demand the women receive contraceptive injections ahead of the journey. many women are raped, beaten or killed in the process of illegally transporting themselves through the nation of mexico. illegals in mexico can't complain about the abuse to authorities. according to the report in article 67 of mexico's population law, it says, authorities, whether federal state or municipal are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country of mexico. now president calderon self-rightously criticizes arizona for enforcing immigration laws, but his own nation requires the state in mexico to enforce mexico's immigration laws. the amnesty report goes on to say and talk about an example of one of the horror stories of

abuses of illegals that are in mexico. on january 23 of this year, armed police stopped a freight train carrying 100 migrants in southern mexico. a girl said that the federal police, the federal government, the federal police forced her and other illegals in mexico to leave the train they were hiding on. they were force todd lay down on the ground -- forced to lay down on the ground where mexico police stole their belongings and threatened to kill them. after walking for hours, the group was assaulted by armed men who sexually assaulted veronica and killed at least one of the other illegals in mexico. it seems to me that president calderon is here at the white house complaining about america, complaining about imagined and physical tissueous abuses in arizona's new illegal

immigration enforcement law while he ignores human rights abuses of illegals in his home nation of mexico. perhaps he should clean his own glass house instead of throwing rocks at the u.s. president calderon's nation is in economic turmoil. his economic plan is simple, he tells his citizen, go to america with any means necessary and send money back to mexico. he cannot take care of his citizens. his country abuses immigrants and he is out of line criticizing the united states r any reason. his comments are hypocritical and irrelevant. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. etheridge from north carolina. mr. etheridge: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mretheridge: thank you, madam speaker.

madam speaker, i rise today for early detection month for cancer. the house and senate has concurred in a resolution honoring early detection month which is the current month, the month of may. across the country, individuals and groups are organizing events to raise public awareness of cancer screening and early detection so that any person who gets cancer has a chance atsur vifle. it is fitting that mother's day should be celebrated during early detection month because our mothers, our sisters, our daughters are the victims of this second most common form of cancer, breast cancer. just as it is for other forms of cancer, early detection is the key to reducing deaths from breast cancer. the one in eight foundation is one of the leading groups working to fight against cancer and is focused solely on early detection.

from its headquarters in kerry, north carolina, ken varna is working to make sure that men and women across this country are aware of the differences that early detection can make in the course of cancer. the foundation is engaged in educating and motivating people to become more proactive about their health and live longer. in fact, the concurrent resolution that honors the efforts of early detection month for breast cancer and all forms of ncer only came about because of ken and the foundation's efforts. i know personally the difference that early detection can make. several years ago i was diagnosed with melanoma. my cancer was found early because i saw my doctor regularly. i am living proof of the importance of early detection. as a cancer survivor myself, i want to enable all americans to have the knowledge and access to care that early detection of

cancer provides so that it can be treated and cancer survivors can live long and healthy lives. every year almost two million americans are diagnosed with cancer. more than one quarter of these cases result in death. early detection can help patients get early treatment. it can stop the spread of disease before it becomes untreatable and can be the difference between life and death. early detection saves tens of thousands of lives annually but also reduces the financial restrain on the government and private health care services. for many common cancers when the disease is caught early, nine of 10 patients can be saved. unfortunately, tens of thousands of people every year are diagnosed with advanced

cancer and all too often they face painful treatment and poor chances of survival. through forward-looking investment of taxpayers' dollars, we've made great strives in cancer research. detection needs to be provided early if we want cancer patients to become cancer survivors. organizations promote early detection so that we can do more than survive cancer. they can regain the full and active lives thlways enjoy. organizations like the one in eight foundation fights to make sure that mother's day is a happy day because moms get the cure and treatment they need before it's too late. madam speaker, early detection reduces the tragedy of cancer deaths in america, and i urge my colleagues to join me in fighting cancer that has claimed so many lives but would support -- but with support of early detection, it can be beaten and more people will

survive. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jones from north carolina. ms. ros-lehtinen from florida. mr. burton from indiana. mr. moran from kansas. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, where is the budget? congress is expected to agree on baunlt by april 15. the budget process at the beginning of each year sets the goals regarding total federal spending for the year. it is the budget that sets the stage for how fiscally responsible government spending will be. mr. god lat: since the passage -- mr. goodlatte: since the passage of the budget act of 1974, the house of

representatives has never failed to pass an initial budget to set the spending priorities for the following fiscal year. not this year. we are now a month past the deadline and speaker pelosi and democratic leadership are showing no signs of complying with the law and coming forward with a budget for fiscal year 2011. in 2006 congressman steny hoyer, who is now the house majority leader, was quoted in saying enacting a budget was, quote, the most basic responsibility of governing, end quote. and congressman john spratt, who is now chairman of the house budget committee said, if you can't budget you can't govern. while i understand that the congress has the power to name public buildings and post offices, i believe that setting a budget, allowing the government to live within its means is more important than passing ceremonial resolutions. with total public debt rising to nearly $13 trillion, according to the bureau of

public debt, congress' priority should remain focus on getting our fiscal house in order. families and small businesses all across our nation understand what it means to make tough decisions each day about what they can and cannot afford. they understand the importance of creating and living by a budget. unfortunately, instead of making the tough choices necessary to reduce spending, the majority in congress has decided to fore go a budget altogether -- forgo a budget altogether. just four years ago the same leaders who are now shirking their responsibility and choosing to move forward without a budget made it clear to how important the budget is to the operation of the federal government. madam speaker, where is the budget? without the passage of a federal budget, the reckless spending that has run rampant in congress will only continue. we have already seen the passage without my support of the so-called economic stimulus

legislation which was supposed to put americans back to work. not only did the stimulus legislation fail to create jobs, but it is now estimated to be costing american taxpayers over $1 trillion, including interest. not only should congress produce a budget, but i am a strong supporter of several measures that promote the establishment of a balanced budget and the elimination of wasteful government programs, including a constitutional amendment that i introduced which requires the federal government to balance its budget. congress must steadfastly hold the line on government spending, which is why i consistently voted for the budgets offered this year. but maybe not this year. no budget is offered. as elected officials and stewards of the taxpayers' money, we have a responsibility to put together a sustainable budget and stick to it. but congress must continue to work to rein in spending and put to practice a spending approach that many americans

already live by. if you don't have it don't spend it. madam speaker, where's the budget? the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey from california. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, on tuesday a suicide bomber deliberately crashed his minivan during the streets in kabul during one of the busiest times of the day. according to "the new york times"' account, and i quote them, the blast blew bodies apart, limbs flew hundreds of feet littering yards and walls and streets. in a passenger bus, an afghan woman lay dead in her seat cut in half with a baby still squirming in her arms. 50 yards away a man's head lay

on the hood of a truck, end quote. it was the most devastating strike seen in the afghan capital in sometime, madam speaker. it served as the kind of welcome home by the snurnlts to president karzai just -- insurgents to president karzai just returning home from the united states who was getting ready to brief reporters at the presidential palace just a short distance away from the site of the explosion. aside from the gruesome civilian casualties, this attack is also significant because the claimed the lives of five of our soldiers which brings the total number of u.s. troop fatalities in afghanistan to over 1,000. this tragic milestone should fill with horror, madam speaker. it should keep every one of us awake at night. for years, the failures to make progress in afghanistan flew under the radar as the war in iraq grabbed most of the attention and headlines. but more than 100 months into

the afghanistan conflict the mission is clearly floundering. more than half of those 1,000 deaths have occurred since september of 2008. the decision to send more troops has only intensified the violence and embolden the militants doing nothing to bringing lasting civility to afghanistan and to its people. this war has not accomplished any of the stated goals. here we are 8 1/2 years after we supposedly drove out the taliban and low and behold the taliban is resurgent, poised to fill the power of vacuum in districts where we've done nothing but build strong and legitimate governing institutions. remember the reportedly successful military offensive over the winter in marza? a few months later it turns out that residents are fleeing in droves because the taliban has

reasserted itself. one u.s. official now calls marja a work in progress but not trending in the right direction. and this is one of the places where we had declared victory. we have been patient, madam speaker. we have given the strategy a chance to work. it failed. it has failed at nearly every turn. 1,000 deaths is far too many. before the number grows, let's bring our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. davis of illinois. mr. polis of colorado. ms. kaptur of ohio. ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and include extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. kaptur: thank you

madam speaker, h many millions more jobs have to be outsourced before washington wakes up? the u.s. chamber of commerce this week released a report claiming that u.s. trade agreements have supported 5.4 million jobs, more than 90% of the jobs, according to the chamber, can be attributed to nafta and our nafta trading partners, mexico and canada. are we talking about the same country and the same continent? in the united states i know and the district i return to every weekend, the battering effects of nafta and nafta-like trade agreements are still being felt. lost jobs, shuttered factories, beleaguered communities. i can't help but wonder if the chamber of commerce report is some sort of cruel joke. 5.4 million jobs? no, try one million jobs lost due to nafta, two million manufacturing jobs lost because

of the offshoring going on in the last quarter century or how about 12,000 to 20,000 service sector jobs lost every monthmark of which have simply been outsourced overseas. in ohio, just the manufacturing sector declined by a third. companies like sylvan holding, delphi, georgia pacific, general motors, dickson, ticonderoga, all have been moved to mexico. things are certainly not much better in mexico. by the 10th anniversary of nafta, "the washington post" reported that 19 million more mexicans were living in poverty than 20 years ago. two million peasant farmers alone were dispososed -- dispo saysed from their land with no adjustment in that country so guess what they're doing? they're seeking to live anywhere, including trying to cross our borders because they have no other choice. nafta didn't take care of them

in their home country. now over half the mexican population is considered poor while one in four is considered extremely poor and unable to afford adequate food. the illegal drug trade has swept across that country and locked in fully in our border. held out the idea of a promised land, when right here in this chamber, america voted to outsource jobs to a parrer country. ross perot was right, nafta is a big sucking sound. nafta and trade agreements caused the great manufacturing our nation knew twither as our workers and we saw our

campaigns compete against state-managed capitalism in mexico, china, japan and so many others. trade deficits are are at the heart of the economic challenge. they destroy jobs. millions and millions and millions of good jobs. we'll never get our economy out of the ditch without fundamental changes in our trade policy. when trade accounts began their downward spiral, america's economy started to deteriorate. do you remember the last time we had a balanced trade account? 1974. we had a thriving middle class. is it any wonder our country is paying the price for the economic policy that it's estimated put a third of our nation in depression. this was no accident. it's the direct result of a quarter century of outsourcing u.s. jobs to penny-wage environments and allowing other nations to keep their markets closed through managed trade practices, substandard systems and many undemocratic systems

able to exploit their work forces for the benefit of a few owners. in essence, our market capitalism is forced to compete with state managed capitalism from mexico, china, japan, it's not a fair fight. these unfair trade agreements have been draining the economic life blood of our nation and every single american knows it to be true. free trade among free people should be think bedrock principle on which any economy is based. without it our workers have no chance. it's time to wake up, stand up for the country. it keeps moving jobs offshore and keep taking more and more and more of our jobs every single year. the same countries block access of our goods into those countries. it hurt ours workers, hurt ours communities and it's hurt this country deeply. madam speaker, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. defazio of oregon.

under the speaker's announced policy of -- policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, is recognized for of minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. broun: madam speaker, thank you. during the five-minute speeches a few minutes ago, mr. goodlatte from virginia was showing all of us this poster that he graciously made up. where is the budget? that's what we're going to be asking tonight, talking about a little bit tonight because we have seen in this congress,

year, that the leadership of the congress is failing its responsibility, failing its duty, failing to bring us a budget. we saw think president put together a budget that he presented to congress back several months ago. we'll talk about that a little bit. under the constitution of the united states, i carry a copy in my pocket because i believe in this document, as it was intended by the founders, the people who wrote this document, one of the prime responsibilities of congress is to pass a budget. from the original intent of our constitution and what it says in constitution, the congress should be making the budget, not the president. article one lays out the

premises of the congress of the united states. article one says all legislative powers shall be vested in a congress of the united states and shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. section two goes on to talk about how the house is made up. section three is about the senate. section four talks about the times and places and manner of holding elections for the same. section seven starts off all bills for raising revenue originate in the house of representatives that the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. that's article i, section 7. all bills for raising revenue should start in the house.

