about the penalties. -- that penal issues. the institution for that thing is the government.

we have an attorney for electoral issues, but this attorney is part of the mexican government. so we have a lot of demand right now to try to manage buying votes, but we have to weigh all the judicial process which is not an electoral process but a judicial process because it is a crime. there is not any consequence between criminal things and electoral things. i guess i am trying to explain this complicated system. the other thing is the moral

approach and i do agree with you that the moral approach is a big thing in this process. just one thing more to say -- i am afraid to say that all parties use public money and use the power they have to buy these votes. how can we manage to know exactly the amount of votes that are bought? how can we manage to know if there is some people who changed the intention of the vote before and after they had money from the parties?

how can the electoral institution manage in legal terms to know exactly where is the border between the conscious? it is a big problem and you are rights, there is a big moral problem are around the political parties in mexico. >> >> i want to very quickly defend them and say under the new leadership, already, as we speak, there putting distance between themselves and they are

the modern left that has been needed for 20 years now. they are very conscious that their party is seen as bold fashion and on economic and day are the ones who will be drilling the new message into the minds of voters and we should definitely see a very strong showing in 2018 and beyond. what did you expect what happened when you stop making them pay for media spots? they spend the money buying votes. you fix one problem and cause another. >> i am relieved to know absolutely nothing whatsoever happens when this takes place. it has become an issue so that

people can be punished but no one knows what happens to the votes. the votes will remain there and that is a problem. >> vote buying is present, but the question is the organ -- the order of magnitude. with more than 50 million voters, how many can be bought? i could be more concerned about the practice and in because of the social programs in mexico, we see that governments are practicing -- this is a more

extended than vote buying. >> and join me in thanking our panel. we are going to transition right away. i am going to introduce the director of the department of electoral cooperation in monitoring at the organization of american states. they led a mission to mexico for these elections led by the former colombian president and obviously he was very instrumental in this process and i invited him to talk about their official observation of the election and what they saw and witnessed there. >> we have a problem in america

because the same issues in america -- buying votes or the social programs or the first lady, we have a big issue in the latin american electoral system. i want to say that there is a big difference and the results are not in question in mexico. there are problems in the electoral process, but the results are not in question this is the first time they have had the possibility to observe mexico. have the don't

possibility is like in bed u.s.. let me say the electoral system is like a cathedral. they have very important roles about combined financing and rules about the crimes and the penal code or something like that. in the whole caribbean any laws about financing campaigns. i think there is a resolution from the supreme court here in the u.s. that is some crazy things about paying no limits, so like i said we have the same problems. let me start by saying some background about this last election. mexico has a long story of

suspicious elections. until the year 2000, the p.r.i. governed with certain irregularities. but the democratic process was backed by two key issues. one was a series of electoral reforms back in 2007. that reform started in 1996. the second issue is about the 2006 crisis. of course, the difference was less than 1% and if we look at

the cause and effects of the 2006 crisis, we have these results. we have a very practical problem because there is an agreement between the political parties and if we stop the transmission of the results, this agreement, we don't sign to any agreement. of course, the operating capacity was questioned after this election. the third element is the 2007 reform of the three major parties in congress -- i think it is the biggest reform in the last 10 years in the of america.

argentina made a reform like a year-and-a-half and it is a very similar to the 2007. these are reforming the to do many changes like the election of the new president the political parties were not able to buy themselves time on television and there are several controls about the me and newspapers etc. and a private financing was decreased 85% to stay at 40 million pesos. i think it is a very important to talk about some special features of this election.

it's a very important reform and the main issue central to this reform is to create conditions for an electoral equity. the [unintelligible] transparency -- the party's report their financing as well as information to elect their leaders and proposed candidates and the amount of money was reduced. party could only use tv following day formula.

this is one of the most important reforms after the 2006 crisis. [unintelligible] and the financing control, they create special units for political finances. the second issue is i think we already talked about 132 that creating the american

university and the movement was based around three main points. one is the democratization of the media. the right to be informed without any manipulations. of course, if we look for achievement, it is hard to say that for example, to broadcast the second debates on their main channel, i think this is very important. the movement also succeed after debate -- this is and election in latin america and we have the same problems. there is no stronger

institution in latin america. i have had the possibility to observe a 50 elections in the last five years and that is real. yesterday, we had the first phase of the election and now we have a place between today and a september. we had a press conference yesterday and they said all of the problems that they have, if they have proof. i think youtube is nothing in many cases. we have served the electoral time to observe the recount in some districts.

a general observation -- most of the vote recount was following procedures, so there were no problem procedures. second, and the three federal states, the results obtained on election day were in accordance with the recount. the political parties, the bad guys sometimes followed the procedures. any concerns, they followed the procedures and in many cases, they said the three main parties, everything is correct. -- is a very

interesting to see that claims about the elections and the places that they won or lost. i think it is important because we talk about moral issues and it is very important to say that if we took the press and the recount, they have maybe two points of difference in the main candidacy. two final issues -- it's a very important more than anything the concept of electoral fraud.

