and the president state of the union discussion. host: good morning, everyone on this thursday, january 22, 2014. president obama will continue on his tour today. after touting his economics proposal in idaho yesterday, he will take us a message to kansas today. the republicans will agree but say that the economy is not working for everyone. share your ideas with washington. what is the best way to grow the middle-class? we are dividing the lines by

income. the numbers are on the screen. we will get your thoughts in just a minute. your best ideas for growing the middle-class. we want to hear from you. joining us on the phone is jim tankersley of the "washington post cap how is the little class to find? -- of the "washington post." how is the middle-class defined? guest: i think most of us think

of that typical family or household. when we talk about median income or median wealth, that is what we mean. what is that right there in the middle. host: does that change based on where you live? guest: it does but when you think about it nationally ok, the median income is a little over $50,000 a year. and that is about what it was in 1989. when they're thinking about the middle-class nationally, we think of a it really has not gotten better in terms of income in a quarter-century. host: talk about how the middle-class is doing not just with income, but other parts of their pocketbook. are there costs for them? guest: it has been a really tough couple of decades for the middle-class, frankly.

the great recession was absolutely brutal on the middle-class and middle-class workers had not been doing fantastic before then. incomes like they were in 1989 through the recession -- and there's new data that just came out. through the recession, we saw homeownership declined by about 10 percentage points. stock ownership went down by over 10%. business ownership in the middle-class go down by about 20%. it's not just people getting a raise, but we are in an economy now that is doing well because stocks are doing well and home prices are going up, and it people spent less of their savings can -- and if people have less of their savings and they are less likely to capture that. host: what about the big cost that can wrong -- that come along, like healthcare.gov guest: -- like health care?

guest: health care costs have grown fairly fast. we will see if slowing growth persists going forward. there has been one big break in the last couple of months for which is gas prices have gone down. that is something that the middle-class does spend a lot of money on. that really has helped people's pocketbook. -- people's pocketbooks. inflation has been low for some time now. but there are things that the middle-class cares for, like child care and education, that have gone up. host: we are asking our reviewers for their ideas on how to with little last. washington is debating that. president obama laid it out on

the state of the union address on tuesday. how would his ideas help the middle class? will they help the middle class? and what about the republicans proposal seattle guest: -- the republicans proposal? guest: the proposal by the president, yes imposing -- he has been proposing for some time. he is trying to be thorough and get at middle-class technician in a couple of ways. ones is to say, hey, we know the middle-class economy is not working very well for you right now. we are going to make college less expensive or accessible to you so you have the skills to get a better job. we will try to find some tax breaks to give you, so you have some more money in your pocket book. he has long been focused on politics like that. when he is really trying to add onto that is waste to help the economy create better paying

jobs, -- ways to help the economy create better paying jobs, which middle-class people really want. he's trying to change the economy so better jobs are created. republicans have an opening here. they are later to the game in coming up with a lot of targeted middle-class policies, but almost everything the president talked about in his speech on tuesday night was very government focused. republicans have the chance to make arguments for ways to get government out of the way and allow the market to work better, which is in their wheelhouse of policies, ways to make it work for the middle-class. it will be interesting to see if they can design policies that are meant to do that. host: you wrote a six part series for the washington post about the middle class. you traveled around the country. what ideas did people you talk to about growing the middle-class? guest: the thing

that has helped america's middle class really grow in the post-world war ii middle -- post-world war ii era, we got more americans more talents and more skills and the best possible use of their talents in the economy. what has happened in the last one in five years is exactly the opposite. we have been pushing talented people into less useful things. we need to find ways to break down those barriers and get people back doing the best possible thing they can do again. i will give you one quick example, which is that we have way too many people working in an industry where they make a lot of money but they do not create a broader economic value, but wall street, ok street. if we do get them into -- or k street. if we get them into more innovative industries, we would have more good jobs for people up and down the skills spectrum. host: what about education

training people for these high-tech jobs? guest: that is absolutely critical. we are in an economy now where it used to be a generation or two ago, a high school education was all you needed to get a middle-class job. it is increasingly not true. i think part of what the president was trying to get at in his speeches the idea that people need more education. whether that is actual college skills training, or apprenticeships, or community college, targeted trinity college jobs pros -- programs -- targeted community college jobs programs, those are tools that could korea -- could create better opportunities. host: you wrote a piece the other day of out how to tell how a politician is serious about helping the democrats. our democrat and republican

serious about helping the middle class? guest: we are finding out. democrats are eager to see that republicans are late to the game and we are just repackaging old ideas, but i think that is a little unfair. once you decide to make it give it and say, we just going to target policies that are going to grow the economy, but we need to come up with a way to help a specific group in the economy you need time to work those out. it will be interesting to see those proposals come out. we seen a few in the last year or so. but i'm really interested in what the presidential candidates on the republican side come up with. and the way that i think we can judge the seriousness of these is, first, to ask what is new here. are you actually finding ways to creatively solve these problems, or are you just resting of what you would have been doing before any way you and number two -- what you would have done before

any way? and never two, are you really addressing these problems? if what you are really doing is putting forth an agenda that does not really help, then it is not targeted and it's not new then it's probably not serious. host: jim tankersley, thank you for your time. he brought a six part series for the washington -- he wrote a six part series for the washington post. we are taking this debate outside of washington. darrell in mobile, alabama, making over $75,000 per year, go ahead. caller: thanks for having my call. one thing i tend to see in america, well, for some americans, is that a lot of people save you don't work hard enough and you're not smart

enough, that is why you are where you are. i find myself being a system engineer for the federal government. besides working hard, i realized i was very lucky. and the president's ideas that he put forth are very good stuff. mr. tankersley that you just had on here stole a lot of my thunder for what i was going to say. host: let me ask you -- you make over $75,000 in mobile, alabama. does that take you pretty far? caller: it does take me pretty far. like i said, i'm pretty fortunate. i'm a system engineer for the federal government. i'm basically, i fall under those rules. for me, the whole thought that

you know, if you are not smart enough, i believe there should be a floor. for basically, for people to be able to live humanely and not have to kill themselves with 2, 3, 4 jobs. i've seen it. it's just not good. host: there'll, you think the government should step in to make up for happen? -- darrell, you think the government should step in to make that happen? caller: as much as i hate to say it yeah. over the last 30 years, businesses have gone nuts in terms of taking away protections, taking away worker benefits. 20 years ago, i worked in an industry -- i worked in the financial services industry and it was a good place to work. but now, ever since bliley, it's just a mess. host: i'm going to move on, so i

can get another voice in here. sheridan in columbus, ohio, you are making between $50,000 to 75,000 -- $75,000 a year. caller: my idea is simply this. do like the netherlands and switzerland, a living wage, not a minimum wage. goodness sake, they are civilized. number two, go back to pensions. the only companies that give pensions -- believe me, i get reports. number three, bring profit-sharing back. there may be some others, but were mailed me backing out of austin, minnesota, has profit-sharing. i think it had it -- cornell meet packing hormel meatpacking

out of austin, minnesota, has profit-sharing. i think they got it is the 1880's. it was called socialism or communism back in the 1930's. you can look it up. these are the things that need to be done, greta. i wish to god he would have a program on the living wage. get an economist on. like you just had an economics writer from the "washington post" and find out -- i believe it would be at least $10 or $12 an hour. who the devil can support a family on $15,000 a year? but thank you, greta. it's very good taste that they got you. host: thanks. david in amarillo, texas, under $25,000. go ahead. your ideas. caller: i have a few of them

that politicians in washington d.c. avenue not thought of in the last five minutes of sitting on the phone that politicians have not in 20 or 30 years. campaign-finance. it seems like not an issue, but when you have the top percentage with more money than all the people in the country combined that are able to purchase seats in congress and the senate and are able to get exactly what they want, or they will bankroll and finance the current person they wanted their -- they want in there. host: that was david in texas,

campaign-finance reform, his idea. you heard from the other collars about having a living wage, not a minimum wage. what are your ideas for washington? how can washington make this economy and -- this economy work for everyone? lorren pennsylvania, go ahead. laura in pennsylvania go ahead. caller: before i make my comment about the middle-class, i truly want to say this is the anniversary of roe v wade and i'm ashamed that c-span doesn't have a segment that since roe v wade we have killed 50 million unborn babies. there are hundreds of thousands of people marching in washington right now. why aren't your covering that? -- why aren't you all covering that? those people that do get the right to life and they worked their way up, there is a minimum wage, mostly for people

who are teens, getting into the job market. then they worked their way up into the middle class. and hopefully, they have a good work ethic and they won't be doing things that will keep them trapped in the lower income which is the number one group of people having babies out of wedlock. black president will not address that. let's solve two issues, but the first is the right to live. host: laura, on that, we are covering the march for life, the 42nd rally taking place today. it begins at noon. we will have coverage on c-span3 . we will join this event around 1:00 p.m. eastern time. tune in to for our coverage of that. this issue is also been taken up on the house side today.

this is the "washington post" politics of the nation section.

that debate taking place in washington outside the capital and insight as well. john, toledo ohio, you make between $25,000 and $50,000 per year. what are your ideas for helping upper-middle-class? caller: first, thank you for allowing me to speak morning. we need to properly define this, as opposed to a certain income level -- middle income would be the top proper definition, because

people who are well-educated in terms of myself, making $40,000 and sometimes you have factory workers sometimes making six figures. and maybe they haven't gone to college, and that's a problem in itself, simply because through industrialization there are people who are in the middle class and not middle income. we spend so much money on, you know, in terms of military where it is not a benefit, but if we spend money on infrastructure and think that would generate and produce more jobs. number one as opposed to

middle-class, it should be middle income. host: let's talk about how you define middle-class. "the wall street journal" with this piece together. your ideas for growing the middle-class will stop john, you heard his cap -- are growing the middle class. john, you heard his. frank, what do you think you caller: -- what do you think?

caller: the president in his state of the union asked questions about jobs and $50,000 a year. those were meant to be entry-level. people work those jobs as they were waking -- working their way through college. somehow they have gotten in their minds they can make a career out of working at mcdonald's and then talk the government into raising the minimum wage to where they can make a career off of it. we are getting so mixed up as to where the things should be. if we would get back to some decent paying jobs and get back into worldwide market for producing some things, get people working at a wage that is reasonable instead of these wages that have been jacked up

so high by unions that we can't get into the market anymore then we can get back on track. we got to turn a whole lot of things around before we can ever do it. host: let's listen to what the president had to say yesterday. he went to boise idaho and talked about middle class economics at the university there. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> the verdict is clear. the ruling on the field stands. middle class economics work. expanding opportunity works. these policies will keep working if washington doesn't get in the way of our progress. [applause] we cannot suddenly put families at risk for taking away health insurance. we cannot risk another meltdown on wall street by unraveling the rules on wall street. we will stand between families

and any attempt to roll back the progress. because today, thanks to a growing economy, the recovery is touching more and more lives. wages are finally starting to go up. more small business owners plan to raise their employee pay than at any time since 2007. we need to keep on going. let's do more to restore the link between hard work and opportunity for every single american. that is our job. [applause] that is our job. let's make sure all our people have the tools and support to go i far as their drinks and effort will take them. that is what middle class economics is. the idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody's

playing by the same set of rules. we don't want to just make sure everybody shares in america's success. we want to think everybody can contribute to america's success. and when everybody is participating and given a shot, there's nothing we cannot do. host: president obama in idaho yesterday, a red state. he is traveling to another red state today, speaking at the university of kansas. he will be stressing his ideas for growing the middle class. it's a question for all of you this morning. we want your ideas. share them with washington. what you think are the best ways to do that? phone lines are divided by income. they are on the screen. john boehner yesterday responded to what the president had to say about the state of the union. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> although president really -- all the president really offered last night was more taxes and more government. it's the same thing that has failed the middle class for decades. these are not just the wrong

policies, the wrong priorities. -- but the wrong priorities. there is a better way. we need to fix our broken tax code, balance our budget replace the broken health care law with solutions that lower costs and protect jobs. the veto threats and fantasyland proposals from the white house will not distract the people's house from the people's priorities. host: speaker of the house, john boehner, responding to the president middle class economics in putting forth what the gop thinks needs to happen to help them in class. "the wall street journal" with the headline that the focus now turns to middle-class angst.