all budgets should be started in the house. that's what our founding fathers meant to happen. section eight lists the -- section 8 lists the 18 things congress could pass laws about. it's only 18. it's many more than 18. this little booklet of the constitution of the united states, article 1, section 8 starts right here, goes to right here. it's 1 3/4 pages. 1 3/4 pages, that's all the congress has the constitutional authority to pass laws about. in the 10th amendment of the constitution, the bill of rights, it says this. in fact, i want to read it to get it very clear so that the american people, madam speaker, that you can understand, you're not prohibited by it to the

united states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. in other words, congress son-in-law supposed to be doing the 18 things in article 1, section 8 that we specifically have enumerated there's supposed to be enumerated powers that we are given by the people. the constitution starts off with three powerful words. we the people is the most powerful political force in this country. we the people is not acting as strongly as it should have been. one of the things congress is supposed to be doing is passing a budget. in fact, families all over this country state and local governments all over this country pass a budget. if we don't have a budget, how

do we know how to set out bills proposing revenue. how do we know how to spend the money, the taxpayers' money that we take from them through taxes. madam speaker, we are doing a lot of things here in congress that we shouldn't be doing. but one thing we should be doing is passing a budget. it's critical. mr. goodlatte said in his five-minute speech that he's proposed, or introduced a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i've done the same. mine's a little different. there are three balanced budget amendments that republicans have introduced but how can we balance the budget if we don't have a budget. i believe firmly that the federal government should not be spending any more money than it takes in year to year.

we should be balancing our budget. my state of georgia has to live under a balanced budget. in fact the general assembly just dismissed just a couple of weeks ago, because they were desperately trying to balance their budget which they eventually did in this economic downturn. they were having tremendous struggles about how to cut the size of state government in the state of georgia. but the federal government should be doing the same. the american people need to demand a balanced budget. republicans are going to be offering a balanced budget. we've done it over and over again in 1995. a balanced budget amendment to the constitution passed the u.s. house of representatives. it lacked one republican vote in the u.s. senate from being law today. unfortunately, we could not get one republican more.

for the balanced budget amendment. we wouldn't be spending our grandchildren's future as we are doing today. the outrageous spending that congress is doing has to stop. the american people need to demand a balanced budget. but we need to demand from our elected representatives a budget. it puzzles me why almost the end of may and congress still has not enacted a budget resolution and has totally disregarded the april 15 deadline. deadline. we've missed that deadline as we miss a lot of things around here. but we have seen over and over again big bills, big spending bills, a stimulus bill that's been an abject failure. to stimulate a government. it has -- it stimulated government, it has not

stimulated jobs in the private sector. most of those are temporary jobs. we see unemployment recently was reported at 9.9%. but that doesn't tell the whole story. there are 15 million people, workers, in america out of work today. we have had a rise in the unemployment rate. the 9.9%, that does not tell the true story. i was talking to one of the county commission chairmen in my district just a few weeks ago he said, paul in our county, -- county, the unemployment rate today is 10.7%. one year ago it was 14.3%. i said, man that is great. where did the jobs come from? where did you create these jobs in this country -- county? he said, sadly, there are no jobs.

we have not created new job here's. people have fallen off the roles. they've gotten discouraged and just aren't on the unemployment roles anymore. in georgia, we have furloughed teachers, university of georgia that i represent, that's in athens, georgia, we furloughed a lot of employees of the university. teachers across the state of georgia are going to be put out of work because the state of georgia does not have the money in this economic downturn to continue to hire, to continue to employ, the teachers we desperately need. we had a resolution we all volted on, almost unanimously, to honor teachers. teachers hold the future of our nation, because what they teach

our children is critical for the safety and prosperity of america. teachers are being put out of work all over this country. we have too many people in the administration, in the school system, unfortunately, teachers losing their jobs and administrators are keeping their jobs. but we absolutely have to have a budget. we have absolutely must have something, a framework of how congress is going to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned money. congress is ignoring the immediate budget picture, but we've also punted the long-term

budgeting procedures to a deficit commission that is structured to avoid transparency and accountability. and it looks like we are not going to pass a budget resolution here in the house nor in the senate. we may mott even pass any appropriations bill. but tonight we're asking, where is the budget? there's nowhere to be found. i've just been joined by my good friend, congressman jim jordan, who is very much part of the budget committee and has been a stall wart in -- stalwart in the budget and what's ing on. he's here joining us and hopefully we'll have some other

members. i see marsha blackburn, a stalwart conservative congresswoman from tennessee, from nashville. good friend who's joined us. i appreciate y'all joining us here tonight. so i want to yield time to mr. jordan and tell us about the budget. where is the budget? mr. jordan: where is the budget? i thank the gentleman for yielding and thanking him for taking time on this special order. april 15 by law the congress is supposed to have a budget resolution in place. we're supposed to have a document that actually places the parameters, set the framework for all the spending that the federal government plans to do. and yet here we are five weeks later still no budget. frankly, all the talk from the democrats in congress is they're not going to do a budget resolution. look, families have to do a budget. small business owners have to do a budget. local school boards do a budget.

village councils do a budget. mayors, city councils do a budget. somehow the federal government, the biggest spender in the world, is not going to put a plan together. who would have thought we'd ever see this day? who would have ever imagined we've seen the things witnessed from this congress, talk about a back tax, talk about a $1.4 trillion deficit. did you ever think we'd see that? a $12 trillion national debt. and the talks of not putting a budget together. look, part of the reason i think the democrats don't want to do that document and show the american people where they plan on spending their money is because the budget they got from the white house was so ridiculous. the budget from the white house that the president sent to congress, sent to the budget committee, we heard testimony from the various federal agencies the budget they sent

by budget trector orszag's own system -- director orszag's own system -- testimony, it ran up the g.d.p. there's no wonder they want to deal with that document and put together their own budget. families, taxpayers, business owners, they don't get to take a path. they have to put their budget together. and the federal government should do no less. you know, last year, they were offered a budget. we plan to bring it forward. we plan to lay out there what a balanced budget looks like, what fiscal responsibility looks like. we plan to do what families and small business owners have to do. so it's a troublesomeday. it's a sad day -- it's a troublesome day. it's a sad day.

mr. broun: reclaiming my time, mr. jordan. you're exactly right. i'd like for you to talk about the republican balanced budget that we introduced last year and again you're working on it this year, but you brought up the president's budget. todd akin, our colleague from missouri, was very generous to loan me this chart. this is about the president's proposed budget that he gave us. we don't have a house budget. we may not get a senate bdget. this pie chart, i just want to pay attention to two figures, total receipts proposed. $2.56 trillion. total outlays, $3.834 trillion. now, a trillion dollars is a lot. people can't get their arms around or a mind around what's

a trillion dollars, but if you subject $2.56 trillion in receipts plus change from $3.8 trillion-plus change you see a big budget deficit that's been proposed. by this administration. this is actually unsustainable. i heard our colleagues on the other side talk over and over again about the deficit that was created by george bush. in fact, all i hear from our colleagues over and over again is about the deficit and they're still blaming the obama administration. well, i've not been -- they're still blaming the bush administration. well, i've not been supported of it. this is in billions of dollars. we see in blue the deficits 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 that were under the bush

administration. we did have budget deficits and that was wrong. absolutely wrong. the federal government should live within the means that it has. but look at this amount compared to the budgets that have been proed -- proposed by this administration and others. i mean, i hear over and over again the obama budget -- and this goes out from 2011 to 2020 -- these are the proposed budget deficits that the obama administration has proposed in his budget. huge compared to the budget deficits that were actual under the bush administration. we shouldn't even have had those. we should have been living under a balanced budget since

5-. and i blame the bush administration and the republican control of congress for those deficits. but this is when nancy pelosi took over as speaker of the house. we got to stop this outrageous spending. i want to yield to my good friend, marsha blackburn, from nashville, tennessee, who represents a huge swath through the middle of tennessee. and she's a great warrior on this issue and i want to welcome you. mrs. blackburn: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. and my wonderful district that goes from memphis to nashville and all the way to the kentucky border, of course, right now we're fighting floods and so many of our residents have been -- are suffering the adverse effects of all of those floods. and they -- we remember them every day and want to pay --

let them know that we're thinking about them. i'm glad that we're talking about the budget issue because budgets are supposed to lay out the priorities of the federal government, and they are defined for our taxpayers and our constituents where this money is going to be spent. and as the gentleman just said, it is our responsibility. this is supposed to be done. congress is charged with having control of the purse of the federal government. and we are to do this as the gentleman said by april 15 every year. now what some of my constituents are asking me as we talk about fiscal responsibility is, why aren't they doing a budget this year? what are they afraid of? and why -- what is the reason that they would choose not to do a budget?

because budgets are to outline those priorities and they're to be a road map. and you know what's so interesting is so many of our constituents like following the budget process. when we send that link to the president's budget, when we send that link through our blackburn report and to the budget document that the house has under consideration, they follow it, and they like to see where their taxpayer dollars are being spent. i had one constituent who said, you know, i think this is so disrespectful of the american taxpayer that they would in their arrogance say, trust us. we don't have to do a budget document, just trust us. we're going to keep spending, we're not going to curtail our spending. just trust us. and the american people are listening to that and they're

saying, you got to be kidding? as mr. jordan said, you know, families do this, small businesses, everybody's been tightening their belts. our colleges, our universities, our counties and our cities, they're all doing their budget hearings right now and they're perplexed that congress would consider moving forward. now, the gentleman from georgia talked a little bit about past spending, and i think as we talk about deficits and the debt that the gentleman from georgia and i probably agree -- and i know i certainly talked with president bush and i think he did, too, many times, i felt that president bush spent too much. c.b.o. says when you look at the years of republican control from 1994 to 2006, our average annual deficit was about $104 billion per year. and then you go in and the gentleman has the chart that shows what happened when there

was democrat control of congress, the three years that they have hait, 2007, 2008, 2009. well, our $104 billion a year deficit, which was way too much. we should never have a deficit or it should only be in extenuating circumstances. we all support a balance budget, we support a balance budget amendment, we support bringing that in like the r.s.v. did last year having a balanced budget. but when you look at the fact that $104 billion as opposed to $1.4 trillion, which has been their annual average deficit, it causes people to say, my goodness, you mean our average annual deficit has become their monthly deficit? mr. broun: say that again so that people who are listening can understand that, if you

would please. mrs. blackburn: our average under republican control, the annual deficit has become what now under democrat control they are running in deficit averaging on a month. and i think that's what causes concern to people. april, the deficit was four times what it was last year. these -- these are numbers that cause people to say, wait a minute. we have to put the brakes on. we are on the wrong track. and it is time for washington to get its fiscal house in order. you know, one of the things that i will ask when someone says, well, we need to be spending more on this and we need to be spending more on that. people need to be paying more in taxes so the federal government can spend more. well, how much is enough when it comes to taxes? how much is ever going to be enough?

how much spending is ever going to be enough? and those are questions that when you stop and think about it, is there ever going to be a time when those that want to spend taxpayer money get enough? i think we all agree, washington does not have a revenue problem. washington has a spending problem. and the way we begin to get the spending under control is to have a budget that is going to spend less. that is going to be the first step. now, the gentleman from georgia had the charts and he was talking about an estimated -- i think it's $2.3 trillion in revenues and the $3.8 trillion in outlay. and that was the budget that the president had proposed, and i ask the gentleman, do i have my figures correct on $2.3 trillion and change for the revenues and $3.8 trillion and change for the expenditures? mr. broun: according to this

chart you're close. $it's $2.567 trillion in ref -- it's $2.567 trillion in revenues. i yield back. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and we know that since the time that that budget was presented to us we have passed a health care bill, and we know that last week even c.b.o. came back and said, guess what, we misfigured. we are going to change these projections so already those expenditure and outlay projections are off because we have the trillion dollar-plus health care bill that we are going to be looking at. that is something that certainly is on the minds of the taxpayers. they want to see the out-of-control spending stop, and i think that they're sending a message loud and clear.

the focus should be on the economy. it should be on jobs. constituents every day are saying, where are the jobs? you stimulated big government but you haven't stimulated main street. where are the jobs? they are focused on out of control spending from washington, on programs they do not want and they know that not only they, the taxpayer, we the people, cannot afford, but the federal government cannot afford to be spending our money on these programs. i yield back. mr. broun: you're right, mrs. blackburn. not only did we have the health care bill passed by this house, passed by the senate, first, came over here, not one republican voted for that bill. we just heard from c.b.o. just this last week, i think it was, when they said, oops work we made a mistake, it's going to cost at least $115 billion more than we first estimated.