there is an institutional operation. today, we have electoral crimes committed by people, a group of people and outside the institution this is a very important because we always have this bad news about the election, but this is good news. the electoral institution must brain -- must reinforce the right to have the vote and that is the main role in the election. the electoral system rests upon thousands of citizens that

volunteer to administer the election in the voting tables. the citizens are who really conduct the elections. the only role is to choose them. in the last election, they choose them by a random and train them to do the best work. this is very important because we have the possibility, the institution and the citizens all-around mexico so when we talk about buying votes or something, the first

responsibility are the citizens of mexico. >> thank you. [applause] we have about 10 minutes for questions before we end. i was just going to go over the confusing voting process for those of you who are not steeped in this because it is confusing. the night of the election is the quick counter where the polling booths are reporting in their totals. that is a preliminary result that you get the first night. the following wednesday is the counting of the totals at the district and local levels and that confirms or changes the preliminary results. then there are some challenges and the parties that present a challenge and if they agree to recount 60% of the polling

places, so they have recounted and unverified and certified those results as of yesterday. now the parties can challenge legally before the electoral tribunal whether they think there was fraud in any polling place or district. so we are in the third or fourth stage where there are legal challenges. somebody is asking what is different about the response this time and so far, they have not called for civil disobedience or anything like that and a are proceeding through the legal challenges available to them in federal electoral law. that is where we are in this very confusing process for vote

counting and the third is you is a fraud at the ballot booth. but the bigger question -- >> the house is coming back in for work on the upcoming bills. you can find us online. a number of bills dealing with veterans benefits and atm feed disclosure. 20, the chair announces to the house that in light of the resignation of the gentleman from michigan, mr. mccotter, the whole number of the house is 432. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rulesas and

pass bill h.r. 4155 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4155, a bill to direct the head of each federal department and agency to treat relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certification requirements for federal licenses. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may dume -- consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials under the bill -- for the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. chaffetz: we're here today to discuss h.r. 4155, the veterans skills to jobs act, introduced by mr. denham of california. i really appreciate the approach that this is taking with jobs

and the economic environment as such. this is a commonsense good measure. i think it's widely supported on both sides of the aisle and i'd urge my colleagues to pass it. essentially h.r. 4155 ensures that applicants for federal licenses receive credit for relevant training completed while serving as a member of the armed forces. while most licenses are issued by states, the federal government does grant a number of licenses, most notably in the aerospace communications and maritime sectors. after 40 months of unemployment rate above 8%, we must do more to help create jobs. with the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans at 12.7% we must better support our veterans as they transition to the civilian work force. in april the defense business board issued a report recommending federal agencies review military training as a qualification for the respective program requirements. h.r. 4155 is in line with this recommendation. the bill provides certainty to

veterans during their transition from military by ensuring their training is taken into account when applying for federal licenses. the bill does not infringe on the jurisdiction of the licensing agency. instead it leaves the agency free to determine whether military training is sufficient to meet licensed requirements. h.r. 4155 will reduce the licensing burden for qualified veterans, enabling them to more quickly re-enter the work force and ease their transition to civilian life. again i appreciate the work of mr. denham and others, mr. walz, in a bipartisan way they introduced this bill and i'd urge my colleagues to support it. with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of h.r. 4155 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i want to thank the sponsors of h.r. 4155, especially mr. denham and mr. walz, for their dedicated

service to our nation while in uniform and for the commitment, supporting our veterans here in congress. i deeply value and appreciate the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces. i'm proud to represent thousands of them who reside in the 11th district of virginia, a district that takes military service very seriously and holds it in high esteem. i believe we here in congress have a sacred duty, mr. speaker, to provide for their well-being. for that reason i strongly support efforts to expedite the transition of our nation's warriors to civilian life. we need to do all we can to help these dedicated veterans find gainful employment. it's a shameful fact that the men and women who volunteered to safeguard our country are having so much trouble finding steady, good-paying jobs. a double-digit unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans almost -- veterans, almost double the national average, is simply unacceptable.

