tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 30, 2010 10:00am-1:00pm EST
dedicated -- this mosque built, you know, dedicated to what we have in common, if it was built in a roast this would not be a controversy. host: bill and hillary clinton are number 13. guest: remain the world's power couple. whether it is former president clinton's activities in haiti this year. he has been a special envoy there after the earthquake. he is a model akin to the one being pursued by buffett and gates. and then you have secretary clinton -- although, right now she is embroiled in controversy that she would rather not be, going around the world apologizing to world leaders on behalf of the and what her diplomats were privately telling her. host: and number two, christine lagarde, the french finance
minister. guest: france has really been coming to terms with whether or not it can afford a the financial safety net and safeguards it has built up over the last few decades. it's lifestyle is the envy of people around the world. but what khristine lagarde and others in the government are saying is that they can no longer afford it. host: we have seen paris have its own budget cuts. it is that coming to the u.s.? guest: we saw a very powerful demonstration a little bit over a month ago, which is to say the congressional elections. it represented an american version of protesting the coup financial situation. host: one more look at the cover story, put together by editor- in-chief susan glasser. thank you very much. the pentagon will be releasing
its don't ask, don't tell policy. the president will be meeting with congressional leaders in about a half-hour in the roosevelt room of the white house. we expect to hear from them about 11:30 a.m. eastern time. the house will be in session today and we will hear from cochairs of the debt commission, who will be meeting with reporters on capitol hill later today. you can check all that out on our website c-span.org. we are back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. on the "washington journal" and thanks for being with us on this tuesday. enjoy your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . .
tv -- salman rushdie is on both tv. joyner conversation on sunday at noon eastern on c-span2 -- join our conversation on sunday and noon. >> find great holiday gifts and are c-span store, from books and cd's to umbrellas and more. it is all available online ad c- span.org/shop. we're waiting for the house decathlon at 10:30 this morning. we'll show you a discussion won the fallout from the wikileaks investigation. >>washed "clause washington jo"
continues. host: pete hoekstra joining us. thank you. what tools are in the federal to box to go after those who are linked to the wikileaks? guest: i think you need to start with who got into the database? first go after them. we may be able to go after them for treason or espionage. that is where you start. the further you go down behalf to obtain comment the food chais tools they have. host: was "the new york times"
please possible or irresponsible and publishing the information? guest: the one thing you can say is their inconsistent. when similar materials were week regarding climate change they made the decision not to publish. these materials were obtained illegally. they were transferred to us. they decided not to publish them. in this case, personal, diplomatic cables, materials that were obtained illegally they decided to move forward with them. today up to this point, they have made the decision to publish the materials that have been leaked or that they have been published have been put out there in a responsible manner in terms of not leaking specific names and individuals in certain cases that might jeopardize their safety. overall, its media gets this material, they will printed and
published it. -- if media gets this material, they will print it and publish it. host: they said it will get out anyway, we wanted to take the responsible route. guest: i think the responsibility comes back on the federal government. how did we allow the database to be created that held all of this information in one place? had 500,000 plus people that have access to it? it was an accident waiting to happen. i think there is probably multiple weeks into the system. this is only one example. it was just a flawed structure, an accident waiting to happen. host: if convicted of with those responsible please the death
penalty? guest: if they are convicted under trees and, i believe the death penalty would apply. host: would you support that? guest: i am a pro-lifer republican. i have been opposed to the death penalty may entire life. in this particular case, you lock up a person, the people that are responsible and throw away the key. host: one of the number of editorials that we will go through in the next 45 minutes, but he writes about the founder of wikileaks.
you have two points, his background and the newspaper's position to publish. guest: there are a lot of people that are very suspicious of big government and the ability of government to deliver services in those types of things to the public affectively. the decision to publish, that will be debated over and over. they have the materials and will publish it. printed as responsibly as you can. -- print it as responsibly as
you can. the other thing is jane harman and i have argued together against the executive branch for years. jane harman was my colleague and the ranking democrat. we keep way too many things secret in the federal government. we over classified material. one thing that occurred to me on sunday when the leaks started coming out. i was in yemen earlier this year. i got there. the ambassador and other people said congressman, welcome to yemen, we cannot share information and data with you. this is the first time oe in 10 years that this has ever happened to me. there were not going to brief me
on the material and data that they have responsibility to brief me on. in the tables -- there is a cable dated january 3 of this year, and there is an outline of all of the materials with the type of step they should have a brief me on but they refuse to brief me on from the ambassador back to the state department. it is made available to 500,000 people who have access to that database, but they would not share it with congress. i would have never seen that material or data if wikileaks opera had not made that public. over classification of information. the bush administration did the same thing. host: we read an excerpt in a moment. also, a reminder of your phone calls. send us an e-mail or join the conversation online.
"the washington post" this morning. guest: washington post' is absolutely right. host: how you do that? guest: you are just march. after 9/11 the federal government was criticized because they had stovepipes of information. they said we have to focus on information sharing. the d.n.i. has talked about the constant tension between sharing information and giving
information to people only for the need to know. this does not even come close to that tension. allowing a 22-year-old in baghdad to have access to the conversation of general petraeus and the president of yemen is absolutely crazy. you can create boxes of information and say this information is available to this group of people. you did not dump it all into one place and say everyone has access to all of this. there are other stories out there about people similar to this private first class in baghdad. just going through all of these cables, no need to know. it does not help them do their job. it just makes forinteresting reading. they're just going to this and talking about it. it was ineffective, inefficient, and from my standpoint lazy management of national security issues by creating this huge
database and letting everyone have access to its. then it allows people to say, we are sharing the information, and now you have to share the information appropriately and spirit to the people who are responsible for making decisions. and now we will never be able to say we did not share the information. the issue is doing this appropriately and privately. host: to you think he is solely responsible for the leak -- do you think he is solely responsible for the lee? guest: i am sure there are others involved than just private manning. there is speculation that there may be cable's regarding the negotiations on the start treaty. that would be a great interest
to the russians. when you create this honeypots of information, and people were using it inappropriately. you will go through there and finds that there should have been labeled top-secret that people were dumping this into the system because it was easy. but with this honeypots of information i would wager and guess that there were other people who were reading the information that should not. i have to believe the russian, chinese and other governments targeted the system. when you have a system at least -- that has at least 500,000 target points, i do not think it is that difficult for the chinese are russians to piggyback on one of access points or to create an acceptance point that allows them to get into the system. i think the system has probably been compromised multiple times. host: our conversation is with pete hoekstra.
his district includes holland, mich., and cadillac, mich.. . joining us from lansing, michigan. welcome to the program. -- gay iry is joining us from lansing, michigan. caller: i think many of the policies that we have had the government take, as well as our defense and our expenditures, that they have hurt our nation far more than these leaks. we have actually weaken our country through some of our policies and our kinds of trade policies that we have had have really hurt our country, far more than these wikileaks that have happened. guest: no disagreement with me on that.
i think the whole thing for a free-trade, some of the free- trade policies from my perspective has clearly hurt the country and clearly had a dramatic impact in your state and my state, the state of michigan. it is not about free trade, it is about fair trade. make sure you get our workers of level platform to compete with workers around the world. the question is not about which one is worse, the question is about focusing on all of the things necessary to keep america strong, which includes trade policy, be appropriate for an policies, and the appropriate defense strategies. . . guest: personally, i believe life is the gift from god.
whether it is life at the beginning of life for the unborn or whether it is for the criminals who have created a terrible crime, i think we as a society should honor life. there is a way to punish people without taking their life. host: another editorial. "confronting a dangerous world is difficult enough without the brazen exposure of the nation's secrets." must hold accountable however estoppels this procedure that allowed an army private in iraq to capture massive amounts of a sensitive data. data, in this case, make it like a download. guest: we have put a lot of focus on wikileaks over the past
week, but how do we look of the environment to see why this was available, and by this was -- why this was under classified. the person that leaked this probably was just come through this and said, a lot of this stuff should be public information. i might agree with that person. it does not then give that person the right to make all of it public. if we went after this classification issue and made more information available generally to the american people and kept secret but we needed to keep secret, it would make our jobs easier. host: the latest information focusing primarily on the state department.
secretary clinton weighing in on the impact is having on her drop as the nation's chief diplomat. >> i am aware some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so i want to set the record straight. there is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing great about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends. there have been examples in history in which the official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoing or misdeeds. this is not one of those cases. in contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that american diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do.
they are helping to identify and prevent conflict before they start, they are working hard every day to solve serious practical problems, to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist him in rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic security. this is the role america place in the world. this is the role our diplomats play in serving america. host: pete hoekstra, your reaction to her response, and your reaction to her tone? guest: i think it was right. a lot of this is about making public policy and taking it from erie, discussions, and making its policy, which means that you will be in discussions
with counterparts overseas. we hope the end product is good, but we all recognize the process of negotiations of these types of things typically make it ugly, and it gets to be personal. what these leaks and cables demonstrate, we have heard all the time in congress, it is about making the sausage. it is not pretty, but in the end, hopefully, you get a great piece of sausage. host: another editorial from "the wall street journal." the editorial begins with this --
host: the president has not made any phone calls to world leaders about this. should he be making any phone calls? guest: initially, calls coming from the secretary of state, diplomats overseas, maybe the appropriate response would be to identify that there needs to be additional work done with our allies overseas, and then the president should get involved. that is a calculation that will be made as we go through the process. the state department, the obama
administration, they are the only ones that know that -- what has been leaked, the contents, and where we could be in two weeks as more of this material becomes public. these documents represent only 1% of the documents that he has. host: linda from washington state. republican line. welcome to the conversation. caller: i would like to give my appreciation to representative hoekstra for his years of service. i appreciate his stance in congress on many issues. what would he have us do with his time left in office? also, with republican control of the house, what changes would he make to make sure that this does not happen again?
caller: thank you. -- guest: thank you. i think what we need to do is look at the systems in the department of defense, find out how we put together a system like this. we have some of the brightest people working in the intelligence community. these people are really smart. were they not involved in this process? they could have designed a system that could have given the information to the people who needed it, and then put up a security firewall to make it difficult for people who were not authorized to get access to these materials. we have to find out how we got into this mess before we can fix it. i have no doubt, people in the intelligence community can design these systems much more effectively than what we have. the bottom line is, we have a
shooting war going on in afghanistan, pakistan, threats coming from yemen, but the other type of war that is starting to delop is the war in cyberspace. we know that the chinese have gone after the networks. even at the pentagon. we need to be prepared to fight offensively as well as the offensively, putting up the balls in the government and private sector, if we are going to be successful. host: the documents released over the past few days, 1500 documents were classified secret. the most discussed country was a iraq with more than 15,000
cables. the most frequent subjects was the state department. guest: and that is a lot of data. host: vicky from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i believe this is a problem with integrity. when will the dialogue shift from cover up to replacement of diplomats and the policies they are pushing on behalf of the american nation? some of their policies are totally foreign to what this country was actually built on. i would appreciate an answer. guest: what you are looking at are the policy that our ambassadors are pushing, directed by the secretary of state, directed by the president through the secretary of state. if they are anti-american from
your perspective, your argument is with the president and secretary of state, not with an ambassador overseas. they carry out the direction as given to them by the administration in power. host: if you listen to the conservative commentators, criticism over the way eric holder commented on the way that this administration was not doing enough to go after julian assange, that they should go after him. guest: i am not sure the tools are in the toolbox to go after him. as you have seen, there are a lot of legal minds who are trying to find a way to go after this individual and to prosecute him and they have not come up with a clear way to do it. this may be a different kind of area, cyberspace.