$115 billion more. that's not a paltry sum. actually, it's going to still continue to climb. i think that the government takeover of health care is going to be even a bigger bill. we have a -- we saw congress pass a nonstimulus bill which is what i called it at the time, it's been an abject failure. that's another $1 trillion that we don't have the money. we've seen bill after billcome to the floor of the house, passed by the democratic leadership, forced down the throats of the american people, with just outrageous spending of money we just do not have. that's the bottom line. we've got to stop the spending. this outrageous spending. we need to have a budget, the federal government needs to live within its budget. period. mr. jordan.

mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to pick up with what the gentlewoman from tennessee suzz walking tabt. she said it's irresponsible not to do a budget, 34 days the federal government hasn't done what the law tells us we're supposed to do in putting a budget resolution together. it is irresponsible. it is arrogant. it's arrogant to not go through the debate, not put that out there so the american taxpayer, the american family, the american small business owner can see how the government plans to spend hair money. but it's not just irresponsible, it's not just arrogant, it's immoral to do what this government is doing. it is just plain wrong to tell future generations of americans, to tell our children and grandchildren, you are going to have to deal with a $12 trillion debt and counting and growing. you're going to have to pay that back. that's just plain wrong. one of the things that makes our country so special, one thing that makes america the

greatest country ever, is the simple concept that parents make sacrifices for their children so when they become adult, they have life better than we did. they in turn do it for their kids, each generation has done it for the next we get to be america, the greatest nation ever, the highest standard of living ever in history, now we have the house saying, we're going to live for the moment, we're going to send the bill to you. it's not just arrogant and irresponsible, it is wrong. it is just plain wrong this money has to be paid back. way back in one of my first economics classes in college we learned a simple thing. there's no free lunch. you have to pay it back. somebody's got to pay this back. it shouldn't be put on the backs of our kids and our grandkids. think about where we're at. as we talk about the budget the democrats are proposing, the budget the president stonet capitol hill, makes matters worse.

we have to pay today $200 billion in interest on the debt. within a couple of year the interest payments alone will be $1 billion a day. it's not just arrogant and irresponsible, it's immoral. it is just plain wrong to do this that's why, because they're dicted to spending they don't want to make cuts like they do in our party. it is just plain wrong. i appreciate the gentleman taking this hour to talk about this most fundamental issue. this most basic issue. and let's -- and let people understand what's going on with their government today. with that, i yield back. mr. broun: thank you, mr. jordan. i agree with steny hoyer, the majority leader, for the democratic party, here in the house, when he was talking about passing a final budget and he said this, quote, it is

the -- quote, the most basic responsibility of government, end quote. the democratic leader, steny hoyer, said passing a final budget and spending blueprint is the most basic responsibility of governing. they're not governing. they're not doing what they should. it's also interesting to me in 2006, the house budget committee chairman, john spratt , said, quote, if you can't budget, you cannot govern. unquote. if you can't budget, you cannot govern. john spratt, chairman, the democratic chairman of the house budget committee. they're not governing. they're being irresponsible.

the american public deserves better. we've been joined tonight also by my good friend from texas, who is -- who has been an individual that has spent many hours, as i have, here on the floor, talking about obamacare bill and about ethics and governing. we are honored to have judge john carter from texas. i yield to you. mr. carter: i thank my friend for yielding. if i was sitting with some of the members of this august body that live -- that are live just a normal life, thoy they ought to be looking at this, folks back home ought to be looking at this thinking, how do you spend all that money without having a budget? then they think about what kind of great deal would bit at my house if i could just say, you know what, kids, mom, i'll tell you what let's do.

let's just do whatever makes us happy, let's pick up all the pet projects in the world that we favor, and let's just spend our money on that let's go out and buy the things we want to buy. let's go plac we want to go and do things we want to do. and let's -- we're going dosh that budget we used to have, throw it in the trash thch year, let's don't budget. mom, i don't want you to worry we don't have a budget because we don't need a budget. hey, we'll borrow the money to pay this bill. that's no problem. if we can't get somebody to loan us the money here, we'll go to china, get the people in china to loan us the money to pay the bills, and we'll be fine. oh, are you worried about paying it back? let the grandkids pay it back. you know, they're going to have a good life. surely they're going to have a good life. they don't need as good as we got. let's let them pay it back and

let's put it on their shoulders. if they're smart, they'll figure out a way to stick it down on their grandkids' shoulders and we'll keep the runaway spending going forever. i don't think that most people would see that as a way to run your household. or the businessman that's sit do you think at the board meeting saying, -- sitting down at the board meeting saying, let's throw the budget out, let's do what we think will make us do well this year for ourselves personally and don't worry about what's going to happen in the future and we'll borrow the money from china and we'll get other people's grandkids to pay for it. that doesn't make sense. it doesn't make sense to the american people. it means you're just -- you know, i get really excited when i hear, like i heard the other night, when i heard some of my colleagues from the other side talking about what a wonderful

job they'd done and they talked about pay-go. pay-go will save the world, my gosh we just absolutely save the world. pay-go, we're paying for what we're spending. unless it's an emergency. and so far, everything we've done we declared an emergency. so we didn't quite get pay-go done, that's ok we believe in it. it's something we believe in. what we're hearing from folks back home is, hey, times are tough. we need jobs and you're doing your little pet projects down there and you're spending money that we're never going to be able to pay back or we're afraid we'll never be able to pay back and we don't want to be greece. poor greece. right now, they're kind of the poster child for what happens when you don't pay your bills. well, if you crunch the

numbers, and we continue down the road that the obama administration is taking this country, at the rate of acceleration of deficit spending the obama administration has given us, and by the way, last night, there were some charts put up there and conveniently the deficit numbers on those charts stopped at the end of the bush administration so we didn't get to see the other line that the obama administration put on there that drops clear off the chart. there you go. that one didn't happen to be on the charts when we were told, the figures never lie. so it stopped there at 2007. let's look at it. mr. broun: reclaiming my time, i'll explain the chart. mr. carter: their chart was upside down, it was below the line.

mr. broun: and then we'll be coming from right to left. mr. carter: we got to see the blue lines we did get to see the first obama line there, but that's not a -- an obama line yet, it's just the democrat congress line. mr. broun: it's the nancy pelosi line. mr. carter: and look what happened since. figures don't lie, they just don't show them all. so i'm glad you've got that chart. i brought it up because i wanted to raise my hand and say, aren't there supposed to be more lines on here? but anyway, that's another story. back to what my -- what folkbacks home are saying. they're looking at that and they're saying who is going to pay for that? well, maybe their grandchildren. our grandchildren. and our colleagues across the isle's grandchildren. i personally don't have any yet, but i'm praying every night to have some grandchildren and when i do, i

don't want to start them out behind the eight-ball. in fact, we most of the time work to make sure we start our kids out ahead of where we started out if we can. just like our friend mr. jordan said a minute ago. and that's kind of what makes america great. now, there's people that say, well, we've been deficit spending forever. but you know, these nuers we see here are on new ideas and new concepts. we don't see the threat the outside threat to the american people like the wars and so forth being that big number. this is new energy, which may be a great idea, but it won't replace the energy we've got and it's not projects and new concepts of what i would call, in the nice language, that form of government. what we're seeing here is a

group of folks running amok with spending and not being willing to do what their leader said the most basic responsibility of governing is to have a budget. well, why didn't they do that? well, i think it's because we're too busy doing pet projects and making sure we change america. it's more important to change than it is to get it right. i think that's a question we need to be asking ourselves. we dblet know what change meant. now we're -- we didn't know what change meant. now we're starting to get a glimmer of what change means. is that the change we want? i yield back. mr. broun: thank you, i appreciate it. i just wanted to put in my two cents about the question you

just asked about why the budget committee hasn't passed out a budget, why the house hasn't passed a budget, we have an april 15 deadline, by law, when a budget is supposed to be passed. the senate hasn't passed a budget. we've been very busy this whole year, as you know, mr. carter, since this year started, under this administration we passed all these big spending bills. and it's my belief that we don't have a federal budget because they can't balance a budget. they can't show to the american people how awful the spending is up here, how outrageous, how egregious the irresponsibility is. and they do not want anything to hold them responsible. my 19-year-old son comes to me when he needs some money.

and he's been in school, he's a freshman in college and he's had some little jobs. but he didn't have a budget because he depends on me to provide his needs. well this government is providing all taxpayers and the pay-go, mr. carter, that you were talking about, that we keep hearing touted by the blue dogs on their side, about how great it is, we've suspended pay-go over and over again on health care bill that the american public still don't want. they want it repealed. we as republicans want to repeal and replace it. there has been a nonstimulus bill that's been a failure, it's going to be over $1 trillion. that's created some government jobs, temporary jobs, but hasn't stimulated the private sector. most jobs are created in the private sector are small business.

business is scared to death. they're not creating any new jobs because they don't -- they look at these budget deficits, huge spending bills that this democratic congress has been passing over and over again, most of the times without any or sometimes with only very minimal republican votes for them. but we've seen just over and over again these huge bills. they haven't taken the time. and don't think they want to be held responsible, frankly. and so i think that's a big part of the reason. so, to answer your question, i think that this congress won't pass a budget in the house, probably not in the senate because they just don't want to be held responsible. they want to continue to do what even the majority leader said, it's the most basic responsibility of governing, they're not doing it. john spratt said, if you cannot budget, you cannot govern. they're not governing. all they're doing is spending. mr. carter: will the gentleman

yield? mr. broun: i yield back. mr. carter: one of the reasons you have a budget is so you can make legitimate estimates of how much you're going to spend. if you don't make a budget then you're not tied to a legitimate estimate of how much you need to spend and what your revenues are going to be coming in to pay for it. that's what you do to make a budget. everybody back home knows that. i'm not going to mention the company but it was a good sized company. i met with one of their folks the other day and they just finished charting out at their board of directors what just increasing the health care costs for covering the 26-year-olds, in other words, carrying the children of their employees to 26-year-olds, what it was going to cost their company. now, they're a good sized company. $28 million.

now, that's just a little bit. for one company. looking at $28 million just to carry children to 26 years old. mr. broun: above what they're spending today. mr. carter: above what they're spending now on their health insurance. now, i do not care how big you are, that's a big chunk of money. and it would shock anybody from the biggest corporation in the world down to the little mom and pop to have that kind of percentage of your revenues, all of a sudden by government action, going out the front door. that's the kind of thing when you don't think things through and figure out what it's going to cost that those things jump up and bite you. in this instance, when we don't figure out what it's going to cost, it's the american people that get jumped up and bitten. that's what we're seeing happeninging right now and i think that's unfortunate. i yield back. mr. broun: i agree with you. it's not only unfortunate but

it's irresponsible. we're seeing congress spend money, tons and tons of money, that we don't have, trillions of dollars that we don't have, for programs that america doesn't want, the not in the best interest of america, it's killing jobs, killing jobs. and it's just not responsible governing. we've been joined also tonight by my good friend from louisiana, from new orleans, louisiana, steve scalise, who's also been a great fighter for us here on the floor on many issues, on health care and other issues. i want to welcome mr. scalise and i'd like to hear you impart some knowledge to this. i yield to you. mr. scalise: i thank my colleague and the gentleman from georgia and i appreciate you bringing this issue to the forefront. because what we're talking about here is responsibility.

speaker pelosi, when she took the gavel 3 1/2 years ago, she's been speaker for 3 1/2 years, and they talked about doing things differently, they laid out all kinds of promises, they bashed republicans for being fiscally irresponsible and yet all we've seen from speaker pelosi and her liberal lieutenants who are running this congress is spending at unprecedented levels, this year $1.5 trillion. they're breaking records every day on deficit spending that is being durp -- dumped onto the backs of our children and our grandchildren, denying opportunity to the next generation. and yet when you look at what families are doing across this country, these are tough economic times, people are looking to washington saying, where are the jobs? why isn't washington focused on creating jobs? we've come up with ideas and solutions that we've put on the table to create jobs, to cut taxes, things that have been

proven to work, to get the economy back on track. and every time we've been turned away. and yet when families are tightening their belts, they're pulling back, they're cutting their budgets, our states, louisiana, in my state, we've got a governor right now, our governor is cutting the budget to balance it. they're going to balance the budget this year even though it's tough economic times. like most states are doing. and like most families are doing. and washington seems to be the only place where they not only don't get it, but at a time when everybody else is cutting back and tightening their belt, to live within their means, washington's spending out of control at record levels and now as you pointed out they haven't even brought a budget to this house floor for next year. no budget. haven't even brought a budget. now, we think they should bring a balanced budget. in fact, we've proposed a balanced budget. they haven't even brought a budget, any budget. and, you know, maybe you'd say, well, it's because congress is

so busy dealing with so many important issues and creating jobs and all these other things. unfortunately that's not the case. they brought the government takeover of health care. they had time for that, something that's going to run millions of jobs out of this country, billions of dollars in new taxes. they brought this cap and trade energy tax, tax that would add thousands of dollars to every family with an electricity bill. just look at today's agenda. my colleague from georgia, as he points out, they haven't brought the budget, you'd say, maybe that's because there's a lot of things on the agenda other than a budget that are so important. let's look at some of the votes we took on the house floor today. we named a post office. we congratulated a basketball team. in fact, we even honored a courthouse, honored a courthouse. that's what was on the agenda of the united states house of representatives today. and yet they haven't even brought a budget to this floor. not only a balanced budget like we think they should bring, but the president's budget, the only document that's sitting out

there, the president's budget doubles the national debt in five years. doubles it. we want to say, roll in that spending. rein it in. stop all of this out of control spending. they started a year and a half ago with the stimulus bill, $787 billion of money we don't have, but they said, it needs to happen so we don't exceed 8% unemployment. today e're signature at 9.9% unemployment. it keeps going up -- up. millions more americans have lost their job in the year and a half that president obama's been president, speaker pelosi's been running the house, reid's been running the senate. all you see is more lost jobs, hundreds and billions of dollars in new taxes and you wonder why businesses in this country are afraid to hire or afraid to invest, why families are scared to death, looking not only at their own pocketbooks but more concerned about what washington's doing to deny them, and especially our children and grandchildren, more opportunities. we need to keep this focus up, we need to address this problem. we need to balance our budget. i yield back.