transitioning to civilian life is difficult under any circumstances. however the hardship is compounded when veterans cannot easily translate their military skills into careers in the federal or private sector work force through no fault of their own. in addition, there's the task of educating employers to better understand that so much of military training is readily transferable to the civilian job requirements in the private sector. we need to do better for our veterans and i believe h.r. 4155 is a strong step in that direction. it would require each agency with federal licensing authority to treat relevant military training as sufficient to satisfy training or certificate of requirements for federal licenses. this will help our returning service members to get credit for their military training toward as license which they can use to get federal or private sector jobs and reintegrate into civilian life. the federal government, private sector employers and our economy

will benefit by being able to take full advantage of their talent and unique skills and experience as veterans. mr. speaker, the senate's already passed an identical version of this noncontroversial but important bill by unanimous consent. i urge all members to support this bill that will enable our nation's veterans to get back to work and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from california, the sponsor of the bill, mr. denham. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. denham: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to support legislation i authored, h.r. 4155, the veterans skills to jobs act. america's blessed with the strongest, most capable and professional military in the world. unfortunately for many of our veterans, transitioning from the serve ith joblessness and as my friend from utah explained, the unemployment rate is set at 12.7%. but for our young veterans it's

29.1% for those that are under the age of 25. the federal government has invested in our service men with some of the most unique, expensive and valued training in the world. these brave young men and women have put their lives on the line and deserve to be able to use this training when they come back home. with 200,000 service men and women transitioning to the civilian work force each year, we must ensure that they're able to find jobs when they come home. i personally dealt with this issue when i left active duty as a crew chief. though i had training on the most sophisticated aircraft in the world, to work on less sophisticated aircraft in the civilian side it would have taken me three years of training after i left active duty. in my conversations with mr. walz from minnesota, some of the challenges that his veterans have seen in minnesota had to go through the same state licensing procedure. it's time to say enough is enough. if you've had the best training

in the world you ought to be able to get the best jobs in the world. and make this body -- this body ought to make sure that certification, that license is a seamless process. if you leave active duty today you ought to have work tomorrow in the private sector, utilizing that very same training. this legislation not only mirrors similar efforts on the state level, but follows the recommendation of the defense business board of the department of defense that issued report calling for exactly this same type of reform. the veterans skills to job act would help fix this problem and i'm glad to see that both chambers of congress, working together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish this very same goal. helping our returning veterans find jobs is not the concern of one party or one party of congress. the senate adopted this manner unanimously last week before we left for break and it's time that this body do the same. again i want to thank mr. walz of minnesota for his hard work on this effort, for the bipartisan effort he and i have

been in close communication -- effort, he and i have been in close communication this entire 112th congress, and making sure this comes to reality, as well as senator nelson from florida offering the companion bill in the senate. it's time to make sure that we have a bipartisan and quick solution to this issue. and i also want to thank the american legion of which i'm a member of. they have worked tirelessly in both bodies as well as from a grassroots perspective across the nation, working with many other service organizations to actually make this a reality. now it's time that this body does its job and pass this important measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my good friend and colleague from minnesota, mr. walz, the co-sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. walz: first of all, i'd like to thank the gentleman from california. mr. denham's service in uniform

to this nation is to be commended and his service to our veterans has been unwavering. he's right. we've worked on this a long time and i had the opportunity on numerous occasions to travel down range to visit our veterans. the last one with nye good friend from california, mr. denham. and the care and concern that he showed listening to these veterans of what they need, listen to them talk about this, and one of the things on the mind of our veterans as they're fighting down range, defending our freedoms and doing what's asked of them is, how are they going to be able to take care of their family when their service obligation ends? so mr. denham came back and working and reaching across the aisle, and working over in the senate, crafted a piece of legislation that's not only morally the right thing to do. taking care of our veterans. you hear a lot about the 99% and the 1%. there's truth in that. 99% of us enjoy the benefits of security and national defense while 1% provide it. the moral obligation of providing this is pretty much unquestioned. but the thing mr. denham looked into on this is making sure the economic impact is felt also. this is very important to keep in mind. we spend $140 billion a year

training our military. that's an investment into those folks. when they finish their career, whether it be a stint of four years or whether it's a 20 or 30-year career, they come out with incredible skill training, with incredible professionalism and they are a very mature work force. why would we not want to get our best and brightest back working in the economy? these are entrepreneurs, these are the folks who can get things done. this piece of legislation was crafted in such a way, to do exactly that. implementation of concurrent credentialing has no undue burden on the military, nor in its readiness. in fact, opportunities for credentialing will be a selling point for our military. you can come out and move directly into a job as an aviation mechanic or whatever it may be. i'd like to just mention just quickly here in my state of minnesota, an average active duty service member with an aviation mechanic occupation will have attended over 18 months of training and had a minimum of four years of practical experience. a certified aviation maintenance technician school costs $20,000