do we need modifications of criminal law to create ways consistent with our values that allowed us to go after someone like this? host: if found guilty of providing illegal information to him, could he be sent to jail, but then nothing would happen to julian assange? guest: the difference is, he is the person that went into the database, down loaded it against federal law, and gave it to someone else. host: >> the house is about to get
voluntary legislative work will begin at noon eastern. 23 bills are scheduled for debate today, one unsettling class action lawsuits by native americans by the interior department. there will also be a resolution condemning north korea's attack on a south korean island. the senate is voting on a bill to give the food and drug administration more authority on food recalls. they will recess at about midday and return to hear the farewell speech from christopher dodd. is retiring. you can see that on c-span2 and house right here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. november 30, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable john t. salazar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to urge my colleagues in the senate to ratify the strategic arms reduction treaty, or start, immediately. because every day we wait to ratify start is one more day that russia's nuclear arsenal goes unexpected. when our last nuclear arms treaty with russia expired last december, we could no longer inspect their nuclear site.
this means no americans have inspected the facilities for almost a year. despite the urgent need to ratify this vital treaty which also reduces unneeded nuclear stockpiles, some members in the other body have continued to stall putting politics behind national security. start has been through 18 hearings, is endorsed by dozens of foreign policy and defense experts, and passed out of committee with strong bipartisan majority. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to be the strongest proponents of national security. ratification of start is an opportunity for them to act on these claims and keep america and our allies safe. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, for five minutes. mr. pence:00 thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. pence: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: i rise today the day after i had the privilege of speaking at one of the storied
venues in american public life, the detroit economic club for 75 years has been a place where american leaders of every political persuasion and philosophy have come to talk about the economy of this nation. and i had the real privilege of being able to address that gathering yesterday and i want to express my appreciation to the organizers and the board for that. but i thought i might reflect for a few minutes this morning on my comments because i -- what i sought to do yesterday was really broaden the debate here in washington, d.c. we live in no ordinary times. our economy is struggling in the city and on the farm. unemployment is at a heartbreaking 9.6% nationally. 42 million americans are on food stamps. america has seen better days. after years of run away federal spending, borrowing, and bailouts by both political parties, i believe there's a
better way. i believe that we can renew american exceptionalism by returning our national policy to the principles and practices that made this country and our economy the freest and most prosperous in the history of the world. i believe if we return to the practice of those principles as i said yesterday in detroit that we can restore and rebuild our economy. fiscal discipline is where it all begins, though. we have to put our fiscal house in order. and clearly the american people on november 2 sent a deafening message to policymakers here in washington, d.c., that they want a government that lives within their means again. and fortunately there is no shortage these days of ideas about putting our fiscal house in order. admirable suggestions of the president's debt commission that we'll learn more about this week. the republicans pledge to america. there's thoughtful proposals and blueprints by members of congress in both political parties and i commend them all.
for my part i co-authored legislation to establish a constitutional spending limit amendment. i think it's time we limited federal spending to 20% of our economy and the cotitution of the united states of america. we have the same back in indiana, mr. speaker, that good fences make good neighbors. i think we ought to use the constitution of the united states and the years ahead to put fence lines around spending to give this and future congresses a clear guideline of just how much of the american economy this government can consume and give them a incentive for growth. let me say fiscal discipline alone will not be enough to bring jobs and prosperity back to america. we need an agenda for growth. and that's what's brought me to detroit yesterday. and what i describe or sought to describe were the building block, the traditional american building blocks of growth, a incentive-based agenda and i think it's fivefold. first is sound monetary policy.
second is not only tax relief but tax reform. thirdly is access to all american resources in energy. thirdly is regulatory relief and reform. and finally, it's expanded international trade. -s-t a--r-t. when i expanded on yesterday was my belief if we will in this next congress that will gather just weeks from now, if we from both ends of pennsylvania avenue will repair to these ideas and seek to advance not the arguments that are happening in washington even at this very hour at the white house or we preserve tax rates, we let some tax rates expire and become tax increases, but rather how we really pursue policies that will release the trapped energy in this economy. some experts suggest that there's more than $2 trillion in profits on the sidelines in
this economy. and i believe that by pursuing sound monetary policy of the fed, having them focus on price stability, by preserving all current tax rates but embracing tax reform like a flat tax, i believe that the time has come to abandon our progressive tax rates and have the same flat rate after a generous allowance on individuals and businesses. what could be more fair that the more money you make the more money you pay to the government, but everybody pays the same flat rate? we need to develop an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gives american people access to new technologies, new resource that is are in our own making and reach. we need to bring regulatory reform to lessen the burden on small business owners and family farmers that regulatory red tape provides. i think it's time for regulatory pay-go, mr. speaker. i think if we are going to raise regulation in one area, we ought to lower another. how about a 10-year time line
on any new regulation and expanded trade has to be a critical part of any growth agenda. with that i would send those looking into my website at mikepence.house.gov look at the speeches at the economic club yesterday. i hope it starts a conversation in this and the next congress about growth because i believe that as we put our fiscal house in order its imperative that we return to the practices and principles that have made this the most prosperous nation in the history of the world and i believe with all my heart will make this nation the most prosperous nation for decades and decades to come. so help us god. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house whats on the agenda with
regards to the pay freeze in the the president and congressional leaders. on theondents joining us phone. thank you for being with us. let's begin first with the meeting that will take place today at the white house. the first with john boehner, senator mcconnell and his counterparts on the democratic side. what is on the agenda with regards to the pay freeze in the
debt? >> robert gibbs made it clear that the top priority is talking about the economy and taxes. all lot of people are speculating that the paper used was away for the president to get the jump on the way -- the pay freeze was a way for the president to get a jump proving he is serious about the budget. >> let's look at the numbers in terms of federal employees. and 2009 the average salary is just over 74,000 for a federal worker compared to close to 62,000 in 2005. there are 4.4 million government employees. the pay freezeould include 2.2 million employees. >> of the white house is saying you have to start somewhere.
you have to show you are serious out reining in spending if you want to cut down the deficit. what this has done is really infuriates the president's liberal allies, including the labor unions who say the president has and barelunfairlyd the federal workers as a whipping boy. >> obama calling for a new way forward with the gop and the 112th congress. this is at the same time the president's that commission will come forth with its debt recommendations. we are likely to get a sneak preview later this afternoon and a meeting scheduled tomorrow at the white house, but there have been some headlines that the debt commission idea is deaon arrival. what are you hearing? >> some of the ideas were just that, dead on arrival.
for years we talk about social security reform being the third rail of american politics. this exhibition is a third rail in a lightning storm hitting in the back from holding a toaster. some of these are not politically palatable, talking about cutting social security benefits, raising the retirement age. clearly this will go a long way toward cutting the deficit, but at the same time, it would be political suicide for anyone in this town. the president is saying this will start a serious conversation dothat is long overdue. host: part of that conversation can be found in "the washington post." john bana and mcconnell wl be weaving -- john boehner and
mitch connell will be meeting with e president appeared i. guest: as far as the lame duck session, i feel the president signaled aost immediately after the election that he was willg to move towd the republican decision on tax cuts. robert gibbs said yesterday the president remains unconvinced that we can find $700 billion to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, but i do bank the democrats are moving closer to the republican decision on ending the bush era tax cuts. i do not know what the president's bargaining chips are. the pay freeze was not done as some part of a grand bargain with the republican. i am curious tassume what the president brings to the table that he will can see on. -- that he will conceed on.
host: what do you then they will say following this one hour meeting at the white house and the roosevelt room? guest: the president says there will have a good, frank discussion. i think that republicans will go in with a clear agenda. it was a mr. president, the spending days are over. you'll save you want to get serious about cutting spending, show me where. -- the president will say if you want to get serious about cutting spending, show me where. >> that meeting with the
president is still going on. it was set to begin at 10:30 this morning. we understand president obama make about to speak with reporters after that gathered. that could happen at about 12:20 eastern. the pentagon releases its review of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that has been in effect for about 70 years. the defense department has studied the potential impact of lift the policy. robert gates will be joined by other officials this afternoon at 2:00 p.m. eastern. of coverage on c-span2. the co-chair of the debt reduction committee will hold a news conference. there will talk about whether the commission will approve a final report. you can't see live coverage of this -- you can see live coverage on c-span3.
>> so on rushdie -- salmon rushdie will discuss his lesser- known non-fiction work. join our conversation sunday at noon eastern on c-span2. previous shows and booktv.org, where you can find the entire schedule. >> the incoming republican leaders talk about their goa for the new session at a town hall meeting here in washington. this is just under an hour. >> good evening. [applause] i am pleased to join the
american university college republicans in welcoming tonight's speakers, congressman eric cantor and kevin mccarthy. [applause] congressman eric cantor has served in congress since 2001. he has worked to lower taxes, eliminate excessive regulation, strengthen small business, and encourage entrepreneurship. he was elected minority whip and is now set to become the majority leader. [applause] yan is then paul ran author of "the road map for america's future." in addition, he is the ranking
member of the house budget committee and will become chairman this january congressman kevin mccarthy -- he has beedescribed as one of the most persuasive and compelling members. "roll call" clinton the rookie of the year. he was named chief deputy whips congressman mccarthy is slated to become the next majority whip. [applause] these three congressmen and founded the young guns program. house republican to dedicated to identifying, recruiting, and mobilizing a new generation of conservative leaders. young guns was about finding candidates that will solve problems. pete sessions adopted the
program as a candidate recruitment and training program for house republicans. the results to date have been successful. four young guns defeated incumbent democrats. dozens of young glen candidates were elected to the house of republicans as republicans took but house for the first time since 2006. these three congressmen have co- authored a book which was featured on "the new york times" best seller list. and now, is my pleasure to welcome congressman eric cantor, and kevin mccarthy. [applause] >> thank you very much for coming up tonight. i'm kevin mccarthy from california. i thought i would give you some about the recruitment.
i was the recruitment share -- c rhair. 63 -- 62 of the 63 seats were young gun candidates. how do go out and recruit? if you would go back a year and half from today, republican party was not that popular. the president was very popular. it was not the easiest thing to get people to run for office. what i did as head of recruitment, as i studied the last two times the majority to have a sweet spirit -- have switched. about how many candidates, florida 21 republican candidates, four to 22 democrats in 2006. you have to have a large number out there.
no minority has become a majority in modern history without bringing a professional athlete with them. we kept true for that. from theohn runyon philadelphia eagles. when i decided to do was come every thursday i would bring the number of people that current members -- we would look at the district's and look at where we're going to go. we thought this would be a wave election. we would go and johns people that have been there a long time. three city committee chairman's. -- three sitting committee chairman. we would go on the road. i would drive in. we didn't have much money. i would rent a car. we'll go to illinois, because that was the first primary i was supposed to be in iowa.
i was in wisconsin kurt i did a u-turn. i was gone about a week. i was with another congressman. we went to tennessee. we have to challenge the democrats to get them to retire part of went to tennessee. my staff call me and said you will need this guy. we wanted somebody to run against tanner. he has $1 million in the bank. no republican even went against 10 two years ago. this said you will meet this guy. he is nervous about meeting you. he is from tennessee. he has a strong accent. you're from california. he thinks you are all fruits and nuts. i do not realize it is him. 38 years old. good-looking guy. he brings his wife. "i'm stephen from tennessee.
i don't know where that is. i do not tell -- steven gave me the same answer that 400 other people gave me. i said, what do you want to run for congress? he said, i watched the country change before my eyes. i don't know how to tell my children i did nothing. that is a great reason. he said, i do not know if i'm the best person to run. i've never been elected before. i have never been to washington, d.c., on vacation. i said right now, you are the top recruit in the nation. he got into the race. never running before. he ended up raising after six months, $600,000. do you know what happened to tanner? he ended up retiring.