mr. broun: thank you, mr. scalise. you're absolutely right. the budget resolution simply sets forth an annual framework of priorities, sets forth the framework for taxes and spending. it's one of the few pieces of legislation that congress must pass annually. we're not seeing that happen. since 1974, when congress passed the congressional budget act which created the modern budget process, congress has failed to enact a budget resolution only four times since 1974. this year will be the fifth. but it's the first time in history, first time in history that the house does not make any attempt whatsoever, no attempt, to pass a first version of a budget bill. never. since 1974 when the

congressional budget act was passed. that's just unconscionable. mr. scalise: will the gentleman yield for a question? broun absolutely. mr. carter: those other budgets you were talking about, those forefour others in those cases -- those four others, in those cases it was an attempt to pass the budgets but they couldn't reconcile the differences with the senate or they couldn't even reconcile it within the congress, but they certainly made a good faith effort to try to get a budget passed and didn't get it done, is that what you're saying? mr. broun: that's absolutely correct. in fact, an attempt was made to pass the budget. through our legislative process they did all the things, the budget resolution was presented, an attempt was made to pass a budget resolution and only four times since 1974 has a budget resolution not passed, not passed. but this is the first time in history that there's no attempt

whatsoever to even pass a first version of the budget here in the house. it's unconscionable. i yield back. mr. carter: it seems to me, you ought to at least try. i mean, it's almost like, you know, my wife one time, my son wanted to know if he had to drop out of baseball to play football and he wanted to go back to play baseball and he was all hanging around the house all moping around and his mother said, well, you know what? if you don't try the answer's no. so why don't you go ask the coach if he'll let you back on the baseball team. well, i'd say to the budget committee of the majority party, if you're not going to give it a try, of course we're not going to have a budget. let's at least give it a try. let's at least see if we can't come up with an idea and i kind of like mr. scalise's idea of this time let's trto put a balanced budget before the american people and see what happens there.

you know, it was the republicans back during the clinton administration that battled and battled and battled bill clinton who vetoed and vetoed until they finally got their concept of a balanced budget amendment done. they had a route for the balanced budget and they fought the administration until they got it there. it had a lot to do with the -- some of the prosperity that took place in that decade. that seems to be lost in history. it's actual current event in this place. constantly changing what really happened when things really happened. the welfare reform was done by the congress, but somehow that got forgotten. a lot gets forgotten. and right now they're forgetting to do a budget. and it's time for the democratic party and their leadership in this house, that they would do a

budget and go forward and let us see just what you're going to spend and where's the reven knews coming from -- revenues comes from. i yield back. mr. broun: thank you for yielding back. what are the consequences of not passing a budget? first thing, if we don't pass the budget then there's no cap on discretionary spending for this fiscal year. so they can spend whatever they want to. because they have no constraints within a budget. i've got a friend whose wife said, we have plenty of money in the bank, i still have checks in the checkbook. mr. carter: i've heard that before. mr. broun: that's the way this majority's acting. they still have the checks in the checkbook. they still have a credit card that's being held by the chinese . where does the money come from? it comes from -- with all this deficit spending, this outrageous spending that congress has been doing, it's going to come from our

grandchildren and great-grandchildren. they're going to live at a lower standard than we live today. be the first generation that's lived at a lower standard than the previous generation and it's because of this give me now attitude that this congress under the leadership of nancy pelosi has been doing. . passing a budget will put caps on discretionary spending for this year. not passing the budget means congress will not set a framework for pairing back the entitlement spending. i think we have five more minutes, mr. carter. but we've got to control entitlement spending. our colleagues -- colleague, paul ryan, introduce add bill in the last congress, in the 110th

where you and i both were here, that would set forth parameters in controlling entitlement spending. we've got to do that. 2/3 of the federal budget is on auto pilot and continues to grow and we have to change the whole budgetary process and that's what i hope to do and i think republicans has that as part of what we want to do when we get back control, we control entitlement spending. it is absolutely critical. third and most importantly, not passing the budget means not carving out priorities for spending and giving extension in the tax cuts that were put in 2001 and 2002, even for low-income families. we are going to see tremendous increases for everybody in this country, even the people who are

on limited and fixed incomes and poorest people in this country. we hear over and over again our democratic colleagues are interested in the middle class, but actually middle class and the lower economics running through the ladder are going to be hit the hardest biocalma care, by the nonsthrust bill and the out-- nonstimulus bill and the outrageous spending that the democrats have been doing here in the congress. not passing the budget signals to the amican people that we're not going to be held accountable. we're not going to deal with the nation's spending addiction that congress has or the deficit challenges that this government has. we've got to stop it. so families all over this

country are balancing their budgets. my state of georgia and many states have to live under a balanced budget. i believe the federal government should have to live under a balanced budget. but we're not having a budget. are we going to continue spending? and i yield. mr. carter: these are serious times and we have serious issues to deal with. recently, i was in -- privileged to be in a meeting with some conservative economists and i say that because i want to make sure that they are conservative and they gave us projections about spending and projections of debt to income, national debt and both government debt and private debt to g.d.p. and bank deposits. and they said, but cutting through the chase here, if we continue the policies of the

obama administration into a second term, if he wins a second term and the third year of his second term, we will be greece. that's pretty serious. and you talked about the middle class, i bet if you questioned everybody that lost their job and is out of work and what class they were in, they will tell you, they were in the middle class, because we all consider ourselves to be middle class in this country. we are sort of proud to be middle class. these concepts require work and that means a budget. i yield back. mr. broun: just in closing in the last minutes that we have, americans know if you can't measure what you can't manage. you can't measure anything. just doesn't allow congress to measure any spending priorities

that coming forth and sethat wee big spending after big spending bill. democrats are deciding to not pass a budget bill blueprint to hide the fact that our country's financial picture is in terrible shape and we're going doub down the same road that greece is going down. americans know this is irresponsible and congress needs to get its house in order and lead. it can start by passing a responsible budget resolution. where is the budget? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from virginia, mr. perriello, is recognized as the designee of the majority leader. mr. perriello: americans are sick of it.

they're sick and tired of hearing excuses and finger pointing. they're sick and tired of other people not having to play by basic rules of decency and fairness. they're sick of it and should be. they want wall street to play by the rules and want washington to play by the rules. one othe most important moves we could make right now is for the senate to see through completion their efforts to clean up the financial system so that those who work hard and play by the rules save up a little, put it into their home values, 401-k know other people aren't able to gamble their retirement security and their future, basic rules of deesens si and fairness. and we need those system rules in washington. we fought hard to make sure we reinstate pay-go legislation that the other side of the aisle let die a few years ago that

simply says you have to pay for it. these are the every day rules on main street and time for those main street values to apply to washington and to wall street. americans are sick and tired of those who put slogans ahead of solutions. they want us to solve problems and none is greater than that of the jobs crisis we face in this country. on wall street and maybe with our friends in the senate, there is a sse that this recession has passed and the urgency is gone. but every weekend we go home and talk to business owners who can't get credit. we talk to people who have been looking for job after job after job just knowing that they can support their family. hard-working people who are willing to go back and get that degree and need to know there is going to be a job on the other side. what they ask us to do is to come here, play by rules of deesens si and fairness and --

decency and fairness. we need to make the most of the summer construction season and rebuild america, but specifically to rebuild america's competitive advantage in the world. this crisis didn't begin a couple of years ago but a couple of decades ago as we saw more and more borrowing from the financial institutions, overleveraging and the consumer market with consumer market to cover for falling wage rates and in the government sector. that cannot go on forever. at its core is the issue of whether we can continue to compete in the world with living wage and middle-class incomes and jobs. the answer is to reward innovation and stop bailing out failure. this solution that both parties of bailing out failure will not succeed. we must begin again to reward innovation, research and development and creativity, so

we can be building the jobs of the future here in the united states. many of us have worked hard to focus on solutions like the home star program that will help hundreds of thousands ofeople that will renovate their homes and offices and reduce pressure on an lick grid that is way out of date and puts people back to work in construction and manufacturing and the window films that are manufactured right here in the united states. but we also know that the key of this new job creation, this new competitiveness revolution that we must have in this country is an understanding that two out of every three new jobs created in this country are created by small business. small business is the engine of job growth even as big businesses are too often the engine of politics. we must make sure we are getting the main street value and businesses back into the equation that have been choked out, rolled out by big business

by photo ops but forgotten when it gets down to policy. we have been working on direct lending to small business and community banks that still tend to support small businesses, that home-grown businesses that stay in our community where the c.e.o. knows the name of every worker, their spouse and kids and give them a decent wage and be able to support their family. these are concrete solutions that make sense instead of bomb throwing that goes on up here. and one of the great fresh men in our class, this approach, what i would call a post-partisan approach that doesn't focus by bringing everyone together but how we can leave our partisan divisions behind and help create that and jared polis has been successful will talk about some of these

approaches that we have. mr. polis: pole i thank the gentleman from virginia, i listen to, i visit the small businesses in my community in colorado, small businesses are really the backbone of my country when i visit like lyons, colorado, i stop and introduce myself. i have a small business advisory council. i'm not alone in hearing from the businesses many my district that one of the biggest impediments is the lack of credit. their traditional borrowing they have been able to do to fund their activities whether against accounts receivables, they find themselves cut off and unable to access their credit lines. there is a swing. credit was too loose three or

four years ago. it has now become swung to the other extreme as it tends to do and has become too tight. that has become an impediment to job growth. there are businesses in my district that if they had access to the credit, they would be able to grow, expand and hire more people. now when you talk to the banks, community banks in my district and everywhere, they say there is a number of reasons. one is increasing capital requirements that the federal government is requiring to reduce bank failures is a legitimate policy interests. others include other regulatory reasons that the banks feel that they are having to reduce the amount of money that they are effectively able to lend out. it's something we need to solve, mr. speaker, because it will create jobs for americans across small and mid-sized businesses across our country.

there are a number of solutions that include federal credit facility to small businesses through the banks, includes some actions on the regulatory front. and includes an idea, bipartisan idea that i have introduced h.r. 4877, which would provide an incentive for private money to flow in to the equity line of these community banks to get them lending again. a bank like any business has many kinds of capital. so a bank, when you deposit your money with a bank, they can certainly loan against that money, but it's not as leverageable as equity capital if a bank actually sell its shares. they get money in that they can lend again with much higher leverage. we could provide an incentive for people to invest in community banks for community banks to go back out to their communities and boards and say you know what? we need to sell more shares and

race more -- raise more capital and lend to our small businesses. for any investment in a community bank under h.r. 4877 during an 18-month period when we want to incentivize this investment and much of it will occur quickly i might add, there will not be a capital gains tax. there would be an exemption on that investment in the community bank. what will this do? it will get the attention of the people we want to get the attention of, existing investors in banks, private equity funds and others who could be doing anything with their money. they could be sitting on the side line with their money, could be investing in businesses. this would get their attention and say, hey, this is a special incentive because of the robust community sector and help

businesses grow to put your money into community banks. many community banks will recapitalize and might prevent bank failures by allowing banks to recapitalize within the balance of solvency rather becoming insolvent or having to be bailed out. there is rightfully so great frustration with what has been seen as collusion between the bigovernment and big banks and bail out and what is a bailout of bad behavior. why not have a private investment in these banks before we start talking about using taxpayer money for this, that or the other. let's see what investors out there are willing to do when given the chance to invest in our communities, invest in our banks and help them extend credit widely to the small businesses.