a year. so we've invested -- we have a trained mechanic, but we're going to have them come back, have them be unemployed, have them try and use their g.i. bill, which is federal dollars, to get the very same credentialing that they had when they left, at a time when we need to put them into the job. so in minnesota, they're asking folks to line up and get positions that they don't have enough spots for. it makes no sense. so, i'd like to thank the gentleman for a commonsense piece of legislation, for a piece of legislation that addresses both our moral and our economic needs and i'd also like to say, mr. speaker, as the members in this house see, we can work together to solve problems. we can understand on this issue, the sacrifice that our service members made, so we could have the honor and the privilege of self-government and stand here and debate the country's business. we owe it to them to conduct ourselves in a manner that's reflective of their sacrifice and service and i'd like to congratulate the gentleman from

california for bringing that type of camaraderie, that type of can-do spirit and that type of compromise to get things done for the good of the soldiers. support this piece of legislation. let's get it passed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah voiced. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i have no additional -- is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i have no additional speakers at this time and will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, with that let me just urge my colleagues in the spirit of bipartisanship to come together and support our veterans and to make opportunity more available. it is, as i said, a sacred duty it seems to me that those men and women who are willing to put on that uniform and serve their country ought to be treated with respect and dignity and a job when they come home. and this bill will go a long way to doing that. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, this is a good, commonsense,

bipartisan bill. i appreciate both these gentlemen who spoke here earlier , for their work on this. mr. denham and mr. walz. the veterans skills to jobs act, h.r. 4155, is makes sense, it's good government, it's what our troops deserve. and i encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this and send a strong message to the military and to the private sector to let them know that we support them, that the work that they do, the skills that they learned are of value and that they are needed within the work force as a whole and that the skills and the training they get, the best in the world, means something and we can bypass this licensing issue and get them back to work sooner rather than later. with that i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is to -- is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4155 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- 2/3 of

those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4114. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 340. h.r. 4114, a bill to increase,

effective as of december 1, 2012, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, and the gentlewoman from florida, ms. brown, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: again, thank you for the recognition. as chairman of the committee of this house committee on veterans' affairs, i rise in support of h.r. 4114, the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2012. this critically important piece of legislation authorizes the cost of living increase for disabled veterans in receipt of compensation payments from v.a. and clothing allowance payments and other compensation for

survivors of veterans who die as a result of service to this country. the amount of the increase will be determined by the consumer price index which also controls the cost-of-living adjustment for social security beneficiaries. i want to thank my colleague from new jersey, mr. runyan, the chairman of the subcommittee on disability assistance and memorial affairs, for introducing this important piece of legislation and for working with me and the ranking member to move it forward. i want to urge all my colleagues to support h.r. 4114, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i wholeheartedly support the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2012, h.r. 4114. while this committee does not control the amount of the cola, it is critical that we pass the bill so that it can be placed in -- put in place when social

security cola is enacted. it is so important that the payments that our veterans, their families and survivors receive keep pace with inflation and better enable them put food on the table and roof over their head. mr. speaker, i'm pleased that last year's veterans' cola increase was 3.6% for 2012 and that we can likely expect to increase for 2013. the exact figure will be tied directly to the social security cola who benefits will also see this same increase in their payments. as it has been since 1976, congress, through the passing of the veterans' cost-of-living adjustment kkt act, directs the sk of the department of veterans affairs to increase the rate of basic compensation for disabled veterans and the rate of dependency and for their survivors and their

dependents. this bill will benefit disabled veterans, their families and their survivors from world war ii, through the current conflict of iraq and afghanistan. many of the over 3.5 million veterans who receive disability compensation benefits depend on these payments, not only to provide for their basic needs, but for those of their spouses, children and parents as well. without an annual cola increase, these veterans, their families and survivors will likely see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly eroding. mr. speaker, i think we will be direlect in our duties if they don't receive benefits and services that keep pace with the needs and inflation. we fund the war. let's fund the warriors. let me repeat. we fund the wars. let's fund the warriors. i urge my colleagues to support

the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2012, h.r. 4114, without delay. thank you and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: i thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield as much time as he my consume that the subcommittee chairman of the committee on disability assistance and memorial affairs, not only the author of this particular piece of legislation, but since coming to this congress, he's become one of the most ardent supporters of our veterans, mr. runyan of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. speaker. chairman miller, thank you for those kind words and thank you for your support in helping me move this piece of legislation forward. i rise today in support of h.r. 4114, the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2012. h.r. 4114, which i introduced in february, put veterans on equal footing with social

security beneficiaries by increasing the amount provided to several kinds of compensation by the amount of the social security cost-of-living adjustment. these include disabled veterans compensations, veterans' clothing allowance and the d.i.c. for the veterans' survivors. this annual and noncontroversial bill, which has been scored by c.b.o. as having no budgetary impact, is a critical part of ensuring that benefits for disabled veterans and their families are sufficient to meet their needs. i am proud that the first bill i introduced in congress last year was the veterans' cola bill which gave the first cost-of-living adjustment to our veterans that they had received in several years. i am equally proud that we are doing right by our veterans by moving the cola bill increase this year in the form of h.r. 4114. i urge all members to support this critical piece of