kerrville has the support of some democrats. -- her bill has the support of some democrats. those are some ideas being talked about in washington. in atlanta, what are your ideas? caller: all of these ideas are nothing more than little mosquitoes biting at a person. really, the issue here is middle class is the only class of people that can actually dream because they have a full belly and a roof over their heads. rich people are too contented to dream. poor people cannot dream. it's important the country --

that washington makes it happen the way it should be. this is the weights been since the 1960's. on stability and education and all that, they are doing much better than on the republican single-mindedness on lowering taxes and starting wars. host: ray in pennsylvania, go ahead with your ideas. caller: good morning. the last general and touch on something there. i don't think the people in your program understand where the middle class came from. the japanese are left out in 1941 by attacking pro-harbor. the middle-class came about because we had to start factories in this country to

build war materials. after world war ii, we were the only game in the world that produced anything -- deal building materials, you name it. that is where the middle class came from, manufacturing. if you don't believe that, look at the chinese. where is this clown in the white house? wife need talking about rebuilding our factories and giving us tax breaks, instead of buying all of the stuff from china? these mortal enemies called communist -- you see, i was drafted during vietnam. they are producing product and they are selling them here. french are, textiles, you name it. -- furniture, textiles, you name it. you are going to tax people to build roads and bridges to where? business startups, so you put a new road in.

steel that comes out of the ground, you have to make things that make companies profitable. companies do not start to give you a job will stop -- a job. that is what the government is for. when i was in pennsylvania, i was there for five years, but my brother worked there for 30 years. i said, why don't you union guys take it over, a six mile long mill, why don't you take it over with your pension fund? and if you guys think this company is making so much profit, you guys run it and that that and make a things. any sickly you are crazy. and i said, why are you -- why am i crazy? and he said, because you can -- why am i crazy? because you cannot run it. let's see how much profit you make. host: and in west virginia, what are your ideas you go caller: --

your ideas? caller: i believe cutting taxes is not what we need right now, but we need more jobs. democrats, republicans, an independents need to wake up. they feel that this agenda for -- this president's agenda for tax cuts and community college for free is just another agenda for the immigrants, because they will be qualified to get a list tax money -- all of this tax money, and they will be qualified, from the congressional budget office, this information coming from them. they will be 2 million immigrants that will be eligible to get amnesty and they will be able to get tax credits and welfare and social security.

and they will be able to get pell grants and community college and unemployment insurance, and voters rights. that is what the main agenda is for. host: "new york times" this morning. and "the washington times" with this headline about 2015 -- 2016.

and then you have politico with their piece, nancy pelosi planning to discuss economic proposals at brookings. she will be there next month expanding on many of the economic proposals president barack obama outlined in his state of the union address. speaking of 2016 politics, "the new york times" this morning jonathan martin with this piece.

2016 presidential politics in this debate over how to help the middle class playing out over the next two years. we will go to gerald in reno, nevada. you're making over $75,000. what are your proposals for helping the middle class? caller: good morning. first, i would like to thank my higher wages to my union will stop i'm an electrical -- to my union. i'm an electrical worker and i get up every morning. i work for a private contractor that does it work and we get all of this work -- does bid work and we get all this work. in a sick and tired of people talking about union workers. i work out of town from my family for extended periods of time. i wake up early, like i said. i've given up a lot of saturdays and sundays to make my wages.

my ideas are, first off, let's buy usa made. i hear all of these people saying let's get the government start getting these factories to make more usa made death. every -- usa made stuff. everything i wear, there are some things i cannot buy, such as my cell phone. but my clothing, my tools, my vehicle, everything usa made. sometimes i will go into a store and come out empty-handed because i choose to do this. but as an electrician, i feel that buying usa made trickles down to what i do. second, i think we need to support a living wage. the more you make, the more you will spend them and if you send it here, it will help us even more. host: rick in nashville tennessee, under $25,000. go ahead. caller: good morning.

let me go through a quick scenario where i in for the last 20 something years. for the most part in my life i had to work for minimum wage or a little better. i'm making the same money basically today that i made in 1970's. i've had good jobs and that jobs. i got out of that turned 21 today. she's a junior in college. -- i have a daughter that turned 21 today. she's a junior in college. i was put her in advanced placement during her school years, not knowing if i could afford college or what. but by her good grace, she has a lot of it taking care of, and she works. the most any family can do, when i drive down the street, all i see it is retail, minimum wage type jobs. but you can wait -- raise a family. i have not raised 10 kids, but i have raised a daughter and she's a fine young lady. and i'm telling you that if you keep buying new cars every year you buy more house than you need, you go and buy the

designer jeans and a new cell phone and everything, you will never raise anybody, not even yourself. host: we got your point. we will go to karen. between -- go ahead. caller: there is one point where in history we raised the middle class, and that is unions. the living that ever raise the middle class back in the 1940's, 1950 1960's and early 1970's. right at the point where ronald reagan fired air-traffic rollers and republicans -- air-traffic controllers and republicans had made this war on the people, it was a good country to live financially. host: ok, karen says you need unions. on twitter, one viewer agrees. given the middle class arrays,

strengthen unions, and pass the minimum wage. randy in long beach, california, what you? caller: i feel this information might be a little too late for the millennial's, but when i was in fourth grade public school my teacher told us that several decades later we would be trying to live off of social security and with inflation and everything going on, that we would not be able to survive or pay rent or even have enough food to put on the table. that really stuck with me. i decided throughout my time of growing up that i would save up some money and put it into something that would get me some money when i was older in my 50's or 60's. i purchased some income property which i have owned for 22 years now. and i'm having cash flow. i was able to pay off the mortgage after 20 years. i receive a thousand dollars a month. -- $8,000 a month.

i'm doing quite well. i'm not rich, but i don't have anything to complain about. host: randy solution is making investments. we've got a few minutes left here to get your thoughts, your ideas on growing the middle class. the phone lines will remain open. i do want to share another page with you, the front page of the "washington post" this morning. here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> i did not consult with the white house. the congress can make his decision on its own. i don't believe i'm poking

anyone in the eye. there is a serious threat that exists in the world and the president last night kind of papered over it. the fact is, that he could be a more serious conversation in america about how serious the threat is from radical islamic jihadists and other threats posed by iran. host: explaining the decision why he invited israeli prejudice or benjamin netanyahu to speak before congress on february 11. also in capital news, minority leader harry reid was injured in an accident. he has done damage to his eyes, broken bones in his face and his wrist. he will be on camera on capitol hill today at 12:30 p.m. we will have coverage of it on c-span3, holding a news

conference to talk about democrats agenda. obviously, we will get questions about his own health. we will cover that on c-span3 today. james in general, texas, you make between $20,000 to $50,000. what do you think should be done to help the middle class? caller: what i think should begun, first of all, a few things. the federal reserve, i know they stopped quantitative easing, but i think they are going to ramp it back up. they've noticed the stock market is going to be dropping as a result. and they've also created inflation, and that is squeezing the middle class, causing them to go to the grocery store and spend their budget on the increase. and talking about minimum wage, the minimum wage needs to be removed to zero dollars. when you have minimum wage at a dollars, if you increase that price, it causes job creators to

reduce their supply, reduced their demand of jobs. also our tax base, you don't want to tax the job creators. you want to tax the people -- you don't want to tax people creating $20 million per year. that money could go to creating more jobs. those are my ideas. host: jim in everett, washington. you make between $50,000 to $75,000. what do you think? caller: i think there is too much part-time work in this country. businesses that have multiple employees, they tend to just hire nothing but part-time workers. i think what they should do is have a social security penalty for the employer where instead of just matching with their employees are paying, to have an additional penalty put on that. and for the employees that are hiring more full-time worker

maybe to reduce the social security payment that they have to match. that way, it will encourage them to hire more full-time employees, or at least give them more hours to work. and it can give them more money that way. host: miami, florida, you make under $25,000. though ahead. caller: greetings. good morning to you all. i think what this country really needs, because this is the capitalism country and not a communism country, it needs a job that -- host: we are listening. it needs a job that -- caller: it needs a job that could provide work experience -- it could probably be a work experience school that provides proper training to actually be able to work that field. a government school that could

provide work experience that could actually provide work experience for the job and be relocated to another job. host: got it. let meet with this story in really quick. it's from the reliable source section of the washington post this morning. justice ginsburg does is through another state of the union.

butch in kingston, ohio. you make between $20,000 to $50,000. what you think are some good ideas to grow the middle-class? butch, are you there? there you go. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, go ahead. caller: it's hard to do in 30 seconds, but we do need jobs here. i think when big problem is inflation. i was at the car lot the other day and we've got trucks at exceed thousand dollars and $70,000. cars at $40,000. the middle class cannot afford a $60,000 truck. i don't know what is going on in detroit, but i wish somebody would look into that. the prices of vehicles have skyrocketed in the middle class cannot pay for them. host: we will continue this

conversation coming up next with two members of congress. we will talk about the economy as well as other issues being debated on capitol hill. he will begin with congressman israel, democrat of new york and in later we will talk with tom mcclintock, republican of california. the senate yesterday was to vote on affirming climate change. the chairman of the public works committee and unknown climate change denier, spoke on the floor. take a look at this exchange. [video clip] >> i am ok to use my minutes, because i'm so eager to hear what is said during the minute that the energy chairman will follow me with. but i'm hoping after many years of darkness and blockade, this vote can be a first little beam of light through the wall that will allow us to at least start having an honest conversation

about what carbon pollution is doing to our climate and to our oceans. this is a manner -- a matter of vital consequence to my home state, the oceans eight, my home, rhode island, -- the ocean state, my home, rhode island. and too many of yours as well. i hope we can get together and have a strong positive vote that sends a signal that the senate at this time in our history is ready to deal with reality. thank you very much. let -- >> i will yield a minute on our side to the senator from oklahoma. >> the senate will be in order. but mr. president, i asked unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor to the white house amendment. >> without objection. [applause] >> mr. president, climate is changing and always was and

there is archaeological evidence of that, but google evidence of that. it will always change -- biblical evidence of that and historical evidence of that. it will always change. man cannot change climate. i asked my colleagues to vote for the in half amended. host: "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with congressman steve israel of new york. let's begin with the president's state of the union address, his middle class economics. how do you end of the democrats plan to communicate that message and try to push for it? guest: this is vital. i may not be some of that -- i mean not be the smartest member of congress, but i know my history. and it ready -- anybody who knows economic history knows that a nation is only as great

as the middle class is strong. that is what the president's state of the union was about strong middle class and creating prosperity for everyone. we have a message problem for democrats and we have had a message problem. in this cycle leading to the elections, the most trust rating element was, you look at -- the most frustrating element was you look at bowling and the majority felt -- host: what were democrats talking about in 2014 that they are not talking about how? how is the message going to change? guest: several elements. number one, leading up to the election in 2014, you had ebola, isis isil, syria, gaza, ukraine and it was very difficult to focus people on those domestic issues, even though people felt those issues in their paychecks every day. i could not by way -- by my way

on to a program like this, as i was talking about sweeping ebola across the country. republicans are very good if not a policy, at constructing message. they always ladder of inks, the government high taxes. -- ladder up to two things, big government, high taxes. cargill said in 1994, it's the economy, stupid. our message in 2014, it's my paycheck, stupid. host: how are you going to keep it simple? guest: the things we have always done to build a little class bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, easier lifestyles. -- build the middle class bigger paychecks, better infrastructure, easier lifestyles. the economy has grown 12%. corporate profits have grown 42%.