this is truly one of the highest leverage areas that small businesses have come to me and other members of congress and said if only we could get the banks lending again. well, we can, mr. speaker, with h.r. 4877, we have the opportunity without the use of taxpayer money to get an infusion into our community banks and get them lending to our small, medium businesses, commercial property across this country to help get the economy going and create good jobs for americans. and i yield back to my friend from virginia. . >> we do understand that small business is a lifeline of our communities but it's also an area where we've seen the kind of -- we have not seen the kind of behavior that got use in this mess. our community banks, our credit unions have often been more solvent through these situations. mr. perriello: didn't see the huge upsides but also continued the old-fashioned tradition of looking someone in the eye and

doing their due diligence. if you look at the people who saw the crash coming within the markets, it was actually people who went out and did old-fashioned due diligence, looking at where these subprime mortgages actually were. sometimes there's no replacement for old-fashioned hard work, due diligence and we know that our community banks do this. so, a program like this that tries to get private sector solutions to this problem help insent that investment in our community banks, our community banks in turn can invest in our small businesses and our small businesses in turn invest in our families, our working families and in our communities. this is the sort of thing that can move us forward as has another thing that we worked on in the house which was a one-year freeze on capital gains taxes for small business. again, something that doesn't say, we're giving you free money, it just says, we're going to encourage this kind of small business innovation. we know this tends to lead to job creation, it's a good thing.

these pragmatic private-public partnerships like the home star program, like rural star, where we're helping to make our country safer, more efficient, rebuild manufacturing. the gentleman on the other side were talking about -- the gentlemen on the other side were talk about the post offices we -- offices we renamed. they failed to mention we had the american competes act which is rebuilding some of the manufacturing base and investment in efficiency technologies and job creation that have too often been -- they've tried to take them down with poison pills about child pornography and this sort of thing and americans look at that and say, you've got to be kidding me. you're up there scoring cheap political points when you have an opportunity to do something both sides of the aisle know we need to do, which is figure out how to reinvent america's competitive advantage. when we can do that particularly with these public-private partnerships like your efforts with community banks, like the capital gains, these are engines

not just of short-term job growth but of rebuilding americans' competitiveness and getting us back to work with that i want to yield to one of our newest members from california. ms. chu: thank you so much, mr. chair. i rise today to urge the quick passage of h.r. 4213, the american jobs closing tax loopholes and preventing outsourcing act. this bill is such comprehensive approach to improving our economy, by providing important tax breaks and to spur innovation and create jobs. but one reason i'm extremely enthusiastic about it is that it extends and expands an extremely successful employment program that is called jobs now which has created over 156,000 jobs and in my district alone 400 jobs. in palmdale, california, jobs now help a single mother of two find a job at a local coffee

house working. the regular paycheck put it's food on the table and -- puts food on the table and is helping her get through a rough patch. her job is -- boss is extremely impressed with her work and plans to permanently hire her and three others of the employees that they brought on. it's this kind of success story that makes jobs now such a good model for job creation. without it the coffee house would not have been able to grow its business or take on new employees. jodi would not have had a chance to learn these new skills and support her family. now, i came across this innovative program because it's in my district, los angeles county. one of the county supervisors created a program which provided over 11,000 jobs, all in one year, using stimulus funds to create these subsidized jobs. how does it work? eligible participants are placed into subsidized jobs in all sectors of the economy from

small business to nonprofits to the government sector and they're matched with jobs that compliment their employment goals. the employer must provide supervision, equal to 20% of the cost of this job and they must ensure that the job will not displace an existing employee or replace someone who wants to be promoted. and what this means is that the county then is paying for 80% or more of the payroll costs through recovery act funds. some examples of these jobs are park rangers, receptionists, teachers assistants, dental assistant trainees, customer service clerk and child care workers. workers get paid $10 per hour for up to $40 per week. jobs now allows small businesses to succeed and the employee to succeed. i've spoken to countless people in my district about this program and i keep on hearing about how this program is truly a win-win for businesses and

workers. this program works because they do both benefit, workers benefit beyond the paycheck by getting hands-on experience in a setting where they can earn wages and make sure they put food on the table. but they are also developing their skills. small businesses benefit by getting the help they need to grow or expand while temporarily reducing payroll costs. comnies may ultimately decide to hire these subsidized workers permanently as the economy improves. the jobs generated by the program can help businesses expand in these difficult times by reducing their economic risk and the need for expensive loans. in april of this year, over 7,000 people were enrolled in the program in l.a. county and 1,100 employers were improving their productivity and putting someone to work with this extra help. and these are companies like punch television network in carson, california. punch tv is a fledgling channel that is trying to build a new

nationwide television network and they need quality employees to truly expand. they hired six subsidized employees using jobs now and they recently moved into a new large production center to handle all their new work. they even want to hire these new highly motivated workers permanently, so now not only do these employees have hands-on experience, they are going to have a permanent job. but this great program isn't just putting people to work in my area. it's employeing people all across the nation. in 29 states across the nation they are using jobs now to keep their residents working, paying taxes and purchasing groceries that's fueling local economies. in tennessee the state focused on rural perry county which was hard hit by a plant closure. the unemployment rate had risen to 27.3%. tennessee brought local work

force development and human services agencies and the service communities together to develop a subsidized employment program for over 500 individuals. effort cut local unemployment down to 18.6%. because of successes like this, more states want to join and if we pass h.r. 4213, jobs now can expand and help thousands of more people. but we can't delay. already states are stopping their subsidized jobs programs because the funding will expire at the end of september. companies aren't interested in taking on new employees and training them just to lose them again in four months. in my district, los angeles county will stop placing participants in new jobs in june and soon many more counties and states will do the same. and yet the full amount of funding has yet to be claimed by the states. the recovery act authorized $5 billion for jobs now employment programs. but less than $1.5 billion has

been accessed by the state and programs really actually can still expand across the country. that's why h.r. 4213 is so crucial. it not only extends jobs now for another year, it lets the unspent funds from this year pay for next year's salaries for workers hired in 2010. if we don't act now, 60,000 americans across the nation will lose their jobs when this program ends. and endless more will not have the opportunity to get the job that they need. this bill will keep americans employed and will create thousands of necessary jobs. thank you and i yield back. mr. perriello: thank you so much for those remarks and for bringing it back to the kitchen table, those individuals that are involved in this. and with that i'll yield again to mr. polis from colorado. mr. polis: there are many issues before congress, both great and small, all of tremendous importance. one of the issues is there's an outcry among the american people

for us to deal with is imigration reform. whether people are conservative or liberal, left or right, republican or democrat, we agree that what we are doing now does not work. we have a large population living, working here illegally. we don't have adequate enforcement of our borders, verification of who can work. now within our efforts to solve immigration, to replace our broken immigration system with one that works and reflects our basic american values of, if you follow the law and learn english you're welcome here, within the comprehensive house immigration bill that i'm a co-sponsor of, there's a provision to create jobs for americans. to help make immigration work for us rather than immigration be a cost for us. today there are investors in foreign -- and foreign entrepreneurs who have raised venture capital, ready to start their companies who can't get the visas to come to this country and start their

companies here. and then we wonder why these businesses in china and england and india are so successful. well, some of them actually wanted to set up shop in this country. the house comprehensive immigration reform bill contains the startup visa provision that would allow an entrepreneur, be they a french entrepreneur, an indian entrepreneur, that is backed by an investment that has raised several hundred thousand dollars, we'd allow them to come here and start their company here as long as they hire five american citizens. this bill will likely create at least 50,000 jobs and that's just the start. because you know what? some of those companies hiring five people today could be the next google, could be the next yahoo of tom and employ tens of thousands -- tomorrow and employ tens of thousands of americans. yes, america has an immigration

challenge but we also have an immigration opportunity. the opportunity to attract the best and brightest from around the world, to help make america more competitive and provide jobs for america here at home. it's insourcing instead of outsourcing. our current immigration code works against us and forces coanies that want to hire americans and be based here to instead set up shop overseas. through comprehensive immigration reform we have the opportunity to change that. in the house bill there's a startup visa provision, senator kerry has introduced that as well in the senate. we need to encourage not only financial capital to flow into our country but also human capital, to create jobs for american citizens here at home. and that's an important lens to look at any piece of legislation through. and i for one am thrilled that the house comprehensive immigration reform bill will create tens of thousands of jobs

for american families and that's one of the reasons that i'm a proud co-sponsor and i yield back to the gentleman from virginia. mr. perriello: thank you. you know, the gentleman talked some about these -- the next yahoo or the next doing google. i want to talk for a -- next going. i want to talk about something a little more old-fashioned than that. construction. we actually do still need to build things in this country. we need to put down asphalt and concrete. we need to build roads and bridges. the infrastructure of the last century needs to be rebuilt but we also need to be thinking in terms of leap frogs in infrastructure. we need to be laying the broadband that is the highway system of the future. we need to be looking at a modern electric grid because our current one is not only so vulnerable to attack but it's full of inefficiencies. the amount of energy we lose between where we produce the energy and where we consume it is astronomical. it is incredible how inefficient. so here we have businesses that are trying to compete against

very low cost countries around the world, who are still using an electric grid essentially from the 1930's. this is a moment where we need to have the boldness to rebuild our competitive advantage by doing some building again. and construction should certainly not be a republican or democratic issue. we all have construction needs in our districts. we have construction companies in our districts. 90% of construction companies are small businesses. and we are already into the summer building season for many parts of this country. but for memorial day to thanksgiving is going to be an important moment. we've lost 1.6 million construction jobs since this recession began. we have a 25% unemployment rate among skilled construction workers. 1.6 -- $1.6 million in losses in construction jobs. 25% unemployment.

yet we cannot get bipartisan support for the investments in our 21st century infrastructure that could put people back to work in construction. so instead of receiving an unemployment benefit, they're receiving a paycheck and we are getting more efficient modern infrastructure system. this is commonsense. this makes sense back on main street. it just doesn't make sense in washington. . we know we need construction jobs and where some of the biggest losses has been. we know we are at the beginning of that construction season. we passed in december through this house a plus-up of some of the infrastructure that's needed, desperately needed here in this area.

just try to drive from richmond to d.c. and see if we have an infrastructure worthy of the growth and competitiveness of the commonwealth of virginia. head out 66 and down 29. we need it on the roads and bridges, the freight, passenger rail the energy and electric grid as well as the broadband technology. and we have made some leaps. we are going to be able to wire every school in virginia through some of the stimulus grants. that will put people to work now putting that in place, but also going to be creating businesses in the future that people can run out of their home, a small business hub, making sure that the children going through our school system have the education to be able to compete in the 21st century. construction may not be the most dramatic thing to talk about but it is vital and where the

enormous job losses have been. many of us have been trying to many of us have been trying to get the construction going again in time for the summer building season. we are ready to move, as soon as they are done with the wall street reform, i hope they pick up the job initiatives we have passed here, they are powerful, effective, and they can put people back to work in areas of construction where we have had some of the biggest losses. i mentioned the home star program where we can retrofit and renovating the building stock of this country, the payback, 12 months, 18 months before you are immediately saving money for decades to come, increasing the home value and commercial value of that stock. putting americans to work, the double pane glass, wiring and other things, it's just common sense. it saves the consumer money,

makes business more efficie, it's being manufactured here and makes us more competitive. it protects our environment and makes our country safer because we are less dependent on foreign oil and domestic oil. home star program could put 168,000 people to work. even before home construction starts to pick back up again which will vary around the country, we know we can renovate the building stock. we have ideas. private-public partnership. the rural star program, which will allow them to rural fund those renovation in our hardest hit rural communities which are more likely to have housing stock and people are paying a higher percentage of their income on that electric bill because that housing stock is so inefficient but costing our

electric co-ops that we can't meet that challenge. this is a moment that we need to look at not what just got into this mess in the last two years but two decades. we must join forces and look for ideas that are practicing matic and bold. the answer can't be so small that it has no chance of making a difference. when you go to smain street, they are furious at us and wall street because no one is playing by the same rules. we have to get that sense of decency and fairness. we need to play by those rules. that's why we put pay-go back into place and increasing transparency. but they want us to focus on solutions, home star, rural star, efforts to get efforts into our community banks. why would we put this emphasis

into the huge banks that put us in this mess in the first place? we have to stop rewarding failure. we can still outinnovate and outcompete any country in the world. we can't do it by rewarding failure. we have to do it based on innovation. we have concrete things that can create jobs right now that the senate can move on and some cases that we need to move on here, home star, rural star, green energy jobs, capital gains tax cuts to our small businesses, getting the incentive to invest in our community banks. if two out of every three jobs comes out of small business, this is an area where we can and must put more emphasis. and construction is part of that. here, people may not think it's a big deal to go out and have a small construction company working a couple of crews. too many people are focused on