legislation, and i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida reserves. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. last month we honored with the presence of over 400 marines in the capitol to receive the congressional gold medal. from 1942 to 1949, almost 20,000 african-american marines experienced basic training at jacksonville, north carolina. these heroes fought on two fronts. at home against discrimination and across the sea to defend our nation. this highest civilian award in the united states was first presented during the revolutionary war to george washington. it is fitting that the latest reward should go to those men who years before jackie

robinson and rosa parks joined the marines to defend their country. during this week when we are going to be debating the affordable care act, we need to discuss a project that affects veterans' health in my state of florida. on july 1, the v.a. paid an additional $500,000 to rent a portable operating room for a project that is 95% complete in the miami v.a. medical center. when this renovation was first proposed, two minor projects, east costing $10 million, was sponsored to fulfill the requirements of the project. i visited the medical center last month and heard directly from administrators of the facility about the project. the plan on the ground soon realized that patients could have been put at risk due to contamination of the operating rooms by the construction on

the other side of the room. veterans' health care was being put at risk, and rather than let this happen, it was decided by those who know the veterans' health the best, those at the health facilities, to combine the project into one and rent the portable operating room. we need a procedure to give the secretary the ability to correct these kinds of projects and not waste taxpayers' money. i will soon be introducing legislation to help the secretary to help -- to give him the help he needs to save taxpayers' money. in the last congress, our democratic leadership in the house and the senate, and with president barack obama, we were able to pass the largest increase in the veterans' budget in the history. we also passed advanced appropriations for the v.a. health care so that veterans

would not be subject to the deadline that congress seems to miss every year, to pass a proper budget. it allows the v.a. to plan for the following year health care needs and reassures veterans that they will be able to get the care that they need. we also passed the caregiver law, to help those who are taking care of the members of the military from ptsd and tib -- t.b.i., mental health programs. it is the least we can do for those who have given so much to protect our freedom. we did not just talk the talk but walked the walk. and since we're discussing repeal of the health care law tomorrow, i would like to briefly discuss how in fact the affordable care act benefits our nation's veterans and all americans. although not a perfect bill,

and no bill is since there are many compromises made, this is a perfect start in attempting to obtain universal health care has been a primary goal of every single president and congress since the days of franklin delano roosevelt who had fought for quality, accessibility health care, insurance reform for all americans. and now, 75 years later after the supreme court ruling just over a week ago, our nation has finally obtained that goal. millions of americans have already come to rely on a wide range and life-saving benefits of the affordable care act. and let me just say, i keep hearing obamacare. let me just be clear, obama cares for the american health care. before congress passed the

affordable care act, nearly one in five citizens in the wealthiest country in the world had little or no help of affordable insurance and access to regular health care. when fully implemented, the affordable care act will cover an additional 30 million americans and 3.8 million african-americans who otherwise would remain uninsured. already under the affordable care act, 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage. 105 million americans no longer have a lifetime limit on their coverage. 32.5 million seniors receive free preventive service in 2011. 54 million americans in private plans have received free preventive services. 6.6 million young adults up to the age of 26 have attained

insurance through their parents plan. 5.2 million seniors and disabled people save an average of $704 each on their prescription drugs. 360 small businesses receive tax credits to help them afford coverage for two million workers. 13 million families who receive insurance premiums will have an average savings of $151 in 2012. however, instead of debating a health care repeal, we should be debating a construction re-authorization bill to deal with the waste of taxpayer dollars, like i indicated in miami. $500,000 this month for a portable operating room. in closing, let's get to work, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. miller: i thank you, mr. speaker, for the recognition. i think it's interesting that

my colleague would talk about the supposed great things that are in the obamacare bill and not talk about how it's going to be paid for. in fact, the largest tax increase on the american people that this congress has ever placed on their backs. they would make them -- make you believe that it was all free, but it's not. it's going to cost somebody, and that's going to be the american citizens. i also want to talk about the miami project very quickly. i had to go down and actually visit and then pressure the v.a. secretary to make sure that the director of the miami medical center left her job because she was not doing what she was supposed to do and in fact this was a way of skirting the rules and the laws by splitting a project into two and then costing the taxpayers of the united states considerably more money, including the cost of the rental of the trailers that are being used as temporary operating rooms. . we continue to wait for the

department of veterans affairs to actually make an official request, for us to come forward and take care of this problem that exists in miami, specifically because of, i think, poor administrative oversight, not only at the administrative level in miami but also with the visiting director in vision eight as well. i'm happy at this point to yield back the balance of my time but i do ask unanimous consent that all members would have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous materials that they may have on 4114. i also want to say that, you know, one of the things that my colleague was talking about in regards to the advanced appropriations that most of us in congress did support, it's a good thing that we did because the senate itself hasn't been able to pass a budget for almost four years and they cannot pass an appropriation bill on time. so i do support the advanced