the stock market has grown. but they are looking at their paychecks and saying, what about my good news? people know when you invest in infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airports, broadband, you are creating jobs. it creates investments and reduces taxes, gross the economy, and expands paychecks. we need to talk about that as well. host: pat carroll wrote a piece for "u.s. news and world report" writing that democrats need to seize on opportunity at a moment when it is cheap and easy. guest: remember that when

democrats controlled at all, the economy was absolutely in freefall because of eight years of bush policies. we would have loved to do these things. we wanted to do these things. but we were told at one point that did not to pass tarp, something republicans refused to pass under president bush, there would be no economy in several days. what we had to do was engaged in rescue operations. we had to rescue this economy. people saw their 401(k) dissipate. they saw the stock lose value. they saw their home values in freefall. we had to take emergency set necessary to save the economy. i did not agree with everything president obama said in the state of the union, but i do agree with this. we have come in fact come out of this crisis. we have built a foundation for economic security and stability, and now we have to grow that for the middle-class. host: where can the two sides agree to try to help the middle class? guest: if you look at the state

of the union, i would have thought that they had crazy glued all of the republican seats. they sat even through their ideas. we built this middle-class in this country by building things. by putting people to work building things. that should be an area we can agree on. the last tax cut, and republicans are very good at saying they have never met a tax cut they didn't like. why would they not like a tax cut for the middle-class? i'm hoping we can get agreement for those two things, tax cuts and infrastructure. host: we will come back to these other issues. indiana, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. my call is for the previous conversation, but also for the guest. i don't really understand how the tax code works but it seems like a lot of the shrinking the

class would be more pronounced when jobs started moving overseas. it might be difficult to say we would start doing it here again, but maybe increasing the incentive as well as the penalty for companies that do it overseas with the majority of the workforce or products coming from outside of the united states, or that hire illegals. and financially cutting taxes on companies who choose to base their operations in the united states. host: --guest: you are right and you should vote for congress because that is precisely what we have tried to do. this is common sense for the middle class. we have a tax code that tax the deck against middle-class in order to stack the deck for the very wealthy, the well-connected, and special interests. for example, if you want to ship job overseas, you get attacked incentive to do that.

no, let's reform the tax code and provide tax incentives for businesses that want to provide jobs here and penalize those that should jobs overseas. -- ship jobs overseas. you have a tax code that is essentially built on shelters and loopholes. some of these corporations pay more for accountants than they do for other areas of their payroll to interpret the tax code to ensure they pay no taxes. why should we have a tax code that continues to squeeze middle-class paychecks, but give something called a trust fund loophole to the absolute wealthiest americans? let shutdown that trust fund loophole and use those savings to invest where -- let's shut down that trust a little and use those savings to invest where we can help the middle-class. host: the tap -- capital gains tax on college plans? guest: i do not agree with

everything the president said in the state of the union. we will meet with the white house and see what alternatives we can produce, but there will be an alternative put forth by house democrats. host: that won't be in the democrat budget. guest: i can't imagine. i just spoke with chris van hollen last night and he and i both agree along with several other democrats that it's not the way to go. host: anthony in lubbock, texas go ahead. caller: my comment this morning is about the proposal to pay for two years of college. i don't think it's a good idea. i went to a school and you see very little of these -- a technical school. they had a curriculum to get into college, and they also had skills that you could walk out the door and make good money.

this was not restaurant wages. these are mechanics, bricklayers, plumbers. you've got a complete skill there at that school, and i think the government would be better off, instead of trying to create a situation like sending all of these people to community college. maybe everybody doesn't want to go. we don't have skills really in this country anymore. people are answering phones. they are working on computers. but real work, you just don't see it anymore hardly. that is my comment. host: all right, anthony, we will have the congressman respond. guest: for me, this is personal. one of the reasons i strongly believe in middle-class growth is i'm a product of middle-class growth. i grew up in america's first suburb in long island. i use the g.i. bill.

things were ok for us until the 1970's until my death paycheck was squeezed and my mom got a job as a typist. most people don't even know what a typewriter is, but she would type in the den and would listen to the 1970's sitcoms with the quick clack of her typewriters stop -- of her typewriters. and then my parents said what college you want to go to and i said, george washington university. i said i'm smart enough and i have the a city schools. -- the sat schools. i might as it can massively, you are smart enough, but we cannot afford it. i went to committee college. that enabled me to save up enough to go to gw ultimately on college loans and paid back. committee college has always been one of those tools that strengthens the middle-class. it's not -- community college has always been one of those tools that strengthens the class. it's not for everybody. we have those tools proceeding

quickly. that thing you were making for a career, nobody wants to buy anymore. these have to be host: the figure yesterday in the papers was that the community college proposal by the president could cause the treasury $6 billion in its first year. can this country afford that? guest: we are going to have to look at those numbers. i'm for any proposal that makes community colleges more accessible to people on their second or third career that do not want to be unemployed. if enabling them to a go to committee college is a good investment, it will let them create a career. host: go ahead. caller: he is going to work with

mr. shelton do you think that we ought to tell him about the summit in rio in the sea cities ? and these other things that the progressives are working with in the sierra club and the aspen institute videos unsustainable developments? before he decides anything on the climate? host: referring to the debate that is happening in the senate on the keystone pipeline bill, part of that was amendments on climate change. guest: i believe in climate change. i do not know ever that-- a reputable scientist that does not believe in it. climate change gives us an opportunity to create new jobs in clean technologies. i'm concerned that we are missing

the boat. think about it what else the middle class in the 1960's and 1970's? the space race. the new smut sputnik is the climate change. they say that if we do not do something about climate change, it is going to affect the military. there is a new generation of jobs, researching, developing, engineering, assembling. i think the federal government out of the partnering with the private sector to create those jobs and make sure they are sustainable over the long term. host: milton, florida democratic caller. caller: good morning. i listen to what all of you democrats are saying about the minimum wage. you know there are people out here who live off of $3000 a year. you're not talking about them.

democrats, if you keep acting the way you are acting, you are going to lose the black vote. talk about the ones who are low. that is what i feel. i am passionate about this. you cannot go around talking about the middle class. you have blacks and people out there protesting for a larger wage. they are starving out here. you have to take care of those individuals. host: deborah talked about low income americans. guest: you are right. one of the strength of the clinton administration, no matter where you work on the class status year, everyone did better. you might not have done as good as you wanted, but everyone was mobile. under this economy only a small segment of the population has done better. and they have not only done

better, they had done extraordinarily well come out leaving everyone else behind. i believe the democrats have to talk to everyone on that economic spectrum. affordable education better jobs, you put these things together and there's no one on the economic spectrum does not understand the importance of the economic strategies. host: is president obama partly to blame for this? he is been in the drivers seat for six years. guest: he had a group of people grabbing the steering wheel and stomping on the brakes and trying to steer farther to the right. it is not easy to get to where you want when you have a bunch of people who want to ditch the car. i think we have to get beyond that, now. have a new congress, a republican majority, a republican majority in the senate. this is a test. we are ready and willing to

engage with them where we can. i do not think we should waste time in areas we cannot agree in. but surely we agree for tax cuts for the middle class and infrastructure. let's pass those things. i am open. i will listen to any arguments on both sides. at the end of the day i said to the white house, i'm speaking for myself, i'm going to have to see in a trade deal that we are increasing the tax. that is my one and only litmus test. host: "the wall street journal" reports that the white house has deployed cabin secretaries and set up a war room on capitol hill. mr. obama asked for legislation to ease passage of trade deals. for train such a move as good for jobs and countering china's influence in the pacific. thing that nancy pelosi will not

without her party. guest: i think it depends on the details of legislation. we have concept and the. that is very interesting. they are entertaining. i want to know the bottom-line on the paychecks. if the paycheck is going to continue to get squeezed, it is going to be difficult if not impossible to support a trade deal. host: it looks like the unions are already against the deal. they say that it will cost the u.s. high-paying jobs. guest: it is a significant concern. i'm glad they set up i worea war room. host: have you seen it? guest: they could show he but they would have to kill me. [laughter] they said, after enough, we will come back to you. host: chris, in texas, a

republican. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that, you know the people have spoken. we now control the house. for a reason. because the policies that you guys have been putting forward are not working and the once you have stalled in the senate, 300 of them, you will not even read them you put them in the trash can, that is why we are pushing to get a republican president as well. so this week and get our country back online with the constitution, the bill of rights, that works. it always has. the guys who founded this country have it figured out. they knew how evil and greedy could be and that is why they wrote that thing, to protect us from that sort of thing. guest: i guess one of the issues i would have with your assessment is that we have cut

the deficit by more than half of what they were when george bush was president. the dow was 7000. it exceeded 17,000. the economy was up over 12% corporate profits over 46%. this ingestion that these policies were bad for america frankly does not make sense to me. what makes sense is that the policy stopped the collapse of the economy but now we have to build a foundation for the people left behind, the middle-class workers who look at their pay stubs and say we do not see the changes. the focus has got to be the middle-class class. the middle class deserves a break. in my district people say that if you're rich the government is there for you. if you are poor, the government will help you. and if you're between, the government has done nothing. if you are in between, you are the backbone of the government and the government and private

sector has to help you. host: steve, alaska, independent caller. caller: i just have a question for your guest about tax accountability. it seems to me that be are paying off a lot of taxes in this country, a lots of taxes. income taxed, everyone understands that has to go into a dedicated fund to operate the country but now we have all these taxes for airplanes and cell phones. they are talking about taxing the internet, and cigarettes, and tobacco, and the social security tax. youth are all of those taxes into the general fund and there is no accountability. i do not know why we would have a dedicated social security tax but they do not go into a social security accounts. or gasoline tax where it pays for infrastructure and highways, like it was intended for. it seems like there is no

accountability and you guys spend it all you want. guest: i think you're right. we have a tax code that is not understandable to any mortal human being. we do not have enough accountability or transparency. we know we pay a tax, we do not know where the money is going. we need to radically reform our tax code, make it simpler. i would support reduced corporate taxes, so long as we know where the investments where the revenues, are going. so long as we know that with reduced corporate tax codes we are making the investments in the people who have not felt those investments over the past several years area did need a simpler, fairer tax code that is not stacked the deck for the very rich provides a deck for the middle class to work in and be successful in. host: kathy, democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to say that i disagree with the previous caller. i think the democrats have been doing a very good job. i didn't want to ask, steve,

what he thought about sanctions on iran. hopefully he is going to give a chance for the talks to be completed, because i think that it's very important. that i know that congress may go ahead and put forth sanctions. i just want to know what your opinion is on that. it is very important. i think we should allow this time. it is very important to talk rather than going to war. i want to know what you felt steve, about this. guest: i do not believe you're going to war and i do not think that anyone is advocating going to war. i'm going to disappoint you on this question. i'm very skeptical about the negotiations and i believe that the application of current sanctions and if iran fails, to give us a deal that truly contains and stops dead in its tracks their nuclear research and development capacity, you need sanctions to ensure that

the iranian regime gets to that point and i do not think they're are going to get to that point. i'm to the left of center on social and economic issues. i'm the right of center on national security and policy issues and i do not believe that iran is a trustworthy partner. if there is going to be a deal, again, i will take a look on it, it better be transparent and result in the elimination of every aspect of a rants nuclear program. the world cannot afford a nuclear capable or equipped iran. and their neighbors in the middle east cannot afford that. you will see a proliferation of nuclear weapons programs in the middle east, which makes it more dangerous today. host: lawmakers plan to go ahead and push for sanctions for ron. a-- iran.