once he was a challenge, he retired. snyder in arkansas with seven some % of the vote two years prior. he winds up retiring. then i thought come for a national campaign, what is this going to be about? it is going to be about jobs and spending. whoo in congress best represents spending? the chairman of appropriations. a guy named ovey. -- obey. he got to congress before we landed on the moon and for woodstock. and he has never left. and so paul finds a young guy by the name of shawn duffy. he was on "mtv the real world." four-term district attorney. he is five time world champion lumberjack.
not a big deal here. big deal there. he runs and nobody is in the time of day. do know what happens to the guy who always dreamt of being the chairman of appropriations? he ended up retiring. and just those four races showed that we were born to women across this country. the thing i will say is republicans did not win the majority. democrats got fired. for the same reason republicans got fired in 2006 -- they spent too much he was not going to sit there and do nothing. that motivated people across this country. when you look at this freshman class, you have to go back to 1938 to find an election like this one. this is such an earth-shattering -- what is most odd to me is that the democratic party kept
the same leadership that led them off the cliff for this election. let me turn it over to paul to talk about the fiscal issues. >> i don't think of myself as that much older than you. i am in the x generation, you are in the why generation. [applause] i spent a lot of time here in this building. bender arena. a bar you have never heard of because they are out of business. is good to be back here and au. i am from wisconsin. you guys have a pretty good basketball team. that is something to be proud of. let me tell you why the three of us found this group. we founded the school because we
wanted to get people to run for congress not to get a career in politics but to come up here and advocate a cause. democrats are not our enemies. they are our adversaries in the battle of ideas. in this battle of ideas, this is a very momentous time in this country. the future that you are about to face when you graduate from here is going to be decided in the next few years. this is a pivotal time in this country where the next few years will determine what america is going to be in the 21st century. the idea we are fretting over is what i would call the american idea. in a nutshell, our rights come from nature and god, not from government. very important idea. that means we're a society where
the individual is the nucleus of the society, not the government. and so these are important principles that we have lost sight of over the years. this struggle of ideas is coming to a head. the meeting the physical effects of this idea. i'm 40 years old. my wife and i live in wisconsin, where i'm from, and i have three kids. by the time our three kids are my age, the size of this coverage is projected to be double what it is today. just to pay for what we have right now. we have taken 20 cents out of every dollar to pay for the federal government. when my kids are my age, we will be taking 40 cents out of every dollar. what are the tax rates on my kids generation going to be? they said, the lowest tax bracket, that goes from 10% to
25%. the top income-tax payers will be paying 80% tax rate. then they set this could have some negative effects on the economy. we have the fiscal train wreck coming in this country. we heard three years ago that the unfunded liability that debt, that this generation is $62.9 trillion.suppos last year in a toast the number- one up to $76.4 trillion. . . is $86.6 trlion. that means $88.6 trillion would have to be created and set aside today, invested at treasury
rates so the government could continue making the promises it is making to the current generation of retirees, my generation and your generation. we have a debt crisis coming in this country. there's no two ways about it. the question is do we get ahead of it, do we preempt it, do we prevent that from swallowing us like is happening in europe. you see france, you see young people coming into the streets in their teens and 20s, throwing moloto cocktails, you know. they burnt down a school the other day. they're doing it because the french government is trying to raise the retirement age to 62 years old. young people are taking to the streets before they even started their careers and are protesting having to work longer. they're already thinking about their retirement. think about this. that's not who we want to be in this country. the great thing about this country is whoever you are and wherever you come from, whatever your condition or story is, you can be whoever you want to be. it just takes your own effort, your own god-given talent. what do we want to do. what we are trying to do here is
turn this thing around before it's too late. before we have a european austerity debt crisis kind of system. what i mean when i say that is we want to have an opportunity society with a sound and reliable and sturdy safety net to catch those people who can't help themselves, to catch people who are down on their luck so people can make the most of their lives. we do not want to turn this country into a welfare state which saps and drains people of their incentive and will to make the most of their lives. unfortunately, that is the path we are on. we are on trajectory in this country because of the tax system, because of our debt burden, because of the fiscal train wreck coming, into a federal welfare state. the goal is not only to protect our rights so we can make the most of our lives and promote equal opportunity but the government sees its role and goal as equalizing the results of our lives. that's not who we are. that was never who we were intended to be. that is not what our founders created and that is not what our veterans fought for. so this sort of fiscal day of
reckoning, this economic realism is here right now. so why we founded this young guns organization was to get people to come to washington, stop trying to be career politicians, and do what's right for this country so that your generation actually has the kind of tremendous opportunities and potential that us and previous generations had. thank you. >> thank you. he's got his hand on a roaming mike so i'll try and keep it short. first, thank you for coming out tonight. i know that many of you are facing, if not all of you are facing final exams the next couple weeks. believe me, i get it. i've got two teenagers, i've got one at university of virginia, one at university of michigan, both of whom i sent back to school last night and they were complaining every bit. so i guess you could have taken the route that paul did and hang out at the bars tonight, but you
came here instead, so we're excited you're here. but just to try and sum it up to see where we're headed as a new republican majority, i want to say this. we as republicans, i know the room may be equally divided, we as rublicans look at this last election not necessarily as an endorsement by the american people, young and old, for republican leadership. it was, in fact, as you heard us all say just now, a repudiation of the direction the public has seen over the last couple years. in fact, i think all of us would make the case it's not just the last couple years that have turned america off. it is probably the last decade or so that people have come to the realization that they want to see their federal government working fothem again, and it is about delivering results for everybody, for all americans.
again, it is not just about republicans being in this spot. democrats are as well. we're all facing some very difficult choices as far as how we go about focusing this country and what we're going to do, as we assume majority, we will take the will of the people which we feel is less government, focus on job creation, get us back to a point where we can believe in our economic future as students from your perspective, from working families, from small businesses, every aspect of the society we're in right now is facing a bit of uncertainty. in some cases, a lot more than others. so we see it as our role to try and detangle some of what has happened in this town so we can send a signal that america can lead again. so it's about delivering results, delivering results for
you. how many in here are going to be facing the job market within a year? two years? all right. so you are getting close to half the room, at least. so this decision on taxes will affect you. because it is a certainty connected with the extension of existing rights which will allow small businesses and large the confidence that they need to go about putting money to work. when you deploy capital, you create jobs. when you create jobs, it's opportunity for all of you and frankly, for our kids as they come along. and that's the very real nature of what we're doing. now, finally, i would say this. you know, paul and kevin both talked about american exceptionalism, about why we're so different in this country, and some have said in the past well, you know, we're unique in america just like the british feel they're unique, just like the french feel they are. well, i think that all of us can agree that we have something
very special here that does really set us apart, and as paul just said and kevin as well, in recanting their experiences, it is about being here that has bred what we have seen success-wise, whether it's microsoft, google, facebook or you name it. why is it that those entities have been spun in america and not elsewhere. because we have been a breeding ground for innovation. we have been the country where you can start a business in your garage, five years later make it to be the biggest hit on wall street. that's what america's about. i can tell you from my family experience, and all of us come from somewhere because we are a country of immigrants, my grandmother came from eastern europe and it was there at the turn of the last century that her family decided to escape religious persecution and to come and find a better life.
they were lucky enough to make it here, came through ellis island, new york harbor and the rest. but i think that what separates her upbringing from my upbringing is that no matter how hard she worked in eastern europe back under the czars of russia, no matter how smart she was, there was only but so far she could go because of who she was, what religion she practiced, and where she lived. you compare that to what you've got today, you don't have to go to the right schools. you don't all have -- this country doesn't all have to be here at au. that's the beauty of it. you know, you can do what you want to do here and nothing's stopping you. and what we've laid out and talked about tonight is the direction that the government is headed, it's gotten so big, you have such an amassing of capital here in washington, that when decisions are made here, they
begin to impact the ability for you to do what you want, because all of a sudden it becomes more important that you know somebody on capitol hill for your business to be successful than it is for you to work hard, play by the rules and expect to get ahead. so all of a sudden, a rational capitalist begins to think wait a minute, i need to go fight in washington to gain my competitive advantage. that's what's gone wrong. that's what our congress is hopefully going to be about. it is on behalf of all of you, all americans. whatever political idealogical stripe you come from, we are about trying to make a better economic future for everyone and that's going to take some tough decisions and support from all corners of this country. so we thank au and the kennedy political program for sponsoring us tonight. i know we will be glad to answer any questions you have.
>> hi. my name is elissa. thank you for being here tonight. my question is with regard to your earlier statement about repealing the health care bill. i have a condition that's chronic and has no cure and i will probably be taking pills for the rest of my life. the provisions that are already in the democrats' health care bill involving not allowing insurance companies to discrinate based on pre-existing conditions and for dependents to remain on their parents' health insurance until 25 are the exact same as the health care bill that you republicans have already requested that be passed. so my question to you is by repealing the current health care bill as it stands and starting new deliberations on a bill, it will lengthen the amount of time that these two provisions can be implemented. will you try to preserve these
two positions -- sorry, preserve these two provisions as they stand or continue to push for a full repeal of the health care bill? >> what i think you will see us do is to push for repeal of the health care bill and at the same time, contemporaneously, submit our replacement bill that as you correctly point out has in it the provisions which you speak of. as i said tonight in the interview with greta, we, too, don't want to accept any insurance company's denial of someone in coverage for that person because he or she may have a pre-existing condition. likewise, we want to make sure that someone of your age has the ability to access affordable care whether it's under your parents' plan or elsewhere. so we in our formula have a way to produce those benefits without raising the costs for everyone, and we have put in
protection for those such as yourself with pre-existing condition that neither will you have to face exorbitant costs that in fact put you in the category of uninsured. so we feel we have taken the positions that adequately address those problems but done it in a way that we can preserve what's good about our system without bankrupting this country, which is exactly where the obama care bill will take us. >> thank you gentlemen for being here today. congressman mccarthy, my question is for you. you have described the senate as the country club and the house as the i-hop and one of the things you have pushed for -- >> it's true. >> one of the things you pushed for is allowing all members of congress to have a little more power, like allowing every member to submit amendments to spending bills and giving the change of the political makeup
of capitol hill, would you still support such a move or have you changed your position? >> no. and what you talk about, first, let me tell you what i think. why is one a country club and one's the i-hop, i guess. it's because it's where the founding fathers created it. we're the revolutionaries. we're all up for office every two years. we should be very reflective of what america thinks because it can put everybody in, it can throw you out. you just had two big waves. the senate is every six years. what you find from a senator, they get elected, then for four years they're off and the founding fathers, it's a little check and balance. you're talking about the pledge to america. we all worked on it. i happen to be the head of it. part of it was we went around listening to america and we sat with a lot of individuals and said how could this building work better, because our belief is politicians don't have power. the people have the power. they put it on loan every two years and they decide whether they want to loan it again.