appropriations that this house supported and ultimately was signed into law. with that i encourage all members to support 4114 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4114. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the ruse and pass the bill, -- rules and pass the bill h.r. 4367. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. union mr. calvert: der number 416, a bill to amend the electronic -- the clerk: the bill. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend and extend their remarks and add extraneous materials to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. today we are considering one of the most commonsense bills seen in some time. this bill provides a real

solution to a real problem that's impacting banks, credit unions and merchants nationwide. regulation e currently mandates that a.t.m. fee disclosures appear both if physical plaquered or sticker form on the machine as well as through an onscreen electronic notification. unfortunately some individuals have seen the potential to make a quick buck off of frisk louis claims and have begun to remove stickers from a.t.m.'s across the country. thereby placing financial institutions and merchants out of compliance. this is exactly what's happened to some small financial institutions in my district throughout missouri. someone was traveling throughout the state, removing stickers from a.t.m. machines and then offering to settle with the banks for several thousand dollars per machine or that bank faced a lawsuit. the premise of this bill is simple. to eliminate an outdated and unnecessary regulatory burden facing merchants and financial institutions while continuing to ensure consumer protections for

all a.t.m. users throughout required onscreen fee disclosures. it's important to recognize that the consumer financial protection bureau has also expressed interest in eliminating this fee disclosure requirement. in december of 2011, the cfpb asked the public to comment on elimination of this requirement. however, during the public comment period, the cfbb admitted it may not be able to eliminate the disclosure requirement and it would be up to congress to take action. today, mr. speaker, it is time for to us take action. h.r. 4367 is supported by the national association of federal credit unions, credit union national association, american bankers association, independent community bankers association of america, united states chamber of commerce, electronic funds transfer association, consumer banker association, the clearing house, the food and marketing institute, the financial services round table, financial association convenience stores, american gaming association and

the a.t.m. industry as well. this legislation is broad, bipartisan support from its 145 co-sponsors. among them is the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, who has been a great partner in this initiative and i thank him for his efforts. again, mr. speaker, i want to remind my colleagues this bill does not in any way alter the mandate for onscreen fee disclosures. meaning customers will have a clear understanding of what they'll be charged before they complete their a.t.m. transactions. mr. speaker, it is time to put an end to these frivolous lawsuits. i thank my colleagues for the sponsorship of this legislation and ask for all members to support this bill today. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: first of all, mr. speaker, let me say that this is a very much bipartisan

legislation. sponsored by both democrats and republicans. and i am very, very pleased to have as an original co-sponsor on this and work very closely with mr. luetkemeyer who's done an admirable job in providing leadership an much, much needed piece of legislation. and that is house resolution 4367. and as i said, i'm proud to be an integral part of moving forward a very timely, reasonable and vital piece of legislation. let me just say at the outset, mr. speaker, that our banking system, our retail system, our credit unions all sit at the center, at the epicenter of this nation's great economic system. which is going through tremendous challenges as we face. and so as mr. luetkemeyer said, we're faced with what basically

are scam artists who will go in and remove the labeling from off the a.t.m. machine. and knowing that this penalty is upwards of 1/2 a million dollars and then to go and to try to bring a class action lawsuit against these financial institutions in very tough economic times. so this legislation is developed to address this and fix this so that our banking industry, our financial service industry will not have this threat over them. so, what it would do, it would repeal the requirement for both a physical plaquered as well as an electronic notice on the a.t.m. screen disclosing the transaction fees. currently, as we work now, if an a.t.m. machine does not display

a physical plaquered, a financial institution, a bank, a credit union or our retailers can be subject to a class action lawsuit which would potentially amount to, as i said, 1/2 million dollars or 1% of its net worth. now, this penalty has the potential of prompting bogus lawsuits against financial institutions simply due to a lack of the physical plaquered. even when the electronic notice is shown to a customer. and because the plaquered was removed by a third party, so you can see that this is not fair for these institutions to be faced with up to a half-million dollars in penalty fees, especially in these tough economic times. at the same time many of these institutions continue to struggle, to maintain standard

operations faced with the current economic climate that we have. let me just talk about that, mr. speaker, for a moment because there have been 31 bank failures in this country this year alone. and about three weeks ago three banks shut their doors including the security exchange bank in marietta, in could be county in georgia which is located in my district. as a matter of fact, in georgia alone 78 banks, 78 banks have closed their doors since our crisis began. georgia leads the nation unfortunately in bank closures. and that's why i am so particularly concerned about that and so pleased to have this measure pass. because this sensible legislation that we consider today would remove the threat of

legal action against financial institutions, a bank or credit union simply for the lack of the physical plaquered at one of its a.t.m. machines. and passage of this bill, as mr. luetkemeyer pointed out, will still provide the consumer with the protections that they need because a notice informing them of any fees will still be required upon the start of a transaction on the a.t.m. screen. in addition, consumers will still be able to benefit from the convenience that the estimated 445,000 a.t.m.'s that are in operation that this country provides. so i'm very proud to have worked on this bill. it's very timely, it's very important for our economy, that we move with this bill. and the bill certainly deserves the strong bipartisan support that we have and i urge my colleagues to support this measure today and again it's been a pleasure to work with mr.