all of them saying, give diplomacy a chance. they write that the agreement so far has had three main benefits. first, it stopped a-- iran's program, it allows the world to see that iran is living up to its commitments, and he gave us time and space to negotiate a long-term settlement, which is crucial for the future of security. guest: those are pretty fancy titles that they do not have seats in the u.s. congress and my responsibility is to do what i believe is best for my constituents and country. i do not believe that a country for the sake of getting a deal done is in the best interests for those folks and for the u.s..

i'm not thing that we should pull the plug on negotiations but i do believe that if you're negotiating with a tough negotiating partner and they believe that you yourself will provide relief, that is not a negotiating strategy, that is a concession strategy. we will keep the pressure on iran to get to a deal that everyone can support. host: if this proposal came to the floor on the house to further the sanctions, how may democrats do you think would support that? guest: impossible to say. i do not think there is a critical mass right now to oppose the sanctions. i believe the sanctions on the floor now would pass the congress, mostly with republican votes. with mine as well if it was on the floor right now. host: do believe with this -- do you agree with the speaker of the house to invite benjamin netanyahu? guest: we have had ups and downs in our relationship with israel,

with every president since 1948. this is nothing new and i'm anxious to see the prime minister and here where we go from here in the peace process. host: stephen, fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. i am the middle class and i do agree with president obama on the 50 years of doing something as the definition of insanity. let's get rid of welfare. we have been doing that for 50 years as well. i agree with the president on community college. let's integrate 13th and 14th grades into the public school systems. you can drop out at 16. let's that 13th and 14th grade as an option. host: we'll have the congressman we and on your thoughts. guest: i don't think it's 13th or 14th grade, and think it is

what can you do if you're making a certain product all your life you have been on the factory floor making this product, and suddenly any technology from japan comes out and makes that product obsolete? so that you can go to committee college in your 40's and 50's and learn a new career. we know that the new jobs in this country are going to be in manufacturing, 3-d printing, cyber defense. that is where the careers are going to be over the long term and that is where our community colleges need to be oriented. about welfare i hear a lot of my colleagues talk about getting rid of welfare but they continue to vote for welfare for the biggest corporations. what form of welfare is more insidious than paying corporations to ship jobs overseas because it is cheaper for them. i will take a look at every single program, we ought to everything on the table and review it, and make a decision about whether it is still pertinent and helps people.

but it has to include all the corporate benefits that every tax bill passed by republicans puts on their friends. caller: i agree with the congressman, exactly. one thing that is happening to is that the big business, unlike henry ford, a republican, who believed in the middle class and giving people of living wage, this is not believed by the republican party today. their purpose today is to get people to make as little as possible so that they can survive. we can't afford that because we have illuminated all of the companies and businesses that pay social security. that is our problem. guest: i think with one exception, or several exceptions. one of my favorite

republican presidents was dwight d. eisenhower. he believed you have to build infrastructure and make college more affordable. it was eisenhower who supported and develops many of the student loan programs we had today. richard nixon understood that we have to make certain investments in environmental technologies and protections. he understood that is how you grow middle-class. republicans like dwight d. eisenhower and president obama and president clinton believe that you have to meet in the middle and the middle is the middle class. host: the u.s. is set to clear the officer in ferguson. it says that the shooting investigation was largely completed weeks ago. they were not authorized to speak officially. the cases now in the hands of a federal prosecutor and the final d decision is expected

before attorney general eric holder in a few weeks. guest: one of the most telling polls had 85% of african americans believing that the police were unfair unjust, and do not treat african american civilians with respect. 85% of non-african-americans believe that the police are fair and just entry people with respect. there is a divide in perception, if not reality. we have to bridge the divide. host: do you believe there could be bipartisan agreement about the criminal justice system and making takes -- tweaks there ? guest: yes. anytime that you can get a republican and democrat on an issue, do it. host: one last phone call.

pam, ohio, republican. caller: i was just calling about -- my heart goes out to the middle class and i believe that the people on food stamps should be paying for their food, the same as the middle class. one way to do this is to take the earned income credit and pay the food stamp bill. the middle class is doing all they can do. they are working and buying their food and paying their taxes. host: can i ask how old you are? caller: how old i am? 58 years old. host: what do you think should be done? caller: people on food stamps at the end of the year when they get their earned income tax they should buy their food and give the money back to the government. guest: we heard from pam what i

am hearing from lots of people in different ways. the specifics of her idea, i don't think i would agree with. but she is reflecting, if you're rich government takes care of you, if you're poor, the government takes care of you but it is not taking care of me. i don't want them to take care of me, i want them to not make my life more miserable by ignoring me. that is what you're hearing from pam and it is being zaidi sweeping across the middle class. in this election, neither party should overstate the case. two thirds of voters stayed home believing that neither party had bold solutions. in house democrats generated bold solutions for them. host: but would you say over the next two years? guest: middle class, middle class, middle class. you're talking about infrastructure and the future that prospers. there is a sense, people look at

their kids and think, i'm not going to -- they're not going to do as well as i did. that is never happened before. host: the global war on morris your new book. guest: it is a scathing parody of washington dc, about a guy. he is accidentally figured as a terrorist because of dick cheney. it reflects the hilarity and sometimes absurdity of washington excesses in surveillance. host: when did you write this? guest: i wrote this on my blackberry. i would be in meetings and hearing the stuff and then writing down what i could. i worked this into a novel, which is getting wonderful reviews not because the book is good that the presumption is that a book by congressman must be that bad.

i am thrilled with the reviews. host: thank you for the time. coming up next we are talking with representativese tom -- representative tom mcclintock. we will be right back. >> here is some of our featured programming for this weekend. on c-span2, saturday night at 10:00, former governor mike huckabee on america's current political and cultural landscape. sunday night 11:00 a princeton historian examines the political institutions of president johnson. an c-span3, saturday, 8:30 p.m., lectures on history. uc davis president on the role of the british will air force

and allied strategy during one or two. and sunday evening 6:00, a tour of the school's a millionaire -- and youamelia earhart collection. e-mail us at c-span.org or see nd aside to tweet. andrew keen, author of the internet is not the answer on how the public is being used by internet companies for their own profit. >> in the old days, people went to work in factories. they were paid for their labor they worked nine to five and did what they wanted with the money.

today people working in google, twitter, we're unpaid labor. we are not rewarded or knowledge that we are creating the value for them. and worse than that, we are the ones being packaged up as the product because of course with these companies are doing is learning more and more about us from our behavior, from what we publish, from our photographs from our ideas, from what he by and say and do not say. they are learning about us and creating a panopticon. they are repackaging us as the product. we are working for free and then we are being sold. it is the ultimate scan. am the perfect offer to hitchcock movie. >> washington journal continues. host: we're back with

representative tom mcclintock. the president is calling for middle class economics. he laid out his proposals in the state of the union. is there anything that you would agree to?\ guest: this is the same old policies that have delivered six years of debt and doubt and despair. he said we are going to go and sock the wealthy by taxing investments. understand what he is saying and the indications of the middle class -- and the locations for the middle class. if you tax investments your taxing investments when we need them. host: he wants a child-care tax credits, people to be able to have paid six leave -- sick leave, you do not agree?

guest: i agree but they should be financed by reductions in spending not increased taxes and a time of the government is taking more from taxpayers percentages ever taken in its entire history as a percentage of the gdp of the nation's economy. we are well above the 40 year average in the revenues being extracted out of the economy. tax increases are not the answer. tax increases are part of the problem. if more and more spending, higher and higher taxes, more and more burdens and regulations, where the -- were the path to prosperity, we should be living in a golden age. they do not work and have never worked. it was estimated that if it should have mirrored the

reagan policies, we would have millions more americans working today and earning thousands and thousands of dollars more per family. host: layout specifics for our viewers, how republicans, what you would do to help the middle-class americans. how would you use regulations and what regulations? guest: a rising tide lifts all boats. that is the essence of the policies -- we know how to fix a an economy we have done so many times before. people say this is the worst depression since the great depression. i remember a time when we had mile-long lines around gas stations, interest rates were over 30%. it was the end of the carter administration. ronald reagan took office and diagnosed the problem very differently than this administration. you remember it this --

he to magically reduce the tax and regulatory burden on the nation and the result was a. period of profound economic -- bill clinton did the same thing. when i look at the state of the union message and see the squandered opportunity -- bill clinton have the same opportunity, 20 years ago. his policies were not working and were overwhelmingly repudiated by the voters. he faced a republican congress for the first time in 40 years and came before the congress and his state of the union said, i get it. the era of big government is over and he made good on the promise and reached across the aisle to the republicans and together, they did remarkable things. they cut spending by 4% of gdp. they attacked entitlements

spending. they had the biggest gains tax cut in history. the economy absolutely blossomed. there is a working, proven model that barack obama could've used to salvage what remains of his presidency. instead, he squandered the opportunity. host: mitt romney is considering a third bid for the white house. he said, he supports raising the minimum wage. do you agree? guest: only if you want to rip the first rung in the ladder of opportunity. the minimum wage does not support a family. we all know that. it is not supposed to support a family. it is the first job, when you have no skills, no experience, the working history. that is how you get into the job market. that is how you develop that

experience, develop that work record. get your first raise and then your next raise and then your promotion. that is the first rung of opportunity. if your labor is an unskilled person entering the workforce worth seven dollars an hour at a job, and the minimum wage is $10, you have been made permanently unemployable. the first rung of the economic ladder has been ripped out and you cannot get on it. that is a tragedy. if mitt romney supporting that, then i think it would be a terrible mistake for the party to renominate him or for the country to reelect him. host: he would not get your vote? guest: no. host: democratic caller, you are up first. caller: i would like to know if he is aware of the people who buy things are the real job

creators. and this, this canard that a lot of republican politician seems to be selling that the people who have enormous amounts of money are the job creators, it is simple he not true. the amount that they consume cannot support the economy of the whole united states. and i think you and members of your party are doing a great disservice to the rest of us. guest: you are absolutely right that two thirds of economic growth depends on consumer spending but that consumer spending is accommodated by the industry and commerce that is created by investment. if you tax investment, as the president

proposes doing more of, you get less of that investment and the economy cannot expand to meet the needs. there's a difference between that redistribution economics the president is advocating and what truly grows in economy. there is a huge difference between me giving you a dollar for a cup of coffee and me just giving you a dollar. when we make that exchange, that dollar for a cup of coffee, what is going on in that transaction? i'm telling you that your cup of coffee is worth more to me than your dollar and you're telling me that my dollar is more than your cup of coffee. we both go wait richer, with something of greater value than we to go into that transaction. redistribution policy does not create growth, does not create prosperity. it destroys prosperity and that is part of the fallacy of the