well, how can you, and we wrote this when we were in the minority, how could we guarantee that absolute power doesn't corrupt absolutely. because i ran in 2006 and when i ran, i ran against the republicans and the democrats. the one thing i found when the republicans were in the majority, you put too much power into leadership and so what we said, and for the last two years, you know, yeah, i'm just a bill on capitol hill you're supposed to go through and you get to the committee and wait and you make it to the floor, then people can offer amendments. that's not how it works. goes to the rules committee, for the last two years, no one could offer amendments. they would pick what the amendment could be and they would pick the ugliest amendment and put that on the floor. that was your only option. we said in the minority what do we think is the best way. we said when it comes to spending, every single person that's sitting in congress got elected about from the same amount of people. we do that every ten years, right? so aren't they all the same
power, because the people have the power and they loaned it, right? so we said every single person can offer an amendment on a spending bill. we take away the power of that leadership to keep it away. what happens then, it's not about republicans or democrats. it's about america, because what happens, the best idea wins at the end of the day. if your idea is so bad you can't sustain an amendment, it doesn't -- it's not worth becoming law. and you know, if you're a political science major and you're thinking you want to be the czar or whatever, you would hate that amendment. but if you were a founding father, an american sitting out there, yeah. that proves the people have the power. we support it then, we support it now and it's going to become our rule. >> hello. gentlemen, thank you for being here tight with us. we really appreciate it. my question is directed to
representative paul ryan. i just want to know being that there's so much political grid lock in washington today, what's your take on immigration reform and also, in specific, the dream act that's coming up to the floor fairly soon? >> first of all, this isn't something we should be whisking through in a lame duck session with no committee hearings. didn't we just have an election that said we wanted congress to act with more transparency and accountability? let me first say this is a nation founded on immigration. i'm here because potatoes stopped growing in ireland a number of years ago. this is -- we are an immigrant country. that's a great thing. i believe in manifest destiny. i believe in the melting pot. the way i would proceed with immigration reform is first of all, let's fix the root causes of the problem. i think the dream act, as noble as some of those ideas are, it's two wrongs trying to make a right. let's do a border control bill. let's do an employer verification bill so we can make sure that we get at the issue of identity theft because illegal immigration and identity theft are often one and the same thing. let's deal with visas.
let's deal with making sure people can find work. let's make sure we have a good guest working program. let's deal then with much more difficult issue of how to handle those who are here illegally and do it in a way that does not create an amnesty, that does not reward those who cut in line in front of others. to me, we can do this, it's tough to do this without a lot of emotion but you got to do this in a methodical way that respects the rule of law, that respects the fact that this is an immigrant society, that also respects the policy of assimilation so that we can move forward to try and improve upon the american idea, and moving bills in like this, in a lame duck session without any hearings in congress to treat a symptom without trying to address the root causes of the problem, which dream act flows from, to me is not the right way to legislate. this is a political move meant to try and jazz people up. there's protesters at my office while we speak right now on this issue. let's do this without all of
that. let's do it methodically, let's do it honestly out in the open and let's deal with the root cause of the fact that we have a broken immigration system. that's not fair for immigrants and citizens. let's make it so that it works so that we can embrace legal immigration which makes our country better. >> thank you. >> hi, congressmen. my name is james connors. i'm from wayne, pennsylvania. thanks for being here tonight. so the 2010 elections just wrapped up and everyone is obviously looking towards 2012. one big candidate that the republicans are looking at is mitt romney. now, as you know, i'm sure many of you in this room know, mitt romney passed a bill similar to obama care. obama has even said that the architecture of obama care was based on mitt romney's bill. so i'm curious as to how it would work politically if you guys were to repeal the health care bill and then have our presidential nominee be someone who supported obama care. how do you think that would work politically? >> you got to ask mitt romney
that question. i don't know who wants to go -- >> again, i don't, you know, we're going to go about trying to effect health care reform in a way that makes sense focusing first on bringing down cost for everybody. because we believe you bring down cost through promoting competition, giving patients more choices through insurance options as well as the ability to make decisions with their physicians. that's the kind of health care that we know in this country. that's the kind of health care most americans should and want. so i do think that in the end, that mitt romney probably would say he did not support obama care, and i'm not familiar enough with the plan in massachusetts to know why it is that that is different but i think, i'm not putting words in his mouth, but he would be supportive of our position when we voted against obama care. i know that. >> i would simply say the
mandate doesn't work. this is something we had opposed as part of obama care. what's happening in massachusetts is sort of a foreshadowing of what will probably happen here which is you don't buy the insurance until you're really sick because then you can buy it without a penalty. what happens then, only sick people actually have the insurance and what actuaries call this is a death spiral. you have sicker people in the pool, prices go up, everybody's insurance premiums go up and if the penalty for not having insurance is not as high as actually having the insurance, then you have this problem that manifests itself. that i think is one of the undoing of obama care. this is why the presidential chief actuary, medicare/medicaid services, is telling us obama care will not work. it will be bigger deficits, they are telling us it will make health care costs go up, not down. it's not that we just dislike this law because of these mechanical reasons. it's because we believe because all the independent fiscal authorities are telling us it's a fiscal, economic and health care house of cards that will lead to higher health insurance for most people, it will create
a massive, massive deficit and debt and it's going to reduce the quality of health care and lead to rationing of health care services for the elderly with all these new medicare bureaucracies created in the law. so this law is going to collapse der its own weight rather than watching that happen in a very ugly, slow pace over the next number of years, let's repeal it and replace it with health care reform that works. the point we are trying to make in obama care is you can have affordable health insurance for all americans, for people regardless of pre-existing conditions, without having the government take it over. by having a patient-centered system where the patient and doctor are the nucleus of the health care decision-making system, not the government. that's what we want to get to at the end of the day. >> thank you for coming. there will be a net loss in the number of women serving in the next congress and we are going from having a woman speaker of the house to having fewer women in the majority party's
leadership. do you see this as a problem? >> let me try and address that and i will let the head recruiter do it. just to put some numbers out there, we in the republican conference now have nine new won with us and we will have more diversity in terms of hispanics and african-americans than we've had since i've been here in the ten years that i've been here. so i think your point is one well taken, is that congress needs to look more like america looks. our party, we get and as we are here tonight as founders of the young gun program, part of it was about saying look, it's time for us to find individuals who want to come join us to change the way washington works, not to come to washington for a career but to come here for the right reasons. we also felt very strongly that our party had been pushed into a corner, in many cases
warrantedly, because it seemed to be a party of exclusion, not inclusion. and because of that, i think all of us are very excited about the increased diversity that our conference will have. >> one thing eric touched on, if you look at the class that just ran for the republicans, it was the largest republican class in the history of the republican party. 430 candidates. if you look at people, you have to go through a primary and general. take everybody that was recruited to run, there were more women running than ever before, it was more diverse from nationality than ever before. that was a great start. look at who the freshmen elected, the largest class, 85 freshmen. they elected tim scott to be their representative in the leadership table. we have two freshmen leadership tables, we have never had the
freshmen at the leadership table. they have two. they weren't picked because of gender or color of skin, because they were natural leaders inside their freshman class, and to me, that is a very good sign because you want to look at okay, where we are but where are we going. where we're going, especially with this class, is a much broader party that reflects america. and when you look at who won and where they won, they won from all parts of the country. so that it's not a party that's based in one section of the country. it is really a majority party. ann marie burkel was the last race. we have one more race to be called. in new york, she came from behind. another new republican woman coming through. you go to martha robey. in the book, not to force you to try to buy it, we talk a little bit about this. >> thank you very much for coming, gentlemen. my question is for congressman ryan. congressman cantor mentioned the
difficult choices in deficit reduction. it looks like the bull-simpson commission is going to have a lot of those difficult choices in it. i was wondering if you could reflect on some differences between that and the road map you proposed? >> sure. i'm on the commission so i'm very familiar with it. with respect to tax reform it's not all that dissimilar. we both agree that you need to broaden the tax base to lower the tax rates meaning if you take a look at all the loopholes in the tax code, they're mostly enjoyed by higher income earners. take the way the loopholes, you can lower the tax rate on everybody. we agree with that direction. i don't use those proceeds to raise taxes. they use about $1 trillion in ten years. where the big difference lies is in health care. bolls-simpson basically embraces and furthers obama care. it doesn't do any restructuring around obama care. it actually does some things that makes obama care implement itself even more quickly.
obviously i have a big problem with that. i go in a different direction. so in response to that, i proposed an amendment to the process with alice rivling, bill clinton's budget director and vice chairman of the federal reserve under bill clinton. alice is one of the heads of the brookings institution. she's a democrat on the left side of the aisle, i'm republican on the right side of the aisle so we had the plan we proposed as a substitute for the medicare and medicaid reforms. that's something that we're trying to advance in bolls-simpson where we block medicaid to the states to let governors innovate and customize their health care programs to meet their state's needs and for medicare which has a $38 trillion unfunded liability, the biggest fiscal problem we have in the federal government, obama care would actually exacerbate the problems in medicare. we propose for a younger generation, the program work just like what we have in congress, like what federal employees have, where we have a benefit and we can use that benefit to select among a list
of private plans competing against each other, exactly like the federal program works. i believe we should means test some of these so the wealthy don't get as much of a subsidy and help lower income people as they age and people who are sicker. those are the things in the proposal. so that's -- i don't think you're going to get -- you need to get 14 of the 18 votes to have anything pass. at this point, this week it wraps up, i don't see an area where you will get 14 votes for any one of these big ideas. my name is second because i wanted to defer to alice because she's a really cool lady. >> president obama got in trouble recently on "the view" by saying that a 20-something did his tweeting. i'm curious who does the tweeting for your offices. >> did he? >> i tell you a funny story about tweeting. the tweeting comes from several
20-somethings, but i will say this. i was a tweeter and in fact was on a codell tweeting and was admonished for tweeting. so in all seriousness, we found a lot of success trying to access the likes of all of you students around the country, people who have, you know, sort of really become engaged in the political process, because of the incredible development in technology, whether it's social networking, facebook's provided tremendous ability for us to access folks. we in the whip office, this congress initiated a program called youcut program is very much what it says, you have the
ability to propose cuts to the federal deficit. what we did was we put out five choices every week, if you go to republicanwhip.house.gov, it's there right now and you are able to vote on one of the five ways to cut the federal deficit, and then the following week, we bring that provision up under the rules to push yet again the emphis on trying to cut spending rather than grow it. over the last, i don't know, six months or more, what republican members of congress did is they voted for $150 billion in program cuts, deficit reduction, and that's one of the things in the pledge of america we said we were going to continue which was every week, we're going to listen to the american people that were on twitter, facebook, and the rest who bothered to come to youcut and have their voices heard. well, now well over 2.5 million votes on that program.
so twitter and the rest, go get them, because it's been a terrific ride for us and we want to continue that. our days get busy so i will send e-mails saying tweet this, tweet that, and so that's how we do it. >> hi. thank you for being here. the a.p. had an article over the weekend that said that representative ryan's plan wasn't included in the pledge for america because it didn't do very well in the polls and the focus groups that were used to put the plan -- the pledge together. is that true?