the goldman sachs of the world. for those crews going out and working is radio building america and putting food on the table and supporting their family and all of us benefit from the efficiencies and quality of that infrastructure and investment. we have a building season right now. this town is way too insulated from the urgency of this job crisis back home. we just, last week, had the announcement of over 500 jobs lost in the town of mart insville. tens of thousands of furniture and textile jobs have been lost over the last 20 years. this was one of the last. down to a few jobs. the unemployment rate in the city already at 22%, could pop up to 25% or above. and each one of i think 135 jobs

lost represents not just an individual and not just an income, but a family and its economic security. at this time, when millions have lost their jobs, when millions feel they must be next, american people are sick and tired of us playing games up here. we have concrete solutions on the table that create real jobs in the construction sector, the manufacturing sector, the agriculture and forestry sector. these are things we can still do and do better than anyone in the world, but we are being choked off by the kind of games being played on washington and in wall street. it is long past time for people in this town to understand the urgency of this job crisis for working class and middle-class americans who not only live in the fear of losing that job, but getting nickeled and dimed by the credit card companies, the electric utilities and others as they try to make ends meet day

after day, week after week. we have to be bold right now in rethinking america's competitive advantage. there is no quick fix. we must, in the immediate term, not miss this summer construction season. i see too many trucks parked in the driveways and parking lots of our construction companies at a time when we need to be rebuilding. not overbuilding in the speculative areas that helped get us into this miss, but rebuilding that helped in our competitive advantage. whether it is old-fashioned infrastructure, these are areas that mean real business for real working families. part of how we do that is pointing a slow and approach and come together. in this town, too often

bipartisanship means cutting a good idea in half where it means nothing at all or adding pork. what americans want is post-partisanship and answer the question of what solves the problem, not the halfway point between the democrats and republicans. what solves america's energy independence? what rebuilds america's middle class and basic stability in our financial institutions so people who work their lives saving up money in the value of their homes or 401-k's that someone isn't gambling with their money. 25% unemployment in our skilled construction. americans are ready to build. they are ready to go to work rebuilding, whether that's housing, infrastructure or building stock, renovating, manufacturing here in america the materials that go into that. we need to put that sense of

urgency of the american economy first. we need to remember that small business is the engine and our community banks play by the rules through this crisis, stayed solvenand still continue to get that lending out to so many of those in our community. i look forward to continuing to fight for a jobs agenda and decency and accountability. i hope the senate will complete a solid reform in the financial sector and turn to these jobs bills we produced, five, six of them. public-private partnerships to reward innovation, to get us building again, get the lending through our community banks again, through a smart combination of investments and tax credits and i hope the senate will turn to that and understand that back home people are desperate for jobs, economic security and growth and will get a taste of that urgency and move from restoring those rules from

accountability to wall street and get the jobs bills passed and get america working again and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the privilege to be recognized here on the floor of the house of representatives and have the opportunity to address you and hopefully illuminate these arguments that come before the american people, this congress and reflect down that hallway to the united states senate. and, mr. speaker, i long heard from over on this side in the 30-something group that for years actually they went from their 30's to 40's, stood over

here, two, three, four, sometimes five, if we would give them the gavel, everything would be all right with the world and let them be in the majority they could fix the problems of america and the world. and they constantly harranged against the republican majority and constantly promised to fix all the problems that we have and constantly attacked then the president of the united states. it's so interesting to me, mr. speaker, to have watched the transformation over the last three-plus years, 3 1/2 years or almost halfway through and probably by business days, more than halfway through this congress and onto the next election in november here of 2010. pretty interesting to me that the people that made those promises about what was wrong with the world had to do with

george bush and the republican majority. we're going to fix the problems. now, i haven't heard of them say, you gave us the gavel, the american people trusted us with the majority, them, not me and by gentleladyy we fixed those -- golly, we fix thosed problems and those people were handed the gavel on january 3, 2007 and some three and almost a half years ago, the problems are worse, not better. the problems we have with our economy got a lot worse, not better. the problems we have with energy got a lot worse, not better. the problems that we have with this society and the understanding of human natu, seem to be getting worse, not better. i haven't yet heard the 30-something group, those that

are left, come to the floor and do the dance and nor ha i herd them say they have suceeded in the policies they said they would enact. and in fact, mr. speaker, look back on the record, it's the exact opposite. this pelosi congress, when we came in by constitution on january 3 of 2007, and there was a a great ceremonial and passing of the gavel that went from the hand of john boehner to at that moment, speaker nancy pelosi, and we saw -- actually right in the aftermath of the actual election in 2006 when that majority was won by the pelosi democrats, we saw a shift in policy of the country. and we watched as we saw the heir-apparent at the time, chairman of the ways and means,

charlie rangel, go on the talk show circuits across the country, national television, program after program after program, booked solid and asked him over and over again, which of the bush tax cuts do you want to preserve, which one do you want to provide they go away? what will be the burden on capital and how costly will capital be for business, especially big business, moving forward between that period of time of the election in 2006 and the the inauguration -- let me say the installation of speaker pelosi in january of 2007 and that period of time after that as the new chairs of the committee, their new staff and the new members of the committees were seated and they began to assert their will on american policy? . what i heard from the apparent and future ways and means chairman charlie rangel was not

ever a denial that he would repeal or work to repeal any of the bush axe cuts. it simply was -- tax cuts. it was simply by a process of elimination, he was asked over and over again, any way he could be asked, what would you do with the bush tax cuts, that's the may 28, 2003, bush tax cuts? because the answer wasn't definitive, there was a process of elimination, the smart capital in the country concluded that there were none of the bush tax cuts that charlie rangel would like to preserve. that was in november, december, january and partway into february of 2006 and early 2007. and so what we saw was a dramatic drop in the investment -- capital investment that took place in the industry in america. because capital is smart, it doesn't last very long if it's not, it understands that the

cost of capital is going to get more expensive, the more expensive capital is going to be a burden on business, the profit margin was going to go down. if the tax cuts went up and if the tax burden went up. an increased tax burden raised the capital. profit margin goes down. capital doesn't seek that kind of environment if it gets too far apart. that's what was going on in november and december of 2006 and january and much of the way through february of 2007, industrial investment went down, the cost of capital -- because the cost of capital went up. prospects for profitability went down and that, mr. speaker, was the beginning of an economic decline this country has faced and the globe has faced since that period time. now, the people that stood here on the floor, that as chairs of committees that made these arguments that this microphone here and those microphones there, over and over again argued that, it was all george bush's fault and if they just

had the gavel things would be better, they didn't argue they needed the presidency. not at that time. they argued they needed to have the majority in the house of representatives where all spending must begin according to the constitution. well, they achieved their goal. but they never accepted the responsibility for the affect of their actions or inactions. in terms of the bush tax cuts it was the inactions to extend the bush tax cuts that became the culprit that was part of the downward spiral of this overall economy. the actions that came forward were massive spending, it was also the disruption and the suspension of the deliberative process here in the united states congress. for more than 200 years this congress has had a tradition of open rules in the appropriations process that would allow, mr. speaker, anyone, any member of this congress who has their own

franchise or the people of america, that they are dwrute bound to represent their wills and their wishes coupled with the principles they have presented to them prior to their election, duty bound, this congress has for more than 200 years recognized that duty to allow members of congress to do their duty and offer amendments to perfect legislation and particularly in appropriations where we have had the long centuries old tradition of open rules that allows for any member to bring an amendment down here when there's an appropriations bill that's being considered on the floor and offer that amendment into the record and provide that that -- provided that that bill hasn't been passed, require that that amendment be debated and can require by request of the member a recorded vote on that line item they may be addressing.

did i that more times than anyone else in this united states congress in the appropriations process in 2007. it was, mr. speaker, the last legitimate process that this congress has had in this legislative arena. the balance of it has been closed rules, modified closed rules, very much tightly held and constrained amendment process that shut down the debate here in this congress. and took away the franchise and the right of a member who had been elected by their constituents and by the way, the number of constituents that i represent, mr. speaker, the number of constituents that you represent or the number of constituents that speaker pelosi represents are essentially the same. they don't deserve more representation because they live in san francisco in nancy pelosi's district or because

they live in, letmy say miami in somebody else's district or because they live in iowa in my district. they deserve the same amount of representation and every member of congress needs to be on equal spanneding and have that opportunity to offer those -- standing and have that opportunity to offer those amendments and require this house to be accountable for the decisions that they make up there on that voting board. but it has been shut down. and since the appropriation process of 2007 there has not been a legitimate process of debate and amendment that perhaps -- perfects legislation to take place since then, mr. speaker. that's how badly this constitutional republic, that's how badly this deliberative process has been usurped by the iron fist of the speaker and the american people little know how badly that cripples our ability to reach out across this nation and pull the best of the wisdom

that we have of 306 million people and incorporate it into our decisions. because where i sit, i have input that comes from all over my district, smart people, smart people that will give up a couple of days from their business and their work and they will reach into their pocket and they will buy a plane ticket here and back and a couple how hotel rooms for the opportunity sometimes to sit down with my staff or some other member's staff, even for 15 minutes, so they can make their argument. they deserve our most serious ear. they deserve our best effort and our best judgment. they deserve our respect. but when this process is shut down to where the speaker decides if an amendment's going to be heard, if that pleases her, all of that wisdom, almost all of that wisdom is completely shut out. and this process that was devised and determined by the founding fathers is suspended

until we reach saner times or maybe forever. lord only knows what happens to the majorities in this congress. but i know this, this american government cannot function at a high level of efficiency, nor can it produce policy that's good for the people of the united states of america if it's going to have to go through the filter and the speaker's office before it can be considered on the floor of the house of representatives. that would be -- if it were -- if that rule applied to our speech outside of this congress, it would be a violation of the first amendment. this happens to fall under our rules and process and so it circumvents the first amendment rule and fortunately either of us can come to this floor and raise this subject and speak to it openly so the american people can understand what's taking place here in the house of

representatives, on the floor when the country's being run out of the rules committee up on the third floor and whewe're watching partisan votes come through the committees here on the house that do not deliberate on the policy at all. but deliberate exclusively on the partisanship which party argued with, that's how you vote. not an objective consideration of the policy. but the 30-something group and those that have come to this floor with them and after them made the argument that if they just had the gavels, all would be right with america. well, we've seen unemployment rates go from 4.6% and less on up to 9.9%. we've watched that number of those who are underemployed, those who no longer fit the definition of unemployed, that number go from five million or six million or more added to the

15 million unemployeded today, there are more now. more than 20 million. we have eight million working illegals in america and that is a minimum and if the president of the united states directed janet napolitano with a little assistance from the attorney generic holder to enforce immigration law, we could open up almost all of those eight million jobs for the american people and we could do so in a very short period of time. but there is no will on the part of this administration to enforce immigration law. there is no will. there's a will to pander to an ethic group, that they decide who's going to be -- they decide is going to be the future of the future majority of the democratic party. and i watched with something significantly less in respect and with a high degree of cynicism as i watched them posture themselves about

fairness and talk about how we should provide amnesty and how we can't fix the immigration problem in america unless befirst provide comprehensive amnesty. and i listened to this argument under the bush administration and it didn't make any more sense then than it makes today. to argue that we should grant people a path to citizenship because after all our law enforlsement is being all tied down by enforcing immigration law against people that are not criminals, that have minor violations and if you just require them to pay a fine and learn english and pay their back taxes you could give them a path to citizenship and all would be right with the world. mr. speaker, how does this fix anything? we have had in the past something like four million illegal border crossings in the southern border in a year. we encounter a single unique individual, as many as 27 times,

down on the sector of the border by arizona. 27 times. one individual. i've stood down there at the station and watched as they bring them in after they pick them up for jumping the fence or coming across the border. i watched them come through. they know the drill. they've already been -- they've been stopped by border patrol agent out in the field and the border patrol agent just simply restrains them or retains them and along comes a private contractor with a van, these people are wearing police-style uniforms in gray, white van with i'd say reinforcement built inside, containment for human beings built inside, sliding door on the white van, border patrol agent picks people up, calls the private contractor who comes in with the van, pulls in, they load them up in the van and they drive them over to a

holding cell or on up to the station headquarters and they already know, they put their personal items in a zip lock bag and they walk into the station with, often many of them, with a smirk on their face. they know right where to sit. they sit down at the wall with the zip lock bag of their to sellingses and they wait their turn and they go over and have their fingerprints taken one at a time, get their digital photograph taken, not with the flash, and once that data is collected, they go into a holding pen until there's a van available to take them to the port of entry. where they walts out, get in the van, doors close, the van goes to the port of entry back to mexico, turns sways, they open up the van door and the illegals that have been processed and fingerprinted and had their digital photograph taken get out, they walk back to mexico, the door closes on the van, watch this, the tires squeal, the van goes back to get another