president's economic worldview. host: west virginia carl, you are up next. caller: i kind of agree with this notion of two years of college, but there are different ways of paying for it. you know, i think that if the government could pay for the education of teachers and have them give back, pro bono, in some of these colleges, i think that would be a better way to go at that. guest: i am a californian and old enough to remember the days when the state of california offered a free university education to every californian who wanted one. they did so by the way with much lower taxes than they are charging today. i'm afraid that government is fueled -- has fueled a tuition

spiral by pumping more and more money into the higher education system. universities, you offer the more money, they take it or it could take it by raising tuition. we see tuition growing over the rate of inflation. health care is growing at twice the rate of inflation and we thought that was a crisis. these kids end up graduating from college loaded up with debt a cannot repay into a job market that is sluggish at best. they end up being unable to make consumer purchases, because their credit has already been eaten up either student debt. -- by their student debt. this is a problem that government created and we not going to solve it by more of the same. host: john, pennsylvania,

independent caller. caller: and talking about immigration. it is simple to solve that problem. it's already on the books. all they got to do is start putting people into jail that hires them. we know where they are at. got to stop that. as far as middle-class and trade deals, sign all you want to. but when they put tariffs on anything that comes back to the united states, it makes it just as expensive to have a corporation overseas as it does here. them to simple steps would solve all the middle-class problems right there. guest: middle-class problems with not be solved by 5 million illegal immigrants flooding the job market and depressing wages

and competing for scarce jobs, particularly in a stegman market like this. your point is right. the reform act that reagan signed legalized 3 million legally in the country. part of that was to secure borders and for bed the employment of illegal immigrants. we got the amnesty but never got the employer sanctions or border security. i think your absolute correct that is the root of our problem. it is not that our laws are broken it is that they have not been enforced. i am highly skeptical of government the promises that if we just grant amnesty to the 11 million plus illegals now in the country we will get even tougher border security than ever. if they were not willing to enforce our existing

immigration laws, whether they believe they are going to enforce tougher laws in the future? the record is clear on trade. every country that engages in free trade prospers from that trade. every country that imposes trade restrictions is economically harmed by those restrictions. we have had many examples, just in the history of this country to back that up. host: on immigration republicans over odds. they kicked off with a border security built but it is already under attack by conservatives. are you in the group that is critical of this bill? guest: not yet. i have not looked at it yet. from what i understand, it is a fairly tough security bill or it might think it is, i do not

trust its enforcement. it is not matter how strong the law is if it is not going to be enforced. i think i will tend to support that border security bill but i do not use that as a reason for them saying ok, well the next act is granting amnesty. i will not believe we have secured our borders until i se e us secure our borders. i do not think that there's anything wrong with our current laws except that they are not being enforced. host: your conservative colleagues, according to usa today, do not trust leaders. they believe it would allow more immigrants into the country to work and provide legal status for those already here. guest: i think the fears are well founded. they have a long history of this payment dating back to 1986 to justify their cynicism. reagan's term, trust but verify,

is a pretty good policy. i have nothing against a stronger border enforcement bill. i havemy concern is, until i see it enforced, it does not mean anything. host: dan, democratic caller. caller: let me remind you it was your party, the last eight years before obama, that the country to its knees. it was your to go down economic policy that brought america to its knees. -- trickle-down economic policy that brought america to its knees. now, a bomb of office back and you are still condemning -- obama brought us back and you are still condemning him. you guys don't have any ideas.

look at health care. when you are in office, you did not give a damn about health care. then he sit back and complain. the only thing you guys want to do is make sure that your corporations are safe so they can keep giving you that finance money you guys need to get reelected. host: ok, i'll have the congressman respond. guest: that is bad history and bad economics. you are not correct in several points. the george w bush administration that had policies that were appalling. he increased it by 2%. bill clinton went after entitlement spending. george w. bush presided over the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the great society. the stimulus spending

the ended up stimulating nothing but the government began under george w. bush. when you say " our policies created this problem" let me remind you that if higher and higher taxes, more and more spending, bigger deficits are the path to prosperity we should be at an economic golden age right now. i problem with barack obama is not that he changed george w. bush's policies but rather that he took the worst of them and double down on them. republicans and democrats have to get away from all of this harassing. it is not a question of republican and democrat policies. it is a question of policies that work and policies that do not work. the policies at work -- that's work is that when you reduce the burdens on the economy, it blossoms.

ronald reagan did that and successfully produced in an air of economic productivity. so did harry truman. he took the federal budget from 85 billion dollars to $30 million in a single year. he fired 10 million federal employees. they thought that this would create a 25% unemployment rate and a second great depression but instead we had the postwar boom. we also know what does not work. when you increase the burdens on the economy, extract money from the economy for government to abuse, you end up doing an arm's harm. that happened under george w. bush and it happened under hubert hoover. he imposed a steep tax on 20,000 imported products. he ended up

taking the federal income tax rates from 25 to 63%. he increased federal spending for medically, by 60% in just four years. the result was coming turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930's. it is policies that work and policies that do not work. the problem is, this administration is obstinately pursuing policies that just you not work. they did not work with republicans or democrats. he is refusing to even consider the policies that have proven under both democratic and republican administrations to produce prosperity. time is short. the house is gaveling in their legislative session at 9 a.m. we have about 15 minutes left with the congressman. frank, chicago, republican. caller: i have a very simple

solution for the middle class. if they think back to what happened in the 1960's and early 1970's, to deduct the interest you paid on automobiles and credit cards, they took that away. if they that right back, it wouldn't take them 15 minutes. we get past that and be in good shape. the other problem, a talk about needing $5 million for community college. all they have to do is take the money they give to egypt and israel, $5 billion a year, that would pay for the community college. simple as that. guest: there are a lot of trade-offs that have to be involved in cancellations like that. what is the impact on our foreign policy? impact on the region? and not sure that i can endorse a particular prescription but your overall point is correct.

in order to do this, you have to reduce spending, not increase taxes. as i pointed out earlier, we are in a period of record taxation. we are well above the 40%. that is not the solution to our problems. that is went to do further harm to the economy. -- is going to do further harm to the economy. host: should there be further sanctions on iran? guest: i believe we should. the government of a man has made its intentions very clear. we have to remember, the government is not stable. there is a huge freedom movement under the surface of iran. a little bit of moral support from the u.s. could go a long way towards the freedom movement.

host: this figure of the house invited israel's leader benjamin netanyahu to speak before congress about iran. they say this is a breach of protocol. host:guest: he is one of the greatest leaders of our time. offered a sensible policy in the middle east then we side of this administration. the congress has every right and i would argue a responsibility, to seek his counsel on these matters. host: democratic caller, ohio. caller: one thing about ronald reagan he raised taxes 12 or 13 times. i know that is a fact. do not try to spin it any other way or it-- any other way. why don't you start going after

the guys who hire the legal aliens? guest: we should do that. we should enforce the employer sanctions. it is a travesty that we have not. i think that is one of the big drivers in this illegal immigration crisis. i think that you are absolutely right on that point. with respect to ronald reagan raising taxes he cut overall spending by 2% of gdp. you are correct he raised certain taxes. but you have to view that in the context of the tax rate coming down. i believe it was 73% down to 25% during his administration. his administration cut taxes they cut taxes to dramatically. it preceded the enormous economic expansion we saw under his administration.

millions more americans would be working today and they would be earning thousands per family. host: sarah california, democrat. caller: i wanted to as a little bit more about what the republican from illinois said. there is no response about the ideas. i think this is a great opportunity between now and fall to get some of these things do ne. i think campaigning will start after that and there will not be an opportunity to do these things. i think the community college idea is a great idea. there are some examples of working with the president and the democrats on keystone. maybe he wants a $10 minimum wage, maybe you can work it -- you do this, will do that.

the affordable care act there are good things in that. keeping kids on until 26. making it work. we will see what happens. not long on the past, the 1940's, the 1960's, they don't remember these days, our country is young enough that we do have to totally dwell on that. guest: there is a great deal to learn about the from the past. we learn which policies work by looking back into the lab notes of civilization. to say to ignore history i think, is very self-destructive. in public policy, you have got to look at how these policies have worked before which ones have worked and which ones have failed. when you say there has not been

a republican response to these great issues, i let me remind you, we sent legislation to the senate, especially concentrating on job creation, and they were all ignored in the senate. for example, health-care, there have been a large number of republican proposals to replace obamacare with the patient centered system. we took huge tax makes to corporations of the can go out and choose a plan that you have to live with. why don't we give those same tax breaks to individual workers, so they can go out into the health care market and select a plan that best meets their own needs? white only resorted people the freedom to shop anywhere in the country they want -- why don't we restore the freedom to people to shop anywhere in the country they want? why aren't we expanding health saving accounts of people can

meet to their health care needs with pretax dollars? these are proposals made by republicans and ignored by the senate and white house. now, finally, with this election, i think you're going to see the senate finally deliberate again. there is not going to be agreement between the house and the senate, there never is, that never is supposed to be, they were designed to disagree. but those differences can once again be isolated and resolved through the conference process. before, harry reid something blocked any action in the senate. caller: hello you really discussedgust me. host: hold on, why are you

throwing that out? caller: the koch brothers, they threw the money and they all run out to the line. you pick the money, you can predict the vote. we had many fracturing the machine tool trades, unions. can freely different time. guest: i have to ask, what about bill clinton? he followed the same policies and had the same results. reducing the burdens of the government on the economy amnnd seeing a period of found economic expansion. the president had an opportunity to take a page from bill clinton's handbook and reach across the aisles and work with the republicans on these reforms that we know do this this

prosperity. he took a highly ideological approach. that was a very poor start to his final two years. host: here is a tweet from one of our viewers. do you have any plans to run for governor or senate? guest: i have my hands full in the house. host: barbara boxer says she is not going to run again. do you have any ideas or desire to run for that? guest: i have my hands full in the house and i am honored to serve there. host: illinois, independent caller. caller: i just want to correct representative tom mcclintock on the immigration issue. i'm retired law enforcement from california and old enough to remember the that the

immigration issue is not a problem but my stepfather, a migrant worker, came here and worked in the fields, kept out there like a farm animal and doing all the dirty work. the problem thebecame that they are no longer in the fields. they are taking over the whole state. he and others like him will become extinct as their enclaves become smaller and smaller. it is not a criticism, it is a reality. if he wanted to stop integration, you should have 50 years ago. but you didn't because you needed the money for the businesses. and now that the mexicans had taken over the state, they are moving eastward. guest: our country was built on legal immigration. we are a nation that is taken from all the great nations of the world. the only way you create one great nation from all the nations of the world is through

a process of assimilation. they come to america with a sincere and demonstrated desire to adopt a common language, a common culture, and a common appreciation of american constitutional principles. our laws were not written to people keep people out. illegal immigration undermines the whole process of assimilation that makes this possible in the first place. if we're not going to only tolerate but also rewards illegal immigration, there is no point to it legal immigration. that is the real threat that is created when a president who is sworn to take care of the laws -- that the laws are enforced picks and chooses which laws are enforced and who gets to obey them or the above them -- live

above them. that is dangerous in a republic such as ours. host: dennis, republican. caller: i have a different take on raising the middle class. it looks to me like the middle class -- even though the income for person is lower, the total income is higher. the middle class raising its income by 20% would only contribute to inflation. it would lower the purchasing power of the dollar. right now it seems that we have deflation as far as income is concerned. and inflation, as far as the

price of what people have got to buy. host: congas congressman? guest: inflation is not population driven. it is how much more dollars are being put into the economy measured against the output of the economy. i do believe you are right that the federal reserve with its quantitative easing has set the stage for a very dangerous inflation when monetary velocity begins to pick up. that is when the economy begins to function, you're going to see markets adjust to the fact that there are far more dollars into the system now than there were just a few years ago. with respect to the relationship between population and economy you're right. population is a big driver of the economy. the question though, is

whether the government will allow the conditions to take place where jobs can grow, congress can thrive, enterprise can succeed. that is where this government is failing and feeling badly. host: democratic caller laurie. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all, i disagree with this man on minimum wage. the thing about it is, the companies are doing well. they are really doing well. you can tell by looking at her stark market -- our stock market. all the wage increases that's us workers was supposed to get is going towards stockholders. guest: you are absolutely right. there are some that will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. those who are to held onto their jobs -- able to hold onto their jobs.