>> we didn't poll it or focus group. the reason we didn't put it in there, i will just take it as -- we wanted to put -- we didn't want to promise things we couldn't deliver. with divided government that we have right now, i don't think it's practical to think that this thing could pass with the senate the way it is and the current occupant of the white house. that's why in the pledge, we put out things that we thought we just in control of the house, if we got that, could work on delivering. we didn't want to overpromise things we knew we couldn't deliver. that's why it wasn't in there. we had to get our budget under control and pass a budget that does this, but i for one don't think it's possible given the divided government we have to pass the amendment into law right now. >> paul worked on the pledge with me. the three of us spent a lot of time together probably more than most people want to. paul helped, when we did the pledge when we wrote the preamb preamble. you got to think what the pledge is. the pledge was written not as a political tool but things we
could do in this congress right now that could make the country better, with jobs, with spending, you could say about $100 billion. paul's plan and the road map is 75 years. so i never talked to that a.p. writer so i don't know where they got that. i don't know that paul ever talked to them. but eric talked about the youcut ideas within there. this was a collective body of everybody going through and there were pieces of legislation that could have been brought up before we left congress that would have made the country in a much better place. >> to be shameless in promotion of our book, and i would say all proceeds go to fisher house. none of us make any money on this book. but we have a chapter in the book that talks about and is dedicated to the road map. i think all of us are here telling you we understand the tough choices that we're going to have to make. paul's road map is a plan, the only one that's been out there,
frankly, for some time. while there's been lip service paid by others, finally perhaps now we're going to see other plans come to the fore with alice rivling, simpson-bowles and the rest. >> paul wrote a plan sitting in the minority. since the budget act of '74 passed we always had a budget until this congress. we have a $1.3 trillion deficit and no budget. what happened? they attacked paul because paul laid out ideas. what paul was trying to do, here's an idea, now why don't you lay out an idea and we can start finding where we have common ground. it's hard to do it if only one side does it. if you patake a political scien class, the first thing they tell you is you never put out ideas but we put out outside, we put out the pledge to america with ideas and what happened was they started saying the republicans were no longer the party of no. they actually had ideas out there so they just wanted to
criticize the ideas. >> thank you. thank you very much for coming. in recent years, inequality has been on the rise in america. what step do you or what steps do you as republicans support to try to lower inequality? >> if i could just take a quick stab at that. inequality i think lately has been couched in terms of the disparity of incomes in this country and the rich getting richer and the poor staying where they are or getting poorer. and what i say to that is the only way to fix that is to level the playing field as far as opportunity. you can't sit here and ask washington, expect it to be able to, by waving the magic wand, by writing a big check, you know, on a bank account that's out of money, you can't impose an outcome to say you're going to
close the gap on incomes. what we've got to do is be serious about making sure that everybody in america has a fair shot. and what we've seen in our institutions of late, whether it is the corruption existing at all levels of government, whether it is the scandals that have ripped through wall street, or whether it is any of the number of things you can pick up reading the paper at any point in this country, people need to be assured they've got a fair shot, that they don't have to know the right people. remember, it goes back to the sense of you can be anything, do anything in this country. so if we're serious about affording everyone opportunity, we talked about health care and how we believe we can do that. we have talked about job opportunities and how we need to open up the economy again for more optimism and growth. we also have to be very focused on where we are right here, which is education. not only higher education but
secondary education. if you really want to know where fair shot is developed, it is to make sure everybody's got access to quality education early on. so those are the kinds of things again, long term, these are problems that are going to just get worse if we don't go ahead and make the decision to make priority now to make sure everyone in this country's got a fair shot. >> that's an insightful and important question. there is basically two ways to go at it that we have been struggling with in this country for this and the last century. with respect to inequality. do we believe that the economic pie is fixed and therefore, it's the government's role to redistribute the slices more equitably? i would argue that's sort of the prevailing doctrine that's occurred in the last couple years. or do we want to grow the pie so that everybody can increase in their opportunity. that's really a different idea. so what is the aspiration we want to have as a country, then let's go do that. do we want to have this kind of
opportunity society where everybody, people who have never seen it before from corners of the country that have never had it before, really have a shot at making the most of their lives. that's what our policy ought to be designed to do, not taking from some to give to another, but giving people the opportunity to make something of themselves. because if you keep raising the barrier or putting new hurdles or bars by taking from some, then you won't be able to have investment. you won't be able to have risk taking. we want to put a premium on hard work and success. we want people to earn success in this country and enjoy the fruits of their labor and the rewards. we want more people to get it. that's the kind of society we ought to be striving for. in milwaukee, we have the worst, the lowest african-american graduation rates of anywhere in the country. it's a crime against society. why should we not be giving these poor families who are trapped in these failing schools a voucher to go to a good school so their kids can get a good education. there's things like this that have been bothering people like
me for a long time that we want to do to give people who have never seen opportunity before a chance at opportunity so they can make the most of their lives. this is not a rob peter to pay paul kind of society. this ought to be an opportunity society where we do everything we can, government has a really important role to play in this, to democratize capitalism, decentralize wealth in this country so everybody is an owner. i have been pushing social security reform for years so everybody who is a worker in society is also an owner in society so every person owns a piece of the free enterprise system so they have a stake in the outcome of our society and economy. these are things we can achieve in this country which means everybody can tap and reach their potential. if we think that that idea of america is over, and that it is the job of government now to decide who gets what, when and how, when it comes to health care or income or retirement, then we are simply managing our decline. we are turning ourselves into what you're seeing going on in
europe. a welfare society that cannot sustain itself, where we manage our decline. that is not the kind of path we want. let's find those pockets of america and there are lots of them, where people don't get those opportunities, where they can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps and they can't get that kind of education they need to get ahead, and let's address those problems. >> my name is benjamin. i'm a freshman here. thanks for coming tonight. i just had a question about bipartisanship. i know myself and all my friends have been frustrated, especially with the recent elections, about how one side accuses the other, especially when it's politically convenient. that comes from both sides of the aisle. i get e-mails from democrats saying those republicans and i know a bunch of republicans including some of yourselves have accused democrats and it goes with political game. i was wondering if you could discuss some of the ways that political or committee appointments and leadership,
some of the ways they hurt or encourage bipartisanship and if there's any light at the end of the tunnel you see anywa we can work on smaller bills are better and kind of come together on ways that actually help americans instead of the big decisive issues and all that. >> the best way to do is i have a belief that structure dictates behavior. you either adapt to the structure or you leave. the structure and the way congress worked for the last little bit was dysfunctional and one-sided so you didn't see bipartisanship. part of the thing we did in the pledge was just allowing any member to have an opportunity to offer an amendment so you didn't have to go to rules which is stacked nine to five on one side, so one side's always going to win so you always get your amendments, you get none. anybody could bring it up. the idea that bills have to go through a committee and be debated. the idea that a bill has to be out in the public for at least 72 hours. sunshine cures a lot of things.
that small structure change within congress right there hopes to start building the bipartisanship. but i think when you watch this engagement with greta, what if the president says this, what if the president says that. we don't know. we haven't been to see the president yet. the first things that we did when we came into office when the president won, you know what we did? we invited the president to our conference. in our conference, we have them every week, okay, and it's all the republicans come and the democrats do their own conference and the president got up, i thought it was a good conference on both sides. i thought the president was very honest with us, sometimes he would say you know, i disagree with your whole premise or you know, you've got some ideas there, we might work on that. and we weren't crazy. we weren't going saying things, you know, crazy about him. we were talking about how to make a better stimulus. know what the president said? we sat there and said let's all work together. yeah, let's work together. know what happened when he left the room? pelosi introduced the bill.
so she created a structure that boxed him in at the same time, that he had to make a choice. either he could have said no, we're all going to sit down, i just talked to them, we're all going to sit down and write a bill, or he had to accept what his party did and he didn't want to have a loss at the very beginning, so he went to battle for it. i think when he looks back in history, the sad part is the stimulus, he sat there and said if it passes by this date, unemployment will never go above 8%. that's not true. cost close to $1 trillion with interest and today more people believe elvis presley is alive than the stimulus created a job. true fact. so you want to be able to have it but if you create a structure that doesn't allow it, it's not going to be there. what we have done is tried to create a structure that makes the idea win, not that you sit there and say it has to be bipartisan. make the idea the strongest part. because then it doesn't be able to go through it. know how we started to make the
pledge to america? we started something called america's speaking out. it was a website where anybody could give their idea. you know when you came to the website, we never asked you what your party affiliation was. all we asked you to put in your e-mail and you voted on ideas and you went through. so the idea was the string. maybe if we took paul's name off the road map, maybe if we took the word road map out and laid out the ideas and you put it in a room, probably a lot of people would say yeah, we can do that. okay, well, the idea won now. now let's move it forward. >> this is the final question. >> the three of you have all made mention to not creating career politicians, so then what are your stances on term limits in congress? >> i have always been for them. still am. >> in the context of leadership, i am for them. i have never taken a position for term limits because i feel
that the voters turn you out as quick as they will put you in if you're not responding to their will. so again, we've got some discussions ongoing right now about leadership and about how long those of us elected in leadership can stay and i am absolutely for making sure those term limits are in place. >> i come from california. i supported the idea of term limits in the initiative because we had a speaker you could never get rid of. i served in the legislature only two terms. serving in there, i realized why i wanted term limits but the thing i found out that term limits doesn't solve the problem. what if i put a bad person in, now i guarantee him or her the ten years to serve there. whatever the number is. i think what you really need is competition. so my first bill on the first day was to change redistricting and make it competitive lines because then what happens it puts the power in the people. if i can be king for a day and you give me three wishes, i would change redistricting where the people would have the power, where you could throw somebody out if they were good or they
were bad, and then i would make campaign finance different where you had to get half your money from your own district. so i couldn't get $1 from somewhere else so the district had the power so people would go back home. that's where the power would rest. then my third wish would be make me king for the year. then i can continue on. >> thanks, everybody. thanks for coming out. nice to have you. thank you, everybody, for coming out tonight. if you would like your book signed, please line up in the center. we will be signing them in the back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> and about 15 minutes the u.s. house will data and for legislative work. they are meeting and at noon eastern. they will resume work on african-american farmers against the agricultural department. there also be a resolution condemning north korea's attack on the south korean island. you can see live coverage here on c-span at noon eastern. the senate passed a legislation to make food safer. it will force companies to recall tainted food. it will place stricter standards on imported foods also. the washington post called it the biggest change to food safety laws since the 1930's. also today the senate rejected a republican plan to ban earmarks and several spending bills.
commander development funding, grants to local police departments and special interest tax breaks. that plan failed 39-65. pentagon releases its review of do not ask, do not tell for the military. the defense department has spent 10 months setting the potential impact of lifting that ban. secretary gates is driven by other officials at 2:00 eastern this afternoon. live coverage on c-span2. coming up thursday, as senate armed services committee is bringing pentagon officials to capitol hill to rick explained -- to explain their report. that will be on c-span3. and in other news happening today, the co-tier of the debt reduction committee will talk about the status of their preliminary report unless it they can't approve a final report by december 1 deadline. you could see a live report at
3:30 eastern on c-span3. you can see live coverage on c- span3 at 9:30 eastern tomorrow. >> this sunday. best known for his novel will discuss his non-fiction works such as "the jazz choir smie ga" >> hi, i am tempore. i am an education specialist. -- i am jan corey. the shearson lehman is washington, dhrough my lens. we chose this topic because we
would like you to explain how the federal government has affected your community. select a topic that interests you. once you have your topic, you can begin your research. the goal is to try different points of view and include the c-span footage in the 528 minute documentary. for more information, you can visit our web site or e-mail < any questions. go get started. we cannot wait to see what you can do. >> the house returns for legislative work and about 10 minutes at noon eastern. until then, a look at some of the big issues members will deal with during this lame-duck session. we are joined by congressman brad sherman, a democrat from california. a member of the house financial services committee. let's talk about some of the issues in the lame-duck session.
some want to keep the bush tax cuts. what is going to happen? guest: the one thing nobody is talking about is the obama tax cuts. if we implement the whole republican platform -- of course, they do not want to raise taxes on anyone. if we implement everything they are talking about, taxes would go up for 55 million americans. no one is talking about the tax cuts that were part of the stimulus bill which we passed in 2009. taxes are going up. we are fighting about 1% of the taxpayers output. that is what all the fire was about. if you were watching fox news, you would think that is the only
issu but for most americans, the obama tax cuts are more important than the bush tax cuts. host: so let's get beyond the talking point and ask you, at the end of the day, will there be an agreement between this white house and republicans, and what when this agreement look like? guest: i have no idea if there will be an agreement. there are so many ways to play it. what we have seen in the past is total dysfunction and nothing being packs. -- being passed. that is what we see in the estate tax. for the states of people who died january 1 of this year, we do not know what the law is.