luetkemeyer on that and i thank him, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. it's now my distinct honor to welcome to speak on the bill our distinguished chairman of financial services committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bachus: i appreciate that, mr. speaker. and i came here really to compliment the two gentlemen who have spoken on this bill, who are the co-sponsors of a bipartisan bill. when i first heard about this legislation i thought, well, like most legislation this year, it won't go anywhere. it may pass the house but it may not pass the senate. but i understand that this particular legislation that our senate colleagues are waiting for and are ready to act upon

it. mr. scott brought up i think a salient point when he said that we're having many banks that are struggling, credit unions, because when people don't have jobs, they can't pay back their loans. and our banks and credit unions are trying to cope with the added expense of more regulation . but, you know, at a time like that particularly, but at any time for people to take advantage of a statute that is intended to protect the american people, is really audacity and greed. and in its purist sense. i'm an attorney and i can tell you that 999 out of 1,000 attorneys are former -- or former attorneys would absolutely be enraged to find that a few of their colleagues,

a very few are taking advantage of the electronic transfer act to sue these institutions on lawsuits that are totally against the public interest and particularly are against the interests of those living in low income areas and high crime areas. those areas, people in those areas are coping with so much. to add to that, having an a.t.m. machine removed from that location or from a low income area just adds another expense for people who have very little means of financing their life today. and that's what's happening. either the vandles themselves are going and -- vandals themselves are going and vandalizing this stick that are we've all seen, we've all used

an a.t.m., we've seen a sticker there. we probably didn't notice the sticker because really what really caught our attention is when we look on the screened a we see that same notice but that notice on the screen requires us to affirmatively say, yes, we will agree to it. so, people today probably don't even notice that sticker. but the few people who noticed it and took advantage of it were people that were up to no good. people that were willing to bring what some of us would call a frivolous lawsuit but these lawsuits, they can ask for a half-million dollars worth of damages and because it is actually a statutory failure to have it, these lawsuits sometimes result in $100,000 or $200,000 judgment. they're also resulting in these a.t.m.'s not being located in areas that are subject to vandalism. of course almost any area could be subject to.

. but penalize those americans who are least able to afford to travel a greater distance for the convenience of an a.t.m. machine. as mr. luetkemeyer and mr. scott said, they escape it off. some of these appears to be well-organized efforts by the very people that bring the lawsuit to go out and do these in an organized manner among hundreds of machines, and then they come in and file a class action. in most cases, particularly a small credit union or community bank, local bank, mr. luetkemeyer at one time was a banker in a small missouri community, they can't afford to battle these for $50,000 or $100,000. and it may be a big law firm

offering these things so they settle them for $50,000. this will put an end to that. and let me tell you, no one on the financial services committee expressed any doubt about this legislation. i don't think anyone would other than those people who are complicit in vandalizing these machines and micking money on what we sometimes call unintended. i tell you, it certainly was unintended. it was also -- if we in our imagination sat down for days and said, what is the worst thing that could happen by requiring us to put a sticker on as well as electronic notice, we would have never come up with this. we would have never come up with the ingenuity of some people to take advantage of the law. but that's what's happened here. and today i think unanimously hopefully we are going to shut the door on this practice and send this bill over to the senate, and particularly for

areas with high vandalism or a rural area in our rural communities, we are going to set a wrong right. and let me say this is a model for how this congress ought to operate. of coming together, having a consensus, coming up with good commonsense legislation that benefits the public and reduces unnecessary costs and puts really what i consider and i think is criminal behavior out of business and we're going to put some criminals out of business with this legislation. so, mr. luetkemeyer, mr. scott and all members who are co-sponsoring this bill, i commend each and every one of you. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. scott: i want to say how important this legislation is. and as chairman bachus just stated, these are a sophisticated individuals. these are people who know the system and that's why i refer to them as scam artists. it is a racket and it's a racket we need to put out of business. that's causing tremendous hey,, tremendous difficulties for the heart -- headaches, tremendous difficulties for the heart of our banking system. this will go a long way of taking away a very superfluous threat. we hear a great cry among the american people for great bipartisanship. well, here's a great example of democrats and republicans working together for the good