the folks that are going to lose are the folks have no sales or -- skills or experience. host: we have to end it there. spoken this day, o lord, guide our minds, thoughts, hearts and desires. breathe into the members of this house a new spirit, shape this congress and our world according to your design that all might fulfill your holy will. bless the members of this assembly with attentive hearts and open minds that through the diversity of they may sort out

what is best for this nation. may all speech in this assembly be free of all prejudice so that others might listen wholeheartedly. then, all dialogue will be mutually respectful surprising even us with unity and justice. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journalf e sprocdiand announcetou apov tre. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal standapov. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. ms. bonamici: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united statesf era and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under indivisible, with liberty and justice for al the serchll entertaiupvest for one-minute speeches eh side of the aisle.

for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: mrspke t president's state of the union speech was a disconnect with the american people who live and feel the failures of his policies. that is why the voters clearly spoke to stop tax increases destroying jobs in favor of the republican bipartisan legislation to create jobs. big government fails. the real facts threatening the middle class are $869.3 billion in taxes in obamacare according to the congressional budget office. 5.5 million americans who have fallen into poverty since obama became president, u.s. census bureau. 401,000 construction jobs lost since obama became congress, bureau of labor statistics. 2,484 dollar decline in the median household income since obama became president u.s.

census bureau. again, the president should stop, change course and work with republicans for legislation that promote small business jobs. in conclusion, god blebs our troops and the president by his actions must never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. welcome right to life marchers to washington today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time sxd. for what puosdo t geleomgase recogniti? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. tpeerroemreth gentle rzeon minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. just the night before last the president addressed this body and laid out an agenda that we may not agree with certain elements but there are elements we can act upon. mr. kildee: we can take up an infrastructure bill. we can ensure every young person to go to community college. we can take up the big questions that the american people expect us to address,

that are important to growing our economy. but we're not doing that. instead this morning leadership will present to this body legislation that will again seek to curtail the health care rights of women. not because you have some expectation that it will become law, but i believe because it's just another attempt to pandor to the more extreme voices to the base. we're called -- president and others have called to us to elevate the dialogue in congress and elevate our aspirations for our country. we have legislation before us that would put limitations on the choices that women have and even deny access to abortion services to save the life of a mother. this is the wrong direction. we need to reject it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time h eir. for what purposdo t gen eoiaee recognion? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one me d risanexnd my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recogzefoon e. >> mr. speaker, i'm honored today to rise in recognition of

three police officers, brandon brown and blake andrews, they're selfless public servants who committed their lives to protect ours. mr. collins: they named the officers their 2014 officers of the year. our corner of northeast georgia is safe and peaceful and thanks to the police officers. i offer them my gratitude and respect. you see, the entire department deserves recognition in cob kong because the chief and his squad are poud patriotic americans. not only do they keep their local community safe, they started a scholarship fund to honor deputy steven la cruz who died in pursue of a traffic violator. i'm honored by their sacrifice remain committed to working on their behalf here in congress. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from eg sk reti?

ms. bonamici: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognid r eut ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. 1973, 42 years ago the supreme court ruled in roe v. wade that women have the right to safe and legal abortion. i remember the days before that landmark decision. you see mr. speaker, over the centuries it's been clear, when abortion is illegal it does not go away, but it's very unsafe. on this anniversary of roe v. wade we should commit to reducing unwanted pregnancies, we should commit to making family planning services more available, to help women and families, we should be passing the paycheck fairness act for equal bay and a plan for jobs across this country. to help women and families, let's stop trying to take away women's rights. let's protect their health care. let's pass the women's health protection act and say no to unconstitutional attempts to restrict the right of women to safe and legal abortion. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yids back. for what purpose eshe gema illinois seek reio >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and ex r. the spkeprteor the gentleman is recognized for o mite. mr. hultgren: thk mr. speaker. i rise today sad and disappointed. i'm sad and disappointed in a nation as great as this, lives of so many of our unborn children are ended through abortion. i'm disappointed that we have not moved past this blot on our nation's history and forward into respecting the dignity of all humans, born and unborn. i'm disappointed that so many of my colleagues here continue to ignore the science that shows over and over the self-evident life in the womb. even so, i'm more hopeful than ever before there is good news to celebrate. abortion numbers are down, as are teen pregnancies. states have passed record numbers of laws to protect women's health and the lives of the unborn. and today on the national mall i look forward to seeing the thousands of teenagers and young adults marching hand in

hand to the supreme court. their generation is our hope to bring about a culture of life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washitose itn? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is reid e mi. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to call on congress to oppose efforts that would undermine our domestic maritime economy and work force. mr. kilmer: 95 years ago congress recognized the critical importance of maintaining a strong domestic maritime fleet by passing the merchant marine act, also known as the jones act. congress is now considering unraveling a law that's played a key role then suring a robust ship yard industrial base that supports our military our homeland security. the jones act has also guaranteed that the united states has a highly trained and skilled mariners who can be called into service during times of national emergency. so america can build ships for

america. we saw how commercial vessels flying the american flag played a major role, activated from reserve status in support of operations enduring freedom and iraqi freedom. this is about american jobs. in 2012, the maritime industry employed more than 57,000 workers and supports $15.2 billion in gross business income in washington state alone. in the pacific northwest, we understand the importance of the jones act. why would congress kill good american jobs? thank you mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker thspkeprteor without objection, the gentlewoman from nor cola gnedorneine. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. too often good ideas get lost in bureaucratic red tape. today we have the opportunity to start cutting that tape away. h.r. 161, the natural gas pipeline permitting reform act requires a timely decision to

be made on liquefied natural gas projects around the country, projects that have been held back by unnecessary regulations. this streamlines the process, getting these projects off of paper and into place. countless economic opportunities will begin. decreased dependence on on foreign oil and an energized energy sector are waiting. all we need to do is cut the red tape. this is a commonsense economic step towards a healthier economy. i am proud to support h.r. 161 and the energizing opportunities that come with its passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina yields back e ncofer time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speakerrore without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois ogzorneine. ms. schakowsky: if you thought the 114th congress would be different, think again. if you thought republicans were ready to put partisan politics behind them, think again.

and if you thought they finally ended their war on women, think again. last night thanks to republican women and their supporters, the republicans abandoned their effort to pass a 20-week abortion ban, even for women who were victims of rape or incest. but instead of respecting women, this morning the republicans are coming back to the floor again. this time attempting to deny women access to her constitutionally protected right to safe and legal abortions by restricting coverage to abortions including in private plans purchased with women's private dollars. this is harmful to women and continues to ignore the american people who believe that women and their doctors should make important medical decisions, not politicians. roe v. wade wasn't the beginning of women having abortions. it was the end of women dying from abortions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ilno dsthbance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north cal se gnio >> i seek to address the house

for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north caroli isecnid r e minute. >> mr. speaker, this saturday, january 24, marks the 50th anniversary of the death of wince 10 churchill. mr. holding: he's passed from memory into history yet stands unchallenged as one of the greatest figures of modern times. born of an american mother and british father, his life symbolized the english speaking peoples. just outside this very chamber, mr. speaker stands an enduring tribute to the british bulldog in the freedom foyer. the placement of churchill's bust serves as a testament to our special relationship to the united kingdom and the values our two nations fought to defend, democracy and freedom. mr. speaker, i'd like to submit into the record a touching account of mr. churchill's passing written by sillia sands, his granddaughter and the only surviving member of the churchill family present at his death, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from north car eba t ban ohis time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek regnio mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for onmitendo vexndy mas. the spear mp witutbjtie ntmafr tas cnifor onte mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to commemorate the loss of a dear friend, steve bradka, he was studying at the university of nebraska where he developed a passion to work in the railroad industry. over 40 years he held several leadership positions and was promoted into the brotherhood of locomotive engineers in 1975. in 1991, steve relocated to fort worth where he served as vice chairman until he retired. he was very engaged in the community. as one of the founding members of the texas stone wall democrats, he inspired colleagues to run for local positions to improve our community. he left his mark on fort worth by standing up for those who

had no voice and mentoring dozens of local chairmen to help them become qualified representatives. he's survived by his husband tim sister connie benjamin, brothers lex and wife patty, four nieces and eight great nieces and nephews. his leadership and legacy in the fort worth community will be celebrated this saturday at the south side preservation hall. he was a great guy to everyone who knew him and everyone is sad of his loss but remember him finally for just being a great person. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tex yield ce balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from northari ekecnion? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rul, ca up house resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will repo t resolution the clerkho calendar number 4 house resolution 42 resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house

the bill h.r. 7, to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees, and two one motion to recommit. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for oneou ms: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purpose of debate overwhelm, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i m csu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: during condeti e resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislate yso

ixtd eirerks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: house resolution 42 provides for a closed rule allowing consideration of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. since 1973, at least 52 million children's lives have been tragically taken by abortion in the united states. it is unconscionable that in america where we fight for life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we tolerate this systematic extermination of an entire generation of the most vulnerable among us. in the midst of that darkness, there's been one area of consensus, mr. speaker. protecting taxpayers from paying for a practice they may sincerely oppose. since 1976, the hyde amendment, which prohibits the federal funding of abortions, has been included in relevant appropriations bills.

each year it has been consistently renewed and supported by congressional majorities and presidents of both parties. naral, an abortion advocacy group, has suggested that prohibiting public funds for abortion reduces abortion rates by roughly 50%. that means that half of the women who would have otherwise had a publicly funded abortion end up carrying their babies to term. in 1993, the congressional budget office estimated that the hyde amendment prevented as many as 675 abortions every single year. that means that millions of americans are alive today because of the hyde amendment. after 38 years it's time for this lifesaving amendment to become permanent law. when barack obama was elected in 2008, a myriad of long established laws, including the hyde amendment, created a mostly uniform policy that federal

programs did not pay for abortion or subsidized health plans that included coverage of abortion with only narrow exceptions. unfortunately obamacare destroyed that long-standing policy bypassing the hyde amendment restriction, and paving the way for publicly funded abortions. the president's health care law authorized massive federal subsidies to assist millions of americans to purchase private health plans that will cover abortions on demand. in other words, mr. speaker, hard earned taxpayer dollars are now being used to pay for elective abortions. this is simply unacceptable. h.r. 7 will codify the principles of the hyde amendment on a permanent governmentwide basis, which means that it will apply to long-standing federal health programs such as medicaid, schip, and federal

employees health benefits as well as to new programs created by obamacare. h.r. 7 prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions. it does so by, one, prohibiting all federal funding for abortions. two, prohibiting federal subsidies for a.c.a. health care plans that include coverage for abortion. prohibiting the use of federal facilityities for abortion, and -- facilities for abortion. four, prohibiting federal employees from performing abortions. this commonsense measure which restores a long-standing bipartisan agreement protects the unborn and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund thousands of abortions. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to vote to respect our nation's consensus on abortion funding and a firm life