those need to be kept open. we had to pass it and the state law tax by january 1, 2010. host: could you see a proposal that would kick the can down the road for another two years, and then deal with them in 2013? guest: i do not think democrats are going to treat those under $250,000, over to order $50,000 -- perhaps we would draw the line at half a million -- between the two. the middle-class will not get anything that the very rich do not receive. that is what the republicans say. the democrats will try to break that linkage. host: you say it is good that the federal reserve has gone
out and bought long-term bonds. yet, lots of criticism when the president was in asia, particularly from angela merkel of germany, david cameron, saying that it is bad policy. guest: these are countries that run trade surpluses that, in american jobs.ake when china says this is unfair currency in relation, it is more plausible. but the main reason for the policy is not to give us some fighting edge against the unfair trading policies of others. -- it is morelaughable. it is more about doing it in a way that does not increase the national debt and money supply. when you should look for our policy that can get us moving
that are reversible. this is ultimately a reversible policy. you can buy these bonds now, get the economy moving, and when we have to worry about inflation -- and i look forward to that day -- you can sell these bonds and reduce the money supply. host: you talk about the commission recommendations. we do not have the specifics yet. but you say this plan is not workable. why? guest: really, there are two plans. one that the chairman released, and we will see if the commission can get a plan together with 14 votes. host: and 14 members need to be in agreement. guest: right. i wanted to endorse the proposal. here was the commission that was
going to give up shared sacrifice, austerity on the road to a balanced budget, but instead, they have huge giveaways to big corporations. to say that we are going to hit the middle-class so hard, we have a reputation for austerity, and then sneak in provisions that provides massive reductions for corporations, would not be good. they snuck it in there and put it in codeword, but they want to go to the absolute maximum in terms of tax incenves for offshore jobs. if the u.s. -- if a company shuts down a factory in the u.s. and moves onshore, they will never pay taxes on that foreign based center. you have this deficit
commission. people who want to reduce the deficit should endorse it, but if you actually read it and see what is inside, it is austerity for the middle class, incentives for offshore and american jobs. host: the president yesterday calling for 2 million federal employees. it could save as much as $5 billion in the next five years. is an employee freeze a good idea? guest: i think it is a good idea. we have frozen our pay in congress. you hate to turn to people that we all rely on and take away cost of living increase, but at the same time, inflation has been modest. there has been testimony that
actual inflation rate is three quarters of a percent less than the actual calculated rate. if it was part of austerity across the board, shared sacrifice, then federal employees should be included. host: why not reduce the number of federal employees? guest: we have reduced the number of federal employees in the past 15 years. i am referring to non-uniformed. obviously, the military has increased somewhat. host: steny hoyer also believe that uniformed members should deal with a pay freeze. guest: during the war, that is difficult. i do not think we will see a freeze for our uniformed military. host: we are talking with brad sherman of california.
we are talking about the lame duck session. we will also touch on the start treaty and wikileaks. first, phone call from bowie, maryland. caller: i was thinking. they have not had an increase for almost two years down. the majority of federal employees agree with the paradpy freeze. however, john boehner is going to get a $35,000 increase. and those pushing for the bush tax cuts to stay in place, they are all millionaires. president bush, he gave us two tax cuts in the stimulus plan, and that was fine. the so-called bush tax cuts for the middle class, that amounted to nothing.
$100 a month? in is just not fair.s peopl the republicans have duped all of these people who voted them into office. this new representative from maryland, the first thing he says when he gets into office is, when does my health care kick in? yet, he ran against obamacare. guest: if i could comment on that -- i think you said bush when you meant obama. the stimulus bill contained tax cuts that are more important for americans than the bush tax
cuts. those tax cuts expire at the end of the year. when you look at a plan to balance the budget, we ought to have liberal policies now, that is to say, expand the money supply, expand demand over the years, but at the same time, have a long-term plan to reduce the deficit. i generally agree with you. one thing i want to point out is not all taxes on businesses have the same effect on business productivity, employment. a corporate income tax should, in theory, not affect their behavior at all. they want to make as much money as they can, regardless of how much money they have to give the
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord, full of compassion and mercy, draw near to your people and show us your saving power. in times of uncertainty be our surity. guide us in every step to full recovery that this nation may
be strengthened both in stability and integrity. may we prove ourselves your disciples and come to fullness of life in you and with you both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, congressman poe. mr. poe: join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise?
without objection. ms. watson: madam speaker, standing in our way are those who will be holding the middle class hostage in favor of giving added tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires even though the bonus tax breaks would add $700 billion to the national debt. 98% of americans face a tax increase january 1. for the typical middle class american family, that could mean the loss of $2,000 next year. the republican demands would mean that those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average cut of $100,000 annually and the middle class would be saddled with $700 billion in new debt to pay for the multimillion dollar tax cuts for billionaires. but that's the exact policy
choice congressional republicans would have us make. citing concerns about the deficit when it comes to america's families. but not when it comes to tax cuts for the wealthiest few. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, the border war continues to escalate. over 2,200 people have been killed just this year in drug related violence in mexico. the battles are spilling over into american communities. the drug cartels are shooting their way acrime scene the rio grande -- their way across the rio grande river. warning, keep out of parts of america it's too dangerous. now there are reports the handful of national guard troops on the border are going to be reduced. that is no answer. the national guard border enforcement act will change all
that t will authorize 10,000 national guard troops to be put on the border. the troops will be paid for by the federal government under the supervision of the board of governors. that's a plan we can live with. otherwise the border war will continue and the valley of the gun and land of lawless days. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time h expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. baca: when president obama took office he inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit, two wars, the recession, mounting job losses that pushed our economy to the brink. since then we have made steady progress towards recovery and laid the groundwork to create new jobs. but during these tough times, we must act decisively to extend the tax relief for middle class families. if congress does not act soon, 98% of the americans will face a tax increase in january 1.
for this typical middle class family, this means the loss of 2,000 next year. that's a lot to middle income families. the republicans must stop holding these tax cuts for the middle class hostage. extending the tax cuts for the rich will not create jobs and stimulate the economy. but it will add, i state, it will add, $700 billion to our national deficit. $700 billion to our national deficit. the time for simply saying no is over. let's work together to create jobs. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to one of new jersey's great public servants, w. kerry edwards, who passed away in october at the age of
66. offer the course of four decades if public life, kerry served at the highest levels of new jersey government. including as state assemblyman, chief counl to the governor and state attorney general. the time of his death he was chairman of the new jersey state commission of investigation. to me he was a wonderful mentor and good friend. i had the honor of working under him and learning from him when he served as governor cane's chief counsel in the first half of the 1980's. kerry edwards inspired a whole generation of young people in the field of law and public policy. he will be remembered as an inspiring leader in the state of new jersey. to his wonderful wife, lynn, his daughters and sister, and to the entire edwards family, we extend our deepest sympathy. w. kerry edwards of oakland,bergen county, new jersey, will be greatly missed by the people of our state.
i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. today the united states received good news concerning education in america. nationwide high school graduation rose 2%. even better my state of tennessee the rates rose 15%. the number one increase in the united states of america. those are statistics from the year 2002 to 2009. as determined by the institute that colin powell headed. as part of that i'm happy to attribute it to is the lottery the hallmark legislation as a state senator. it passed in 2002 and the education law went into effect in 2003. giving children the incentive to go to college that they can have a better life. giving them hope with hope scholarships has helped kids make better grades in high school and turn out better graduates in tennessee. i appreciate the fact that
tennessee has been recognized today as the country's education is great and scores have gone up. we need to continue working on this and if every state gave their students hope we would have a better nation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. time and time again members from both side of the aisle have spoken on the need to create jobs. mr. smith: this is what the american people want and it's passed time for washington to start listening. we have just a few short weeks to take that message to heart and stop a $3 trillion tax hike set to take effect on january 1. our country needs real economic growth which can't happen if washington doesn't prevent the tax increases on farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. we won't solve our fiscal challenges until we cut spending, stop the growth of government, and extend the current tax rate. the sooner we can provide certainty to american business, the seener they can get our economy back on track and start hiring again. over the next few weeks we have
the chance to do what is right for our economy. let's make it sooner rather than later. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> starting tomorrow 31,000 of my constituents, 4hand,000 new yorkers, and two million americans will begin to lose their unemployment benefit. before thanksgiving 143 republicans and 11 democrats voted against extending unemployment insurance. with that vote they said the unemployed mother or husband who lost his job to outsourcing are the ones who should shoulder the burden of reducing the national debt. in the same breath republicans call on congress to pass a tax break for the wealthiest americans, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit. republicans say we can't afford unemployment benefits but they are alone in their logic. mr. bishop: economists agree extending unemployment benefits does far to stimulate economic growth than tax breaks for millionaires. as we enter the winter season
and home heating, gas, and other basic cost also rise, i ask my colleagues to help those american families who are most in need not those wealthiest who need it the least. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise to congratulate the wizetta high school football team on winning the minnesota state high school championship this year. sophomore chad underhill ran for a remarkable four touchdowns leading the top ranked trojans to a 31-14 victory. the victory gave them their fourth state championship. the perfect season included an overtime victory over last year's state champion in the final game of the regular season and a very gutsy victory over mibby tonga -- minnetonka, winning the game with no time left on the clock. mr. paulsen: they held their opponents scoreless for 15 straight quarters.
the state championship continues in an outstanding tradition of excellence at the high school since the year 2000. they have now produced an nfl pro bowler and running back marion barber, a butkus award winner in james lorenitis and four state championships. congratulations to the student athletes, parents, and coaches. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. yarmuth: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, we are now in the situation in this country in which we have the greatest disparity between the very wealthy people and everybody else that we have had in 100 years. already this year with the top 1% of the income earners in this country have earned 24% of total income. and despite all of this, our colleagues on the republican side want to preserve tax cuts for those very, very fortunate people who have more now as a
percent of the american economy than they have ever had. meanwhile, they are going to deny two million americans extension of unemployment benefits which every economist agrees is the best way to create economic activity. the american people rightly wonder whose side their government is on and the problem, juxtaposition of these issues we face this week, question of tax cuts for the very wealthiest of americans or extending unemployment benefits for those people who are struggling is a clear delineation of whose side this government is on. we are on the side of the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. as i sit here and listen to my colleagues across the aisle, i want to remind them that the american people showed on november 2 they are not buying the class warfare that our friends are still trying to
sell. we are a month away fromtax increase that is will hit every american taxpayer. the obama-pelosi-reid spending spree that's racked up $6.1 trillion in federal spending in 22 months is about to hand the american people a massive tax increase. democrats had jorts in both houses in congress until january and there is time for them to do something to stop the $3.9 trillion tax increases. but so far all we are seeing on the agenda is more spending. republicans are ready to work in a bipartisan way to stop these tax increases and cut spending. but the president and congressional democrats don't take action before the end of the year to stop all -- the new house majority will in january. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute. .
american families mr. butterfield: 98% of american families will have a tax increase. our recovery demands, keeping as much income as possible in the hands of those who need it the most, america's middle class. by extending middle-class tax cuts we can protect american families and strengthen our economy. but with the national debt already exceeding $13 trillion we cannot simply borrow $78 billion to -- for the 2% richest families in in america. they will receive substantial tax cuts on the first $250,000 of their income. this is not class warfare. i urge my colleagues to support permanent tax cuts for america's middle class. don't hold tax cuts hostage to help 2% of america's families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise?