of the united states of america , and i have no other speakers so i will allow you to close and thank you very much for working with me on this and i appreciate having the opportunity to work with you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i want to thank mr. scott from georgia for his help -- helping this bill along. as he articulated, georgia has had banks that suffered and had gone out of business. this is another situation where this bill may not be a big bill but will relieve stress on some institutions. also exposure to some of our merchants. as the distinguished chairman articulated, it's time to put these people -- -- people out of business. we've come together as a group

and had a great meeting the other day in the financial services and had strong bipartisan support. with that i'll close and ask for support of the body and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4367. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- mr. scott: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. scott: on that i demand the yeas and nays, a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? ms. mshes mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5892. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 404. h.r. 5892, a bill to improve hydropower and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlelady from washington, ms. -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers, and the gentlelady from colorado, ms. degette, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from washington. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: mr.

speaker, i ask that he can that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 5892. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i rise in support of h.r. 5892, the hydropower regulatory efficiency act of 2012. to see the potential and the benefits of hydropower, all we have to do is look at my home state of washington, which gets over 75% of its power from clean, reliable hydropower and have some of the nation's lowest electricity rates. the snake river dam in washington, through irrigation, transformed a dry desert with sage brush to one of the most productive agriculture regions in the world. the low cost of hydropower brought high-tech companies like google and yahoo! to relocate their servers there. manufacturing facilities like b.m.w. have now opened plants.

and the significant transportation benefits hydropower infrastructure provides to our nation's barging are all results of hydropower. however, notwithstanding all these benefits, the regulatory approval process for hydropower development, especially for smaller projects, can be unnecessarily slow, costly and cumbersome. that's why i authored and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 5892, which reforms and streamlines the hydropower permitting and regulatory process for small hydropower and conduit projects. reducing the burdens impeding development and getting low-cost electricity to communities faster. mr. speaker, you would disagree that we as a nation need to become more energy independent. along with members on both sides of the aisle, i support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. the department of energy has

the goal of doubling the amount of hydropower produced in the united states which a recent national hydropower association study revealed could be accomplished without building a single new dam, by simply investing in new technologies and turbines. mr. speaker, the benefits and the overwhelming potential is why i urge the president to include hydropower in his all-of-the-above energy strategy, and i'm submitting a copy of the letter i sent to the president to urge him to include hydropower in his energy strategy and also several other letters of support. as part of the all-of-the-above strategy, we need to domestically produce more oil, coal, natural gas, renewable energies like hydropower. according to the energy information administration, currently 75% of all renewable energy produced in the united states is hydropower. however, that only accounts for

7% of the total electricity nationwide, and we've heardly scratched the surface of hydropower's potential. by utilizing currently untapped resources, the united states could add approximately 60,000 megawatts of new hydropower by 2025. furthermore, with job growth still at a sluggish pace and far too many americans out of work, we should be looking at every opportunity to put americans back to work. increased hydropower development will do just that with the potential to create up to 700,000 jobs over the next decade. unleashing american ingenuity to increase hydropower production will lower energy costs and help create thousands of jobs. mr. speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to support american energy and support h.r. 5892. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentlelady from colorado is recognized.

ms. degette: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. degette: i'm proud to stand here today with my western colleague, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, to speak in support of the hydropower regulatory efficiency act of 2012, h.r. r5892. -- h.r. 5892. it's the largest source of renewable energy in america today, but as mrs. mcmorris rodgers said, it's only 3% of our nation's dams that are producing this power. the hydropower regulatory efficiency act will enable increased electricity production from clean domestic energy sources by removing roadblocks to new hydropower projects. this legislation will create smarter and more efficient permitting processing for more hydropower projects across the nation for easing licensing requirements. in particular, the bill will

allow the federal energy regulatory commission to extend preliminary permits for those permits that had been conduct responsibly and to expand the number of hydropower projects that are exempt from ferc licensing requirements. it requires ferc and the regulatory agency to have studies for the potential of hydropower production and increase grid reliability. this legislation will promote growth in our hydropower industry and it will create new jobs. since my colleague, mrs. mcmorris rodgers, and i began crafting this, it had bipartisan support every step of the way. this is a testament both to the substance of the bill and to everybody who contributed to the process. members, staff and stakeholders negotiated constructively and openly to produce this legislation. it's important for us to realize that even in these politically charged times such

collaboration is possible and necessary for us to fulfill our commitments to the american public. i want to thank my colleague across the aisle for her hard work on this bill, and i also want to acknowledge ranking member waxman and chairman upton on the energy and commerce committee for their support throughout the process. h.r. 5892 will expand our potential and -- to advance clean energy production and create jobs. i urge all members to vote for this bill and, mr. chairman, if my colleague has no further speakers, i'll yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5892. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- affirmative -- ms.