-- affirm life by voting in favor of this rule and h.r. 7. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves the bancofer . the gtlom fm w rk is recogned. ms. slaughter: good morning, mr. speaker. thank you. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and i yield myself such time as ianse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman omeworks c ms. slaughter: mr. speaker down the hall in the old house chamber stands the muse of history. purchased atop the room she's riding the chariot of time. she's watched silently over the proceedings of this house since 1807. and in the folio that rests in the crook of her arm she records every move large and small, for the benefit of all generations past present, and future. what she's recording today i am certain is a disappointment. the proceedings playing out before us today show a blatant overt disrespect for the time

honored rules of the house first written by thomas jefferson in 1801. the bill was supposed to come to the floor today, a bill that would have stripped women of their right to actually protected medical care, was so odious and destructive that some of the women of the republican conference rebelled against it. it was based on unsound and fictitious science and caused such a meltdown in the republican conference that the house majority pulled from the floor for fear it wouldn't pass. but something had to be done. because visitors were coming to town for the 42nd anniversary of the landmark supreme court decision roe vs. wade. on this day there are floods of visitors here in the nation's capital to fight against that ruling. to protest that decision, and raise their clarion call against a woman's right to choose.

in this current congress the bill was not brought to us under regular order, as not many are. it had no committee action. it had no hearings, no markups, no witnesses testified in favor or against it. and it came out of the rules committee and to the floor today under a closed rule. one of the ever ready alternatives gave to us last night which is even worse than the one it replaced. it seems that the majority has an endless supply of bills attacking women's health. can't pass this one, grab another. can't pass that one? just take the next one. their insistence on attacking women's health seemingly knows no bounds. and because this bill has not seen any committee action in the current congress no one has been able to read it or to weigh in on it to amend it, and some of us would like a clarification on the sordid history of this bill. the earliest version of this

bill was in the 112th congress. in it was a phrase that lit a firestorm across the nation. it was quote forcible rape end quote. the bill was indeed the one that would have required women to prove that will their rape was quote, forcible, end quote, so it could be categorized as, quote legitimate, end quote has nothing been learned here? the next generation bill in the 113th congress included a provision -- listen to this america, that would have required the i.r.s. to audit women who had had abortions to ensure that the pregnancy they terminated had been the result of rape or incest. this extreme legislation a dust cover holdover the last congress was written -- sponsored by a man, originated from the subcommittee composed of 13 men and passed out of the judiciary committee with the votes of 21

republican men. remember those pictures, america? all of us women sittling there -- men sitting there deciding what women's health would be about? it's a peril stration of the problem we have had for a long time. that men in blue suits and red ties determine what women can and should do when it comes to their own health or bodies. this bill is absolutely a solution in search of a problem as ms. foxx pointed out, all is taken care of there is no tax money for abortions. the bill in its current form would permanently, permanently prohibit low-income women, civil servants, district of columbia residents and military women from accessing a full range of reproductive services by codifying the hyde amendment. which unfortunately already requires no taxpayer funds be spent on abortions except in

very limited services. it's been this way for decades. congress should be repealing these unfair discriminatory bans not doubling down on them. are these provisions still in the current bill before us? we have had no chance to check. it has been a while since we have seen this bill. this display is a messaging opportunity and another attempt to dismantle the affordable care act. the bill not only threatens women who buy their insurance on public exchanges with federal tax credits, but threatens women who use their own private money to pay for their health insurance on the exchanges. experts tell us that this would jeopardize the availability of abortion coverage for all women no matter where they buy their insurance. when the house considered this bill in the previous congress, it was attempt number 49. and today is attempt number 55.

that's right, ladies and gentlemen. 55 votes the majority has held in this chamber last session and now this to take health care away from their own constituents. and the house majority wasted nearly $80 million of taxpayers' money to destroy the affordable care act. infrastructure money anyone? time and again we see the house majority turn their backs on the people they represent and force the extreme agenda, one filled with poison pills that will take the country backward. backward to a time when women died from back alley abortions. back to a time of women in desperate circumstances seeking illegal procedures performed by strangers with dirty hands in unspeakable conditions. backwards to a time when medical choices were not the choice of a woman but of the public. backward to a time when women who quote themself into trouble, end quote by getting

pregnant could not work and could not go to school. these choices are personal. they are not public. a woman's actions regarding her own reproductive health should include anyone she deems appropriate. not the politicians in washington or state capitals scoring political points off her health care. with that i reserve the balance of my time the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker as my colleague knows this legislation is identical to h.r. 7 which passed the house last congress after moving through regular order, including a full committee markup. with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to our distinguished colleague from new jersey mr. smith, one of the strongest champions of life in this house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from js is coiz f fe minutes. mr. smith: i thank my friend for yielding and her leadership and

for reminding us that this bill passed the house last year. identical form. only thing changed are the dates because obviously they had to be updated. it's a 12-page bill which can be very quickly read by any member. the only reason we have to be here is that the senate wouldn't even get or provide a vote on it. so the senate just shelved it. we are bringing it back up on the floor. madam speaker, because abortion dismembers, decapitates or kemically -- chemically poisons unborn children to death, the people on the other side of the issue have a reluctance to not look at and avoid. abortion methods we know we'll soon have the pain capable legislation on the floor, it will come to the floor. we know children suffer excruciating pain from dismemberment, piece by piece, a child literally pulled apart, arms, legs, torso, decapitation.

that's the reality of abortion madam speaker. because of all of this, americans have consistently demanded and now in ever growing numbers, that public funds not pay for abortion. i would point out to my colleagues that yesterday the maris poll found that 68% of americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. that includes 69% of women. 71% of the next generation, the millennials oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. madam speaker, h.r. 7 will save lives. we know the hyde amendment has probably saved at least a million lives. children who are on soccer fields today, who are in school, perhaps even getting married because the hyde amendment has been in effect since the 1970's. over a million children are

alive because of that restriction of abortion for medicaid funding. h.r. 7 seeks to accomplish three goals. it makes the hyde amendment and other current abortion funding prohibitions permanent so they don't have to be included in the annual appropriations bills. it ensures that the affordable care act faithful conforms with the hyde amendment as promised by the president and it provides full disclosure transparency, and prominent display of the extent to which any health insurance plan on the exchange funds abortion. now that is all being done stealthily, hidden from the consumer. they have no idea when they are buying a plan that it is paying for abortion on demand. let me remind my colleagues in the run-up to passage of the affordable care act americans were assured by president obama himself right there, at the podium and he said in september of 2009, that under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion.

. that's the president's word. he said in march, 2010 in order to get a number of pro-life democrats, he gave them his word and said and wrote that the affordable care act, quote, maintains current hyde amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. nothing, madam speaker, could be further from the truth. we asked the government accountability office last year to look into how many of these plans were paying for abortion. they came back and said well over 1,000 insurance plans on the exchange were funding abortion on demand. completely contrary when our president told us would be the case in a speech to all of us in 2009 and then in executive order that he issued.

agree or disagree on the abortion issue, but let's always be truthful, he told us it would be in there and it's in there. there's a problem with transparency. senator ben nelson, in order to get his vote, he had said there has to be two payments for abortion if it's included when the bill is on the senate side. he said, and i quote if you're receiving federal assistance to buy insurance and if that plan has any abortion coverage, the company must bill you separately and must pay from a separate fund perhaps a credit card transaction or automatically withdraw from your bank account for that abortion coverage. let me say again, the senator went on to say, you have to write two checks, one for the basic policy and one for abortion. that's not being implemented either. so the premium is all rolled into one and, again, conscientious pro-life americans who don't want to be

complicit in the wounding of women and the killing of babies are being -- are paying for abortion and many of them don't even know it. i hope that members will vote for the rule and to those who think there will be no debate and vote on the unborn child pain-capable protection act, that will come to the floor and, again, you defend dismemberment abortions after 20 weeks -- 21 weeks 23 weeks where the child suffers excruciating pain. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewom fm w rks reiz ms. suger: madam speaker, t me yield myself 30 seconds to say there's no scientific evidence at all. as a matter of fact, gynecologists have all written to us and we have their statements that there is no way of fetal pain at 20 weeks. i yield to representative edwards from maryland for a unanimous consent request. ms. edwards: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that the house should vote for

bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield to congresswoman frankel from florida for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman froflidis recognized. ms. frankel: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield to congresswoman lawrence from michigan for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman cns recognized. mrs. lawrence: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record. as a woman and as a member of congress and a citizen of the united states that the house should not -- this house should vote for bigger paychecks. they should vote for better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to

health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield to congresswoman adams from north carolina for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman wi susnd for a mome. the chair would advise ers that although unanimous consent requests to insert remarks in debate may comprise of simple, declare tiff statement of a member's opinion embellishment beyond institute debate and can be common imposition on the time of the member who has yielded for that purpose. the chair will entertain as many requests to insert as may be necessary to accommodate members, but the chair must also ask members to cooperate by confining such remarks to the proper form. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam chairman. you are correct and we will do that. and for unanimous consent request, i yield to congresswoman adams from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from noh lina rogz. ms. adams: thank you madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should

vote for bigger paychecks and bigger infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam ear, i seto yield to congresswoman chu from california for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman fralifa is recnid. ms. chu: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield to congresswoman tsongas from massachusetts for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewanromahutt recognized. ms. tsongas: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congressman tonko from new york to make a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafr n yk rec mrtonk madam spe ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that house should vote for bigger

paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky, for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman fm liiss recognized. ms. schakowsky: i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield to congressman lowenthal from california for unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: t gtlaomaloi recog mr. lowehank madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record that house should vote for bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking a woman's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield to representative nadler from new york to make a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromeworis rnid. mr. nadler: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert my statement in the record that the house should vote for

bigger paychecks and better infrastructure instead of attacking women's access to health care. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman from north carolina -- ms. slaughter: madam speaker, let me yield to the gentlewoman from washington for 1 1/2 minutes, ms. delbene. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman isecnid for 2 minutes. ms. delbene: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. h.r. 7 is yet another direct attack on women and their families. it creates sweeping new restrictions on abortion coverage for women who purchase insurance under the affordable care act. with no meaningful exception to protect a woman's health. and experts predict it could cause many insurance -- insurers to limit women's health options and their plans altogether. this bill injects ideology into

personal medical decisions and puts politicians rather doctors in charge of women's health care. instead of this extreme legislation, congress should address the real challenges facing women and families today. at a time when 42 million women are either living in poverty or on the brink of it, congress must do more to help. we should be focused on expanding access to childcare, providing workers with paid sick leave and ensuring women equal pay for equal work. this bill does none of these. it fails women and their families and i urge my colleagues to vote no on both the rule and h.r. 7. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady frow rk reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you madam speaker. i now yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from texas, dr. babin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texais co a minute and a half.