mr. kagen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kagen: madam speaker, earlier this morning i joined my congressional staff on a tour of our capitol. what a wonderful place this is. if there is any lesson we should learn from our capitol, our nation's history is that our freedom is ours for as long as we can hang on to it. it wasn't that long ago that the democrats led americans in the five new essential freedoms. we are now free from discrimination due to any pre-existing medical condition. and we're free from going broke just because a child has an accident or becomes seriously ill. we are free to choose our own doctor and can go to the closest emergency rooms. these will be for yours as long as you can hang on to them. we as democrats fought very hard to secure thefment we are
going to work very hard to hold on to thess new found freedoms. your freedoms are yours for as long as you can hang on to them. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. chu: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. chu: should we be giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the rich? no. instead we should reignite the economy and focus on protecting the middle class. that's why i support extending tax cuts for them for 98% of american families. but some in congress are holding the middle class hostage in order to cut taxes for the wealthiest 2%. in tough times like these, millionaires should be giving to charity, not getting it. this will force our cash-strapped government to lose $700 billion over the next decade. and where will this money go? straight into the pockets making half a million a year. what's worse, the wealthy are
less likely to spend this money doing nothing to help our economy. let's put our money to create jobs and helps the people who need it. let's extend middle-class tax cuts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. moran: madam speaker, i can understand why president obama has chosen to freeze federal pay for the next two years. from a political standpoint, it preempts what the republicans would have tried to do next year anyway and it responds to an anti-government attitude that was most profoundly reflected in this month's congressional elections. from a policy standpoint, though, it is as they say penny-wise and pound foolish. the federal government has been subjected to a brain drain over the last decade where the best and brightest folks and procurement, research and
development and information, technology, program management, and a host of other essential skill sets have gone over to the private sector for more pay and in any -- many cases other things. this move sends a signal individually and collectivelyly to accelerate thereby leaving our economy and our society in a weaker position to compete globally and to prosper domestically. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. braley: madam speaker, as the american middle class continues to endure tough economic challenges, the deadline looms for extending middle-class tax cuts that will provide continued relief when it's needed the most. standing in our way are republics who are lding the middle class hostage in favor of giving added tax breaks to
millionaires and billionaires. even though these bonus tax breaks would add $700 billion to the national deficit. so what's at stake? these middle-class tax cuts will provide 98% of americans who pass a tax increase on january 1 the much-needed relief that they deserve. for the typical middle-class family that would mean the loss of $2,000 next year. our republican friends can he manned that that would be more than $1 million a year -- demand that that would be more than $1 million a year. they would receive a cut of millions of dollars. in tough times like these, millionaires should be giving charity, not getting it, and that's the choice that the american people should be demanding that we make and i yield back the balance of my time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from nevada rise? ms. berkley: i rise to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. berkley: thank you very much. thank you, madam speaker. the incoming house leadership has signaled that they are once again resurrecting yucca mountain as a solution to this nation's nuclear waste problem. this is the height of insanity. let me remind my colleagues on the other side that we're talking about shipping 77,000 tons of lethal radioactive nuclear waste across 43 states to be buried in a hole in the nevada desert where we have groundwater issues, seismic issues and volcanic activity and is near las vegas. there are no e.p.a. radiation standards. there's no way to protect the shipments from terrorist attacks. it requires millions of gallons of water. we're in the desert. there is no water. we are in the middle of a drought.
this is a waste of taxpayers' money. let's bury this ridiculous idea and figure out what we're going to do with this nation's nuclear waste before we continue to produce more nuclear waste that we still don't know what to do with. let's forget this nonsense and figure out how this nation is going to become energy independent. nuclear is not the way to go. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire rise? ms. shea-porter: the republicans will try to extend tax cuts for millionaires. they say letting tax cuts for the very wealthy will expire will hurt small businesses. it is not true. 90% of small businesses will see no tax increase under the democratic plan. if the republicans think they're talking about small businesses, they are truly out of touch. well, millions of unemployment
benefits of americans reeling from the crisis that the wall street and the previous administration created, they're doing everything they can to give checks to millionaires. this is just one more example of who the republicans are really watching out for. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. perlmutter: good afternoon, madam speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1736 for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1736, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 4783, to accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in chile, and to
extend the period from which such contributions for the relief of victims of the earthquake in haiti may be accelerated, with the senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the house, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on natural resources or his designee that the house concur in the senate amendments. the senate amendments shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour, with 50 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one hour. mr. perlmutter: thank you. and for purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from north carolina, dr. foxx. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
on house resolution 1736. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. perlmutter: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perlmutter: madam speaker, house resolution 1736 provides for the consideration of the bill h.r. 4783, the claims resolution act of 2010. it makes in order a motion to concur to the senate amendment thereon by the chairman of the committee on natural resources, provides one hour of debate with 50 minutes of debate controlled by the natural resources committee and 10 minutes controlled by the ways and means committee. the bill contains a number of important provisions, many of which have already passed the house. it approves settlements in the class action lawsuits brought against the united states department of agriculture by african-american farmers and against the interior department by native americans.
the bill will fully fund america's obligations in these cases and settles both the coble and pickford class action lawsuits. both of these have been in the courts and settlement talks for years and years. in coble, the interior was ruled at fault for mismanaging billions of dollars in grazing, land, gas and other royalties owed to thousands of american indians. this settlement will pay off roughly 500,000 plaintiffs in the case. in pigford, the agriculture department discriminated against thousands of african-american farmers who applied for loans and other assistance during the 1980's and 1990's. the plaintiffs in these cases have waited decades for a resolution of this matter. justice may not be delayed any further. passing this measure will bring closure for hundreds of thousands of americans who have been mistreated or had their rights violated by the
government. passage will also approve four water rights settlements with american indian tribes providing the tribes funding with building water distribution systems. the house has already approved three out of four of these settlements. another critical provision in this bill is the extension of temporary assistance to needy families, also known as tanf. this comes at a time when so many americans are struggling financially and are due to lose the support of this program if the house does not act. while the senate amendments we are considering today incur more costs in the short term, over 10 years this bill will actually save money and reduce the deficit. on november 19, the senate took up the bill, adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute, and passed the bill all by unanimous consent. the house must pass these
measures without any further delay. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from colorado for yielding me time. madam speaker, i am going to talk about this rule and the underlying bill, but i have to say again in response to my colleagues who was speaking just before we began this debate those across the aisle who were in the majority by at least 39 votes. they are in the majority in the senate also. and they cannot continue to say that republicans are holding any bill hostage. we do not have the capability of holding bills hostage in this house, and it is really a
concern of mine and some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that our friends keep making that comment. they can bring a bill up anytime they want to. just like we're going to be dealing with these five bills today, six bills anytime they want to they can bring it up. they can't blame republicans for their inquatses. madam speaker, i have several concerns with the underlying bill that the democrats have brought before us today. for start, this bill is over 270 pages and costs over $5.7 billion. it is not -- it is not, it is not pay-go compliant. . it was writ yep behind closed doors, does not afford republicans the opportunity to amend the legislation to improve the bill and make it more responsible to the taxpayer. it combines six pieces of controversial legislation of
concern to my colleagues and i on this side of thaisle. while there may be merit in addressing each of these items individually, to combine them in one single piece of legislation and force a single vote with full knowledge that members and their constituents have several outstanding concerns represents irresponsible behavior. it does not represent the kind of governing that the people of this country deserve. i do want to say to my colleagues across the aisle, republicans abhor any type of discrimination. and inasmuch as people have been discriminated in this country in the past, we object to that. we abhor it. so our objections have nothing to do with past discrimination. but the way that money is being spent and bills are being brought up continually under a closed rule.
this bill contains two bills which settles two different class action lawsuits and four bills approving four different water rights settlements. it provides $3.4 billion to approve a settlement reached by the department of interior and native americans to resolve the coble v. salazar case concerning alleged mismanagement of oil fees owed to native american tribes by the department of interior. there is merit to reaching a resolution to this long-standing case. however individual native americans and respected native americans have outstanding concerns which they brought to congress. democrats have brought this bill to the floor under a structured rule that does not allow members the opportunity to fix the concern. one of the major concerns with this settle it it allows plaintiff attorneys to be paid in excess of $100 million. since every dollar paid to
attorneys comes from the pocket of individual native americans, ranking member dreier offered an andment last night in the rules committee to limit attorneys' fees to $50 million but his amendment was rejected by the ruling democrat so we are unable to consider it on the floor today. the second individual bill contained in this legislation provides $1.15 billion to approve the pickford v. glickman legal case in which african-american farmers alleged discrimination by the department of agriculture when applying for loans in the 1980's and 1990's. alarmingly when this case was originally brought forward in 1997, it was then estimated that 2,000 farmers may have suffered from discrimination by the usda. today while the number widely varies, it's estimated that approximately 65,000 potential claims exist. former agriculture secretary ed
schaffer stated while those who were discriminated against should be reimbursed, but there are other hangers on trying to game the system. according to former secretary schaffer, the problem you have with class action lawsuits is a lot of people jump in that may be on the fringe that may be don't deserve it. it sounded good because their neighbor got a check. it is very expensive, very time consuming. some people will get paid probably don't deserve it. i don't like that kind of thing. i like to settle on merit, end quote. therefore the $1.15 billion provided in this bill may go to claimants who do not have a valid claim but due to the gross incompetency of the federal government may now receive a fast track payment for up to $50,000 in taxpayer money. approval of the pickford v. glickman settlement is not pay-go client and is in addition to the $100 million already provided for this case by the 2008 farm bill.
the next four bills contained in this legislation are four separate water right settlements with native american tribes. taken together they direct the government to fund nearly $1 billion and participate in the construction and maintenance of the specified local water system. the first water rights settlement including this bill provides $324.5 million to create a new rural water system with the white mountain apache tribe in arizona. the second water right settlement included in this bill provides $136 million to approve a settlement agreement among the taos pueblo, the federal government, and state of new mexico. the third water rights settlement including this bill provides $465 million to approve the 1999 settlement between the crow nation and the state of montana. the fourth water right settlement included in this bill authorizes $199 million to approve the controversial amot litigation settlement in new mexico. although some of these
settlements are well intended there are fiscal concerns and multitude of unanswered questions that still need to be addressed. it's unclear what the settlement amounts are in the best interest of u.s. taxpayers. the republicans on the natural resources committee asked the department of justice months ago whether these settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to the consequences and cost of litigation. but we have not yet received a response. voting to approve these water right settlements forces congress to be an arbitrator between sides involved in litigation. that is not a role the congress should be forced to assume without sufficient information. information which still has not been provided by the department of justice. these settlements would be better resolved at the local level. as representatives we owe it to our constituents to make sure settlements are not being made to overcompensate a group or locality at the expense of the taxpayer. there is no documentation that
these settlements would save the taxpayer money, and therefore it is unclear whether congress is fulfilling its responsibilities to the taxpayer. but as my colleague from colorado said a little bit ago, the philosophy of our friends across the aisle is spending saves money. that isn't an argument that the american people are buying anymore. as you can see, madam speaker, these six bills each have individual concerns that must be addressed on the floor of the house. instead of affording members of opportunity to fix these bills, however, the bill before us today is another representation of the failed democrat strategy for passing legislation. throw numerous bills together into one cumbersome legislative vehicle, slap an outrageous price tag on it, waive pay-go, and call for an immediate vote under a structured rule which does not allow for any amendment. the american people have grown tired of waiting for real solutions to their problems. fortunately, help is on the
way. and in january, this house will set a new course toward protecting individual liberty and shrinking the unending expansion of the suffocating federal bureaucracy. that's why i will urge my colleagues to vote no on this irresponsible rule and the underlying legislation. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is regnized. mr. perlmutter: i thank the speaker. and in response to my friend from north carolina, i would say that the republicans in the united states senate are the ones who have been holding up legislation just as this until they get what they want. they put all these things together, send it back to the house. with that i yield three minutes to my friend from missouri, mr. clay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. clay: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today i rise to urge the adoption of this rule as well as the underlying bill.