load. and we do this over and over d over again. for as many as four million people that come across our border interdicting perhaps 20% to 25% of them that do so, realizing that with these four million people that pour across our border in a year, think of it, four million people, santa ana -- anna's army was about 4,000, the assault of the alamo. that's four million people a year. a huge hay stack of humanity. think of what it's like to make the argument the bush and obama administration made. if we would legalize these people, we can focus on the bad elements within them. first of all if you're going to legalize four million people, or four million attempts, maybe that's not four million unique people if you're going to legalize all them, how do you

avoid legalizing the people who are a bad element. this is a hay stack of humanity. in it are the needles who are the bad elements. can you imagine sorting out, out of that hay stack, the needles. you approve a stack of hay, in that may or may not be a needle, you grab another bundle of hay, you give them a path to citizenship, they have a card to get them in and out of the united states starke in mexico, go wherever they want to go, the card would let them travel, we would have automatically anointed them to be accept to believe work in the united states, live in the united states, travel throughout the united states and go back to their home country and come back in the united states. now, first, we don't have any indication we could possibly do a background check to approve the people. that would get a path to citizenship and get this amnesty. i have asked them, i have asked the people that come into the

united states, that are living here, that may or may not have come in here legally, can you produce a birth receive tiff cat from mexico so we can do a background check? those born in a hospital can generally produce a birth certificate but about half of them are not born in hospitals and cannot produce a birth certificate. that's just the fact. when i asked them, can you get me a birth certificate, their response to me is, yes, i can do that. what do you want it to say? how old should i be? where should i have been born? what should the birth certificate say? in other words, whatever kind of fraudulent document is necessary to get them into the united states, they'll produce that. if they produce a fraudulent document, it's unlikely to have a paper trail of whatever laws they may have violated in a foreign country system of the very idea that we can do a

background check on them, it's an impossibility to do a background check on people that come from foreign countries we are talking about. we may be able to do a background check on them just off the fingerprints, that we probably already have on record at nogales, or wherever they came across the border, probably can do the background check on what they have done potentially to violate the laws in the united states. but that's a very small part of their human history. a larger part is in their home country that can't be traced because we can't trace them back to an individual identity. this argument that a huge haystack of humanity, four million strong, that we can focus on the need unless that hay stack is a flawed premise. no one can present this to many in a rational fashion, how it gets easier if you legalize people.

the percentage would be similar to the negative elements that exist in that broader cross section of society anyway, unless you presume that the bad elements will not try to be legalized. of course they will. they'll try to game the system. so this huge hay stack of humanity would be granted amnesty and allow them to travel in the united states and in or out of mexico and their home country system of a people that would travel more across the border rather than less will cause us more problems rather than less. because we have 90% of the illegal drugs in america come from or through mexico. mexico is not accountable for all of that. but 90% come from or through mexico. and of all the illegal drugs distributed in america, according to the drug enforcement agency, the interviews i have done with them, the illegal drug

distribution chain has at least every illegal drug distribution chain has at least one link in that chain provided by an illegal. magically if everyone that is in america woke up in their home country tomorrow morning, every illegal drug distribution chain in america would be severed, at least one link would be pulled out of it. i don't propose that that would mean that illegal drugs would stop flowing into america or stop flowing into the consumers in america. i would just say it would be temporarily suspended. some, far few minutes or hours. some for weeks or longer. but it would be temporarily suspended. illegal drug smugglers are protected by the flow of illegal humanity. even if they're good people that want a job, want to take care of their family, they inadvertently provide cover for those who come in for evil purposes, drug smuggling,

people smuggling, and worse. we have watched as phoenix has become the second highest kidnap city in the world. second highest in the world. highest is mexico city. why is mexico city the highest? kidnapping is part of the criminal culture in new york city. why is phoenix the second highest? i will suggest, mr. speaker, that the kidnapping culture that exists in mexico city is being transferred into arizona and into phoenix, at least to some degree, causing that major kidnapping problem in phoenix. and so, 90% of the illegal drugs coming into america come from or through mexico. phoenix has become the second highest kidnap center in the world, partly because of the drug smuggling trade, the people smuggling trade, the profit margins that are there. in deference to president calderon, who is in this city,

i think right now as we speak, i do reject the criticism that he has provided for the state of arizona for passing their own immigration legislation. but i also will concede his argument that there's a powerful magnet here in the united states, and that is the use and the purchase of illegal drugs that the illegal drugs that are the magnet that really brings about the markets that cause the drug wars in south america, central america, mexico, coming into the united states. if we could shut off this illegal drugs magnet, there's two magnets that need to be shut off in america. one is the jobs magnet that hires illegals and pours them into our economy who work at substandard wages, then the taxpayers have to subsidize the subsistence for the families that should be sustained by the wages and benefits.

that's one thing that is a magnet that needs to be shut off. there's ways we can do that, mr. speaker. but the other is this huge magnet which is the demand for illegal drugs in america that sets up the production and the distribution chain and the drug cartels that are so utterly brutal, especially in mexico, where i saw a number that i can't substantiate, i will just tell you, mr. speaker, it was reported in the news that over the last several years in the drug wars in mexico, they've had 23,000 people killed. 23,000. now that would be drug cartels killing members of other drug cartels, it would be local law enforcement officers, it would be intimidation attacks on families, it would be the military personnel that are engaged in this fight, but it is a very high amount of casualties that have taken place in mexico to shut off the illegal drugs in that country.

i understand the frustration of president calderon that the united states is providing the magnet for the illegal drugs and we are critical of them for the human smuggling, the drug smuggling and think cash smuggling that comes out of the united states down into mexico and places south. well, it's all right for us to be critical of what's going on in mexico, but it's -- we have to acknowledge that the drug abuse problem in the united states is a big part of that and if we could shut off the magnets of drug abuse and in the united states and the magnet of employers who are seeking to hire substandard wage workers in america, we could solve a lot of border problems by doing that the rest of the border problems that can be solved will be solved by building a fence or wall on the southern border. this is not that hard to figure out, mr. speaker. we spend $12 billion a year on the southern border when we add

up the costs going into i.c.e., the border patrol, custom border protection, all the equipment they need, the benefits, wages, and pension plans that go along with that. we used a corridor some 40 miles wide or so along the southern border. $12 billion for a 2,000 mile border, that's $6 million a mile, mr. speaker. i constantly hear the message that we have to have more and more boots on the ground. more boots on the ground. so i suggested to the then chief of the border patrol, if we could produce an impermeable barrier from heaven all the way down to hell so no one could go over the top, no one could go underneath, it were completely impermeable, how many border patrol do we need to protect that border.

the answer i got was, well we still need more boots on the ground that wasn't expert testimony, that's the party line. if you have an impermeable barrier that no one can go over or under, you cannot argue you need more boots on the ground, mr. speaker. and i make this argument hypothetically because of this. good, solid barriers on the border cut down on the need for personnel or they improve the effectiveness of the personnel that we have. that's the equation. you can't envision that if you build a fence and you come inside of that, 60 or 100 feet and build a concrete wall that's 13 1/2 feet high with a wire on top of it and a foundation underneath of it and you come in behind that and build another fence and you've got roads on either side of that concrete wall, triple fencing with a concrete wall, wire on top, cameras, sensory devices that are there, and

agents that can p patrol and come to spots where there's activity and problems, you cannot convince me you need more border patrol agents instead of less. you can't convince me more people will cross the border if you -- you cannot convince me more people will cross the border if you do have a fence than if you don't. of course they're effective. and they're effective, we know they're effective. they're cash flow effective. $6 million a mile, mr. speaker. that's what we're spending today on open, vast areas of the border where there's only a concrete pylon established from horizon to horizon. $6 million a mile. and who would not take a check for $6 million to guard the border for a mile. a road, no one lives on it a mile of gravel, if the feds came to me, steve, i've got for

you $6 million this year and every year for the next 10 years, i'll give you $16 million to guard that mile from your house west and i'lling to be from that $60 million every time somebody gets across that border illegally and i'm going to require you to wond that so that the effectiveness if you -- that you will guarantee you'll get the job done. i would not, as, let me say, as an astute entrepreneur, look at my west mile with no fences on it and hire myself 100 border patrol agents with humvees and radios and put helicopters in the air and guard that board we are hovering helicopters and border patrol agents sitting back four or five or six or 20 miles from that road and go catch them when they come across and get into my cornfield. no, mr. speaker, i'd build a fence and a wall and i'd put

sensory devices on it, i'd have cameras. when somebody approached the wall and tried to get over it, we'd know and see it coming. we'd call our handful of border patrol agents there to address the problem. that's what needs to happen where there's high crossing rates over the southern borders. it -- southern border. it defies common sense to believe you can chase people around the desert better than you can keep them out. no one has put the cash to this, the cost of what's going on, no one i know in the house or senate can tell you $12 billion is the annual cost $120 billion for 10 years, that's hour our budgets go, $120 billion. $6 million a mile. $60 million a mile for 10 years. $60 million. think what you could build for every mile that you can imagine in your neighborhood, mr. speaker, over 10 years if you had $60 million. this country would be so full

of edifices, of construction, if we had $60 million to invest for every mile, we've got to have it be effective and we've got to be smart about how we spend our money and we've got to establish immigration policy that's good for us, the social, the economic, and the cultural well being of the united states of america. and i pledge to do that and i introduced legislation which will do so, mr. speaker. it's called the new idea act. new idea. it stand standed for the new illegal -- it stands for the new he will illegal deducks act. it brings the i.r.s., the i.r.s. seems to like to do their job from time to time. in fact, let's just say that they are good at it. i don't want to necessarily accuse them of liking it. and the effectiveness of the i.r.s. is one of the reasons that i've brought them into this mix when i introduced the legislation. and so the new idea act stands for the new illegal deduction

elimination act, mr. speaker. it claar fice that wages and benefits paid to illegals are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. it provides for the i.r.s. during the course of a normal audit to come into a company and run the social security numbers of the employees through a database and that database would be the e-verify database which has proven to be well more than 99% efficient and effective. and if those employees, one or more of them, cannot be verified to be lawfully -- could work in the united states, the i.r.s. then will give the employer an opportunity to cure that problem . but the bottom line is that they will deny the business expense of wages and benefits paid to illegals as a tax deductible item. and so if an employer paid $1 million in wages to a list of illegals and the everify program

could not verify that they could lawfully work in the united states, then the i.r.s. would deny that business expense of $1 million, it would go from the exemption side, the business expense side over to the profit side in which ways that all becomes a taxable profit event. and did i this at 34% corporate income tax, and that has gone up, but i did the math at 34% and it turns out to be this. your $10-an-hour illegal becomes a $16-an-hour illegal when you add the tax liability at 34% and the interest and the penalty that's assigned by the i.r.s. and so your $16-an-hour illegal is a pretty expensive ticket. and the $1 million in wages that would have been paid that were deducted as a business expense now become an additional, well,

letmy say $600,000 in costs to the employer -- let me say, $600,000 in costs to the employer. they will decide to not take that risk and hire an american worker or someone lawfully present in the united states. i'm all for that, mr. speaker. it's the right thing to do. bring the i.r.s. into this. pass the new idea act, the new illegal deduction elimination act and let the i.r.s. join with the department of homeland security and the social security administration to build a team so that the government is all on the same page, singing from the same page of the him nal. that's the right thing to do here in america. that shuts down the jobs magnet, it doesn't shut it entirely off. some have suggested that we pass legislation that makes it a felony to hire an illegal. well, you know, we have document

theft that goes on with those employees and janet napolitano has taken a position that she's not going to enforce even against document theft in the course of people that are working illegally, can turn our pressure up against the employers and make it a felony and we can lock them up in jail or give them massive fines. i suggest instead we provide the incentives so that all of the employers can be under that kind of scrutiny with a six-year statute of limitations that's written into the bill that then allows for the i.r.s. to go back six years. now think how this works, mr. speaker. if you paid $1 million in wages out to illegals in a year and the i.r.s. came in and did the audit and they took your $10-an-hour and it became $16-an-hour and then that equated into $1 million, you have $600,000 in tax liability for that year and the interest

in the penalty that goes back actually adrew crews to a greater number, but let's say the level across the period that have six years. now your $600,000 in penalties to the employer that padse $1 million in wages to illegals becomes $3,600 -- excuse me, $3.-- $600,000 becomes $3.6 million in liability to the i.r.s. now, that is a powerful incentive to clean up your employee base, to comply with the law, to do due diligence and to hire people that can legally work in the united states of america. this argument that we're in that we have to pass comprehensive immigration reform in order to solve our problems here is a fault specious argument. it doesn't hold up to any scrutiny i know. it's only out there because there's a political gain that is being sought on the other side. people that want to expand their

political base and make a promise to different groups of people, that they would be their ben factors. and by the way, when i look at the pattern that is taking place between the secretary of the department of homeland security, janet in a pan -- napolitano, the president of the united states, the attorney general, the assistant secretary of state pose in her, this is an astonishing thing. the immigration law that was passed in arizona mirrors federal immigration law. it was designed to do that. the people that wrote it were smart people that understood federal immigration law. they intentionally wrote it in such a way that it would not -- it would not conflict with federal law and would not be preempted by federal law and here are some things that i know. that local law enforcement has always had the authority to enforce federal immigration law. one of the ways i've described

that is, you can imagine local law enforcement arguing that they didn't have the authority to enforce another jurisdiction's law? say, for example, if it was a county sheriff, could he -- he can sit out there and write speeding tickets on a state highway or does he have to be a county highway? if a county sheriff happens to see somebody run a stop sign in the city does he decide that, well, that's the town of tucson therefore -- let me say the town of phoenix but i'm a mar copea county sheriff, therefore i can't write a ticket for running a stop sign that is a city stop sign in phoenix? does a state trooper that watches a national bank be robbed not enforce that because they can only enforce the laws against robbing state banks? not national banks? how bizarre is it to believe that local law enforcement would

have no business enforcing federal immigration law? i would submit to the record, mr. speaker, a case in 2001, a federal district court that ruled in the case of the united states against santana garcia, that established that local law enforcement has an inherent right and responsibility to enforce federal immigration law. there are several other cases that are on point on this buti know of none, i know of no cases that would argue that local law enforcement does not have the authority to enforce imgraduation law. of course they do. just like they have the authority to enforce other federal laws. or, for example, i believe it's a federal violation to murder a federal agent. i believe it's also a violation of every law, every state law, for first or second degree murder or manslaughter in the united states of america, to murder that same federal agent.