mr. babin: thank you, madam chair. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 7, the no taxpayer funding for abortions act. it's plain wrong to use america's hard-earned tax dollars to pay for abortions. on september 9 of 2009, president obama told the joint session of congress and i quote, one more misunderstanding i want to clear up he said. under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place. those of us in the pro-life community knew that this was simply not the case. and last september the government accountability office confirmed that under obamacare abortions are being paid for with taxpayer funds by more than 1,000 obamacare exchange plans across the country. our bill is taxpayer funding for abortion. fulfilling one of the promises

that this president has broken. let's pass this bill and end the largest expansion of taxpayer funded abortion in american history. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. frankel. the speaker pro tempore: t genewanroflidis recoiz o minute. ms. frankel: i thank the woman from new york for yielding, and i too, rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. today on the 42nd anniversary of roe v. wade we should be celebrating it, not dismantling it. i heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about pain. well, you want to know about pain, think back in horror to the perils for our mothers, our daughters, our sisters in the days before the supreme court rule that women have a

constitutional right to make our own personal health care decisions. back then, our country faced a public health crisis as women were maimed, made sterile and lost their lives as a result of self-inflicted or illegal abortions. i remember finding a friend who was near death as a result of a back alley procedure. since roe v. wade state after state, including florida my home state, has passed onerous laws criminalizing doctors, requiring unnecessary tests and other insidious obstructions to prevent access to abortion and today congress again piles onto the damage hurting the poorest of our citizens. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewan te s pid. ms. frangle: madam, may i have another half minute? ms. slaughter: i can yield 30 seconds. ms. frankel: folks, here's a

much better way to make lives better for our children, and that's to allow their mothers to live full productive lives and instead of this bill, pass the women's health protection act to ensure that no matter where a woman lives she has access to the resources needed to make her own health care decisions. we cannot and will not go back. i thank you and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recoized msoxko madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan dr. benishek. the speaker pro tempore: the genanrom ch i recoed for one minute. mr. benishek: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the rights of the unborn and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule. i along with many in northern michigan believe that life inside of the womb is just as precious as life outside the womb and must be protected. both unborn and born children

have a right to life. no taxpayer funding for abortion act will ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to subsidize a practice that so many of my constituents cannot condone. your hard-earned tax dollars should not be used to pay for abortions. i served as a doctor for 30 years in northern michigan and had the awesome gift of witnessing the mir confidential new life in the delivery room. i've also been blessed at the experience as a father and a grandfather and i know how life changing this event can be. i want to commend the pro-life grassroots effort. thank you for the hard work you do to educate our communities on the value of life. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentmayids back. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentlelady from new yorks recognized. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island a mib of the -- member of the committee on the judiciary, mr. cicilline.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman froode nd i redoe minute. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. speaker, despite the misleading title of this bill, the fact is is there is no federal taxpayer funding for abortion right now except in very limited circumstances. h.r. 7 would for the first time place restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend private dollars in purchasing health care. it would also likely result in the loss of access to comprehensive health care for millions of women who work for small businesses, purchasing insurance in the health insurance marketplaces. politicians are not medical experts and should not be dictating the health care decisions for women. house republicans are scrambling this morning to consider the rule for h.r. 7 at the last minute because it became clear it's overly restrictive and unconstitutional 20-week abortion ban would fail a floor vote. why? because americans support comprehensive health care for all women. house republicans should be bringing up bills to strengthen the economy, guaranteeing women

equal pay for equal work, raise minimum wage, make childcare affordable, not limit woman's access to health services in an attempt to relit gait a divisive issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's ti h eir. eadfr nth carolinas ized. ms. fo: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, h.r. 7 the no taxpayer funding for abortion act codifies many long-standing pro-life protections that have been passed under both republican and democrat-controlled congresses. the majority of taxpayers oppose federal funding for abortion as demonstrated in poll after poll. . a recent poll showed 58% of respondents oppose or strongly oppose using any tax dollars for abortions. during the obamacare debate, a 2010 zogby poll found that 76% of americans said that federal funds should never pay for an abortion or only to save the

life of the mother. a january, 2010 quinny pea yack university poll showed 67% of respondants opposed federal funding of abortion. april, 2011 cnn poll showed that 61% of respondents oppose public funding for abortion. an november, 2009 "washington post" poll showed 61% of respondants oppose government subsidies for health insurance that includes abortion. a september, 2009 international communications research poll showed that 67% of respondents opposed any measure that would, quote require people to pay for abortion coverage with their federal taxes. in other words, madam speaker, the american people do not want the government spending their hard-earned tax dollars to destroy innocent human life.

period. like most taxpayers, employers also prefer plans that preclude abortion coverage. according to the insurance industry's trade association, quote, most insurers offer plans that include abortion coverage but most employers choose not to offer it as part of their benefits package end quote. even minority leader nancy pelosi has voted numerous times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the district of columbia. president obama voted against taxpayer funding of abortion in the district of columbia twice when he was in the senate and since being elected he has signed appropriations legislation into law that prohibits this funding. as you can see, madam speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral, and supported by the majority of the american people. it's time to restore the status

quo on government funding of abortion and make this widely supported policy permanent across the federal government. therefore i urge my colleagues to support this rule and h.r. 7 and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlom fm new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam chairman. i yield a minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i will comment on the demerits of this terrible bill and debate of the bill. i want to comment now on how this bill got before us. this is, i think, the fifth bill we considered this congress. not one of those bills went through committee. not one of those bills had a markup a hearing an opportunity for people to amend the bills in committee. and now the bill's come to the floor for an hour of debate with no opportunity to offer

amendments. this is hardly the transparency and the due process that the g.o.p. leaders promised us. this bill is even worse because this bill wasn't on the calendar until late last night. yesterday when the republican anti-choice women repelled at the -- rebelled at the terrible provisions we were supposed to debate today and found they he couldn't pass a bill today on the anniversary of roe v. wade so they brought another off-the-shelf bill that's a terrible bill with no hearing in committee, no debate in committee, no markup, no opportunity to offer amendments no vote in committee, no opportunity to offer amendments on the floor. this is not the way you run or should run the house of representatives of the united states. it is a shameful procedure for a shameful bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewomafr n yk s the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith. mr. smith: madam speaker, i just

want to remind colleagues that this bill passed last year. it passed with an overwhelming majority. it's the same bill. it went through regular order. hearings and markup were held. and the legislation came through regular order to the house of representatives. the problem has been the se which has refused to take up this bill for well over a year. so we are back to take up the bill that's already been approved by the house in regular order. let me remind my colleagues as well, next week we will be taking up a number of bills that will combat human trafficking. madam speaker, i'm the prime sponsor of the trafficking victims protection act. america's landmark law to combat the hideous crime of sex trafficking and labor trafficking. we have a number of important anti-human trafficking bills that also stacked over on the senate side for a year or more, some of them, including two of mine, that were backed by the administration in one of those cases for sure, and we are talking about bringing those bills up next week.

and then we'll probably get some people say, we are not following procedure or regular order. those bills languished on the senate side and surely we can come together to combat human trafficking. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentwon om rerv. gedy from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speakerment i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from colorado ms. degette. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from -- ms. slaughter: member of the energy and commerce ct the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman fr coro is gnedorhr minutes. ms. degette: thank you very much. i'm going to state this as simply as i can. there is no public funding for abortion. whether you like it or not, the hyde amendment which has been the law of this land for decades now says, there is no public funding for abortion. that has not changed. there is no public funding for abortion under affordable care

act or any other government program. this bill would vastly expand the current restrictions on a woman's right to get her own health care through her insurance that she, her family, and her doctor think they need with her own private money. let me say how this would work. under h.r. 7 people who buy their insurance in exchanges and their employers now would not be able to spend their own privatele toars buying insurance that they -- private dollars buying insurance that they need for themselves and their families. this not only would be a radical expansion over current law, it would be a terrible wedge between patients and their doctors. and i don't care how many polls that you might cite, the vast majority of americans think that

a woman's private health care decisions should be made between herself, her family, and her doctor. and certainly not by politicians in washington, d.c. this is an idea, this h.r. 7, is an idea that has been proposed time and again. it's not going anywhere. i am he' sure it will probably pass this house today where it will go over to the other body, and it will die. if not, the president will veto it. so here's my question to my friends on the other side of the aisle. why aren't we spending this week talking about how the women of america can get better paychecks? why aren't we spending our time talking this week about how the women and men of america can get tax credits so that the children that they do have can go to childcare that is quality childcare? why aren't we spending our time this week talking about how women and men should be able to

get paid the same amount for doing the very same job? that's what i think this congress should be spending its time doing. not passing these bills which are false statements aboutal woman's private decision abouts her health care. i urge the body to defeat this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the jealt from new york rerv. the gentlelady from north carolina is recoiz. ms. foxx: thank you madam speaker. i want to say as force fully as i can there's nothing -- forcefully as i can, there's nothing in h.r. 7 that restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. there is nothing in h.r. 7 that he restricts the private sale of plans that include abortion. consistent with the hyde amendment the bill ensures that federal dollars, wherever those federal dollars come from, do

not subsidize plans that cover abortion. what's important to explain is that the hyde amendment has only in the past applied to annual appropriations bills as we have done our best to explain to the american people obamacare is not subject to annual appropriations bills but is funded under mandatory spending. therefore, madam speaker, it is important that we codify that will no federal funds can be used for abortions. and that's what this bill does. if our colleagues believe it's unnecessary, then they should have no problem voting for it because then it's not doing anything that violates what has been done in the past.

however, this bill is necessary. let me say again madam speaker, h.r. 7 simply codifies the long-standing bipartisan agreement that federal taxpayer funding should not be used to destroy innocent life. the bill h.r. 7 does so by establishing a permanent governmentwide prohibition on taxpayer subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage including cutting off taxpayer funding for plans that include abortion under obamacare. it prevents funding for abortion in government programs like medicaid, the federal health benefits program, and the child health insurance program. the bill also ensures that subsidies made available in the form of refundable tax credits under the a.c.a. are prevented from flowing to plans that include abortion. h.r. 7 also explicitly states

that private individuals may purchase separate abortion coverage or plans that include abortion as long as no federal subsidy is used to pay for the abortion coverage. similarly, h.r. 7 explicitly states that abortion companies may offer abortion coverage as long as the coverage is not paid for using taxpayer dollars. and with that madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from north carolina mrs. ellmers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north caroli is recnid r e nu. mrs. ellmers: thank you madam speaker. thank you, to my colleague from north carolina, for once again being such a strong defender of life. madam speaker, i rise today to offer my support for h.r. 7, i believe in the sanctity of human life and that life begins at conception and ends at death. my life's experiences as a mom, a nurse and a christian have helped me to form these core

beliefs. i have held the hands of newborn infants, and i have held the hands of elderly patients in the last moments of their lives. i have been blessed to have had such special moments. because of them, i know that every life is precious and a gift from god. and it is not for us to judge its worth. madam speaker, the unborn need us to stand up for them. and be the voice that they do not have. i support this legislation and i encourage my colleagues to do so as well. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentladyidsac the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds to say that we have heard what's in this bill, but this bill was taken out of the used bill freezer last night at 9:00 against all the rules and put on the floor today. we really don't know what's in this bill. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the committee on ways and means, mr. crowley.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from w rk rzefotwo minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend from rochester for yielding me this time. thank you madam speaker. if at first -- you have heard the adage before, you don't succeed, try something else again. . that's clearly what the republican colleagues are doing northern. the bill the republicans attempted to bring to the floor today would have required women to go to the police before they could even address their own health care needs. they abandoned that first line of attack on women's health because, well, it was too extreme even for members of their own party. but they weren't going to let something like that from pandering to the right-wing flank. fortunately for the republicans they have a long list of bills that attack health care and women's access to care. so it's easy for them to just swap it out for