this funding -- i support this funding to right two historic wrongs that have tarnished our nation for far too long. the pickford and cobell settlements. it is a sad truth that the usda under both republican and democratic administrations previously engaged in well documented discrimination in loan, grant, and trust programs. these indefensible actions adversely affected thousands of african-american and native american farmers. patterns of discrimination resulted in foreclow sure, of family farms and severe financial hardships. some of which are still being felt to this day.
in my home state of missouri i have personally met with numerous african-american farmers who were misled, discriminated against, and in some cases deliberately deceived by the usda. now, these desedents of freed slaves were victimized by their own government time and time again. in congress, compensation for pickford one, pickford two, and cobell have been blocked by partisan attempts to politicize this issue. this delay is inexcusable. this is not about politics. it is a test of our commitment to honesty, fairness, and justice for all. today we have a bipartisan opportunity to end this
obstruction. finally, do the right thing for those whom this government has failed. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to exercise our shared sense of american decency to swiftly pass this bill and the rule as we take final action together to resolve this grave injustice. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now would like to yield five minutes to my colleague from iowa, mr. king. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady from north carolina for yielding. i come to the floor troubled, considerably troubled by -- and in opposition to the rule by this pickford settlement
proposal that we have heard about just now. and it was brought to my attention some time after i was elected to congress i had a number of iowa usda employees that were employed to washington, d.c., and other locations to assist in administering the pickford one settlement. they contributed $1.05 billion to african-american farmers who -- some of whom were discriminated against, all of those that were discriminated against i would agree i think with all of my colleagues they should be compensated to the degree that's practicable by law. however, as i sat down with the individuals that were administering the pickford one settlement and one came back with a box of file forms and applications sick to his stomach and told me he had been compelled to engage in a practice that he believed was 75% fraudulent at a minimum. i thought that was a high and shocking number and put the information away.
until it emerged again and again in this congress. it emerged before the judiciary committee and hearings, before the committee on pickford two to open it up again. and there the president of the black farmers organization, john boyd, testified under oath there are 18,000 black farmers. i went back through the usda records i could find a peek of perhaps as many as 36,000. his number of 18 sticks in my mind. we are up to 94,000 claims, madam speaker. and 18,000 black farmers. if you presumed that everyone was discriminated against, which i reject on its face, we are looking at something here that is a multiplier beyond this congress ever intentioned. as the gentlelady from north carolina said, anticipate a couple thousand applicants turns into now 90-plus thousand am canths, of which perhaps 2/3 may be successful in their $50,000 siphon. there was a statute of limitations. a consent decree was closed april 14, 1999.
since that time it's been opened up a second time. the ag committee is the other component of this. myself and congressman goodlatte of virginia is the only two that served on judiciary and ag. there in the 2008 farm bill the chairman of the ag committee, mr. peterson, put in $100 million to be the end, the settlement of pickford. that was the end for all times. we had an intense conversation on that. i said it will be an additional $1.3 billion. he insisted that $100 million would end it. i have the language here, madam speaker, and i'll asknanimous consent to introduce it into the record, that puts the cap on $100 million. here we are two short years later with $1.3 billion and the people that i'm talking to that administered this at higher levels, yes and noes, first brought to to my attention tells me the levels of fraud are higher yet. it's not just $50,000. it's $50,000 plus the 25% of that check that goes to the
i.r.s. to pay the tax liability. so there's another $12,500. judge paul friedman estimated the debt that would be forgiven would be an average of $100,000 per black farmer. and another 25% i.r.s. check. other we are at $187,500 and still this congress has no access to the records other than those that have been spirited out of the usda. so it isn't just that we should not fund this, there is no deal. there was no congress directive that sent eric holder and tom vilsack to sit down with john boyd of the black farmers and make a new deal and come to this congress and say appropriate $1.15 billion additional dollars to fund the pickford two. that was their elective. that was their elective in the face of congress' direction that it would be capped at $100 million in the 2008 farm bill. there is no deal unless congress authorizes this today. and if we do so, we are asking members that haven't had access
to the information to ratify an agreement that was put together by eric holder and tom vilsack at their own voleligs not by the direction of congress. and the next congress has an obligation to look into these records and check the data and follow through the threads of fraud and be honest with the american taxpayers and make sure that those that have been discriminated against are compensated. but the simple point here is this, madam speaker, there hasn't been one, for all together, $2.3 billion that the taxpayers have accepted this liability, there hasn't been one usda employee that has been fired or disciplined. not one. the secretary of agriculture tells me he's not willing to relitigate pickford one, he's not willing to open up the records to allow us to look at it, and he's not willing to allow us to look over his shoulder to assure pickford two is less fraudulent than pickford one. for all these reasons i ask my colleagues to vote no on the rule and bill.
i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you. i'd say to my friend from iowa that the settlement now applies to all african-american farmers who were discriminated against, not just those that filed their claim by 1997. and as a consequence, it's a much broader class that is being settled with, and we just can't have this kind of discrimination going on in this country, and america needs to pay its debts and not allow this kind of discrimination to go forward. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend from ohio, congresswoman fudge. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. fudge: thank you very much, and thank you for the time. madam speaker, here we go again. it's just a matter of delay, delay, no, no, no. 11 years ago tens of thousands
of black farmers settled a landmark court case which addressed years and years of discrimination by the department of agriculture. finally, finally today, madam speaker, these farmers, these men and women who literally put food on our tables are receiving justice. while litigation against the usda for discrimination against black farmers began in august of 1997, with the pigford and glickman case, the injustice has spanned for decades. over 66,000 black farmers were routinely denied usda farm loans or forced to wait, to wait and wait for loan approvals much longer than nonminorities. these farmers faced foreclosure, financial ruin because of usda's discriminatory denials and unconscionable actions. many of these farmers died helplessly, hopelessly waiting for justice.
today, finally this congress will pass the funding legislation which is about more than just money. today's vote is about justice. now, make no mistake. i do indeed take issue with redirecting money from our nation's needy infants and children to right this wrong. however, justice delayed is justice denied. i hope my colleagues across the aisle who keep talking about fraud, we've been talking about pigford for years. if there is fraud where is your proof? madam speaker, i say today that there is no fraud. the courts have put in every single thing they can put in for black farmers -- every single hoop they can put in for black farmers to jump through. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i think the debate on this bill today
points out why we have such a broken system in this country right now. the federal government has no business being in the farm business. we need to get our federal government back to the intended purposes of the federal government which are very limited in our constitution. we -- every time the federal government gets involved in things that has no business getting involved in they go awry and i think the arguments from our colleagues across the aisle point that out. i also want to point out that contrary to statements repeated over and over again by our colleagues across the aisle, americans have not enjoyed any tax cuts in the past four years since they have been in charge of this congress. to the contrary, the house republican ways and means committee has highlighted more
than $680 billion in tax increases that have been imposed on the american people since the ruling liberal democrats took control of washington in january of 2009. now because of democrats' inaction, the american people are looking at the largest tax increase in the history of our country, which would affect all married couples, all families with children, seniors and small businesses. that would destroy an average of 693 jobs every year until 2020, drain $626 billion from disposable income, $38 billion from personal savings and $33 billion from business investment. that would raise taxes on the 55% of all joint filers earning more than $250,000 who run small businesses that employ
others, cost the average nonfarm small business owner $3,500 more in taxes, cost the 49% of all seniors with income below $250,000 $525 more in additional dividend taxes and cost 25% of all seniors with income below $250,000 $742 in higher taxes. so president obama's plan to allow portions of the 2001, 2003 tax rate to expire resulting in steep tax heights beginning in january, 2011, for small businesses and those earning $250,000 or more would significantly affect the economy in north carolina. most notably in the number of jobs and changes in personal income. according to the heritage foundation from 2011 to 2020, north carolina's fifth
congressional district would lose on average 1,577 jobs annually, lose per household $4 6 -- $4,647. the job-killing consequences continue with evidence based on the stimulation of the moody's an lytics macroeconomic model which has an across the board tax increase would precipitate a double-dip recession during 2011, leave unemployment ultimately leading to 8.6 million fewer jobs than we had in 2007, aggravate the unemployment rate which would remain above 10% through late 2012, promote a sluggish g.d.p. growth of 9% -- .9% in 2011 and
prevent a return to full employment until 2015. although the proposal to increase income taxes for those earning $250,000 technically applies to 2% of taxpayers, the truth is that the top 2% tax bracket plays a critical role in keeping the economy running. they spend 25% of personal outlays and generate 50% of small business income. those with income under $250,000 will be impacted by the increase in dividend and capital gains taxes as 24% of tax filers with incomes less than $250,000 would be hit by increased dividend taxes and 10% by increased capital gains taxes. furthermore, half of seniors earning $250,000 would have to pay higher taxes from dividends, capital gains or both.
over the next 10 years, the heritage foundation projects a there are 1.1 trillion g.d.p. loss of current -- if current tax rates are not extended. the case is clear, the democrats' misguided tax plan is motivated by class warfare, not sound economic policy. founately, americans rejected this incompetent governance and americans stand ready to restore america's economic vitality. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. perlmutter: thank you, madam speaker. i remind the body that we're here to discuss cobell vs. salazar, pigford v. glickman as well as the settlement of a number of water rights cases and -- but even having said that, i'd like to respond to my friend from north carolina that
not even a republican congress that set forth these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires thought they would go on forever. they set them so they'd expire at the end of this year so that this nation would have the revenue that it needs to pay its bills. but the republicans who have now taken this house want to continue those tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires so that this country can't pay its bills as it's supposed to. so the tax cuts prosecuting two wars without paying for them, allowing the bottom to fall out of wall street without any regulation sent this country into a huge deficit which has to stop and it has to stop now. now, we've seen since we passed the recovery act growth in the economy, not that loss of 6% as we saw in the final quarter of
the bush administration, but we've seen five consecutive quarters of growth. we've seen increased employment from the private sector. we have a long way to go, and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires are not the way to do it. with that i'd like to yield 3 1/2 minutes to my friend from texas, congresswoman jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask to address the house. let me thank my good friend from colorado, and i will agree with you that this underlying bill is not a bill about billionaires and millionaires. i am delighted to rise now and support h.r. 4783 which has been amended by the senate, and i will tell you that this bill is not an entitlement. it is a bill that is earned by the sweat and tears and the loss of land and the death of many who stood for the
empowerment on the basis of the ownership of land that would generate a legacy for those who happen to be native americans and as well as justice for those who happen to be african-american. i am delighted that we have come to a conclusion on the cobell settlement and the pigford settlement. one dealing with the trust lands of native americans and the other dealing with the inequities in the department of agriculture dealing with black farmers. this is the work of the agriculture committee and it is the work of the judiciary committee, the department of justice and president obama's administration. how many of you have stood alongside a farmer who have had tears in their eyes because the only thing they wanted to do is to toil the soil and to produce for the american people? this has happened across america. in the name of shirley shirat
who attempted in her new appointment to make sure that all farmers were included as related to the resources of the department of agriculture, how many of you have heard of stories where one farmer would get a small pittance of a loan and another farmer would not just because of the color of their skin and they would result in a bankruptcy, a loss of land? america is the place of equality, and so to the apratchy tribe and the crow tribe, the aamodt tribe dealing with water rights, legitimate issues addressing native lands have now been resolved. this is not a handout. the courts determined that the native american prevails and they determined over two or three years ago that the black farmers prevailed as well. there was an inequity in addressing the question of treatment under the department of agriculture. and so who are we as a nation? and so who are we as a nation? we are proud americans who have