now, who would argue that if the federal government didn't prosecute the murder of a federal agent, that the state couldn't prosecute because it would be a preemmings of federal law? it is complete irrational bologna to believe that there's a preemption that prohibits the states from protecting themselves or ordering their society it's. so arizona has written their immigration law that simply says, it's against the law to be in arizona illegally in violation of federal immigration law. and they went to great pains to establish that there has to be probably cause -- probable cause in order for law enforcement to pull people over and inquire beyond that. probable cause. so probable cause would be, let's say a tail light out, a brake light out, a car that's speeding, a stop sign that's been run, bhow a bank that's

been robbed, they chase all of those vehicles down, they approach the vehicle, they ask for a driver's license, if they're handed a counselor card that's almost de facto proof that a person that carries one has no reason to have one in america if they're here legally. if they're here legally they've got documents that they can use. so it would be probable -- excuse me, it would be probable cause. but it would be a higher standard -- lower standard of reasonable suspicion. and that law enforcement officer would then go goat ask a few more questions and determine -- get to ask a few more questions and determine if that individual was in the united states legally or illegally. if he suspects and comes to a conclusion that it's worthy of taking it it to a higher level, he can call i.c.e., have them go through the process and take care of the situation. if the back of the van opens and 15 people start to run across the field, well, that's reasonable suspicion, i would say, mr. speaker, but it's not

-- it's not targeting -- the not profiling, it's not prejudice and all of this about the profiling and the prejudice is a great big red herring designed to create this political argument that they think they've got some traion in. and i, mr. speaker, have been through a number of these. it took six years to establish english as the official language of the state of iowa. i had the same discussions and the same debates take place over and over again. and they argued that if we established english as the official language of iowa there would be people all over the state that were disparaging other languages and the people that spoke it. and so in the bill we wrote that it's unlawful to disparage any language other than english. so oddly, and i didn't september this amendment willingness, -- accept this amendment willingly, it became part of the law nevertheless, oddly people can disparage english in the state

of iowa and no other language. it never really applied. never heard of a case where anybody was disparaging any language and i suppose that there may be -- i don't know if anybody is disparaphernaliaing english itself either. but -- disparaging english itself either. but of all this hysteria that was ramped up, it went on for months and for years, and all the allegations that it was going to destroy our society and it was a bitter pill, it was an insult to people, when the bill was passed and it became law, it went away. all of the worries that were there went away. i also was the principle author of iowa's workplace drug testing law. and that law, among other provisions, allows for the drug test to be conducted on an employee, provided there's reasonable suspicion that they're using those drugs. a reasonable suspicion is

credible objective identifiable character statistics. it's pretty -- characteristics. it's pretty close although not never bait am from the statute, it's been 12 years. that gives you a bit of the idea, mr. speaker, of the definition of the -- the definition of reasonable suspicion. objective credible identifiable characteristics. and as much noise as was made about that, that we were going to test people on reasonable suspicion, we were going to test them on random testing, we were going to test them post accident, they were going to test them preemployment, we did all of that. we didn't ask law enforcement officers to go and be trained and come into the work force and look around for people whose behavior was erratic or maybe their pupils were dilated or people who were nervous or irritable or whatever it might be. we just simply directed that the employer designate an employee who would be the one who could

declare that there be a drug test on someone because of reasonable suspicion. and the standard that's written into the bill is that employee has to go through an initial two hours of training, two hours, and then each year refresh that training with a minimum of one hour of training. so that might be the truck driver, could be the nurse, could be the janitor, it could be the c.e.o., actually the if it's a small business it could be about all those things wrapped up in one person. but these are not people that are necessarily trained by their profession to identify a reasonable suspicion. they're just simply trained within their job to do so. and we for 12 years, for 12 years we've had reasonable suspicion in iowa applied by employees of companies who have received two years of initial training and -- or excuse me, two hours of initial training for the first equal fire and

then each year -- qualifier and then each year therefore one hour of training and they have pointed fingers at at employees and said, i have reason to be suspicious that you're abusing drugs, you go and provide a ur analysis now because that single individual's judgment thinks so. now, that would give an opportunity for people to be profiled, for them to be discriminated against, for a law to be abused in a broader way than it could possibly be done in the state of arizona and yet in 12 years, in iowa under the reasonable suspicion law, we don't have a single case of any type of persecution or prejudice or profile that has emerged. now it doesn't mean there aren't some people who haven't complained along the way but i know of none. i've not had a complaint come back to me, there's not been a case that's been filed. the language for reasonable

suspicion in iowa that's granted to someone with two hours of initial training and one hour of annual training after that, it doesn't necessarily have a specific background required, has worked beautifully. hundreds of companies now provide a 100% drug-free workplace because they have the trools to work with. why would we think that immigration law that applies in arizona right now if it's enforced by the federal government, somehow becomes a discriminatory law if it's enforced by local government? the very people that have to live with their neighbors and friends. the law enforcement officers that in arizona are more likely to be hispanic than the federal officers enforcing immigration laws. in some of the communities, that's true. why would we presume that law enforcement officers are inherently racist or bigotted

or would use their job to target people? i think the level of hysteria that exists in arizona and across the country, especially with the boycotts out there, is proportional to the fears of the open borders crowd, the whining liberals crowd, proportional to their fear that arizona's immigration law will be effective. that's the answer to what's going on. they're for open borders. they're for erasing the borders of the united states of america. they're for allowing people to flow back and forth at will. you know, you can't be a nation if you don't have a border you can't call it a board fer you don't defend the border. we are a nation that has great respect for the rule of law. all the people that come here to this country don't have any experience of respect for the rule of law. they don't understand that justice is blind here in america, or is supposed to be blind. they don't understand there's a provision about how -- a

statute of the -- a statue of lady justice holding the scales in her hands and she's blindfolded because she's weighing the justice without seeing who the person is the justice is being provided for. so this immigration law in arizona that the president of the united states played the race card on and played unnecessarily to fears, falsely and erroneously, when he made the statement in a speech a few weeks ago that a mother and daughter that didn't quite look the right part, i've forgotten the exact language he used, could be going to ice cream, they could have somebody stop them and demand their papers. that's inconsistent with the law i read. it's demagoguery, mr. speaker. it's inaccurate. it's willfully scaring the american people for political reasons. and it fits right down the path

of the president standing right back here and saying to the supreme court who sat here, that they had unjustly decided a case before them and seeking to intimidate the -- seeking to intimidate the judicial branch of government. in fact the supreme court of the united states. so as the president read the bush if the president read the bill he didn't understand it or willfully misrepresented it. we know if we take his word under oath, and that was attorney general eric holder last week, when he was asked by judge and congressman ted poe of texas, did you read the bill? meaning the arizona immigration bill. he had to admit, no, he hadn't read the bill. he hadn't been briefed on it either. now an attorney general of the united states, coming before the judiciary committee, to testify before the committee, would be intensively briefed on subject after subject. he would be so boned up and

ready he could respond to anything. and this attorney general couldn't see fit to bother to read a bill that's less than a dozen and a half pages long, double spaced? one he felt free to speak to and make allegations about and imply that it could lead to discrimination and racial profiling or flat out say so in his public statement? i was shocked to think that the question that i would have not considered was even one that legitimately -- just couldn't imagine that the attorney general of the united states would not have read a bill he was so critical of. but he did not. thanks to ted poe, we know that. the president didn't read the bill or willfully misinformed the american people. attorney general eric holder said he didn't read the bill. but still he misinformed the american people. the secretary of the department of homeland security, janet

napolitano, admitted before john mccain, her colleague from arizona that she hadn't read the bill. she was aware of it. she hadn't read the bill. but she felt free, also to talk about the potential effects of arizona's immigration law and then we have the assistant secretary of state, pozney, -- -- pozner, who said they brought up the bill to the chinese and made the statement of mea culpa to the united states that we had laws that are -- that were discriminatory and perhaps bigotted. the president of the united states didn't read the bill and misinformed the american people, unintentionally or willfully. the attorney general of the united states who was thinking object suing the state of arizona hadn't red rad the bill

and misinformed the people. janet napolitano hadn't read the bill and was misinforming the people unintentionally or willfully. the assistant secretary of state, pozner, hadn't read the bill or intentionally was misinforming the chinese. all of this going on in the department of justice, has been directed by the president of the united states to investigate arizona's immigration law, now the president gave that order without reading the bill, you'd think he had someone around him who read the bill and briefed the president. there's no sign of that. they're taking their marching orders from moveon.org or the aclu. so the department of justice is investigating. they're looking for a way to bring suit against the state of arizona on what could the basis be? i asked the attorney general this last week before the judiciary committee. can you point to a single component of the constitution

that may have been violated by arizona's law? no. can you point to a federal statute that would be in conflict with arizona's immigration law? no. can you point to any case law, any controlling precedent that would indicate that arizona doesn't have the authority to enforce the immigration law? no. but still at the direction and order of the president of the united states, the attorney general is using the force of the justice department to investigate arizona and arizona's immigration law, all the while inside that justice department they have can selled the most open and shut voter intimidation case in the history of america. that's the new black panthers smacking billy clubs in their hand, calling white people coming in to vote in philadelphia crackers and intimidating themming from voting and the justice department says we don't have

enough evidence to convict. and the assistant attorney general, whose name is thomas pe perez, testified before the judiciary committee that they achieved the highest possible penalty. and the highest possible penalty was to put an injunction against one of the four new black panthers, prohibit him from standing at that same polling place with a billy club and intimidating voters in the 2012 election. but after that, it's apparently not a problem. it was false testimony on the part of assistant attorney general thomas perez. they didn't achief the highest penalty that was available to them, even though he testified otherwise and the justice department can selled the case -- canceled the case, the most open and shut voter intimidation case in the history of the united states of america. and then kinston, north carolina, they voted they

wanted to have nonpartisan elections in their city-wide elections. a lot of communities in america opt for that. something like 70% of the communities in america don't want partisan elections. you don't have republican or democrat, you get elected to represent this city without having party denomination. the same person in the justice department who dropped the charges for the voter discrimination act, sent them a letter because they've been labeled discriminators under the voting rights act because they needed to get approval

before they could change their voting procedure. because apparently african-americans who wanted to vote for another african-american needed the d beside the name to know they were voting for another african-american. that seems like a race-based decision. that's strike number two against loretta king in the justice department. she had a third, a rule 11 being applied for filing a specious case that was unfounded and it cost the federal government $750,000 because she brought a case that couldn't be supported that was false and specious and unfounded and there's better language for that to be found under the rule 11 language that's there. all of this, the justice

department can't investigate and continue with the most open-and-shut voter discrimination case they can selled the will of the people of kinston, north carolina, based on the decision of loretta king who brought a false and specious case that cost the american people $570,000, all the while they have the resources to investigate arizona with no rational reason why, no constitutional thing they can point to, they can't even investigate acorn. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. honda, for from california, mr. honda, for 60 minutes.