who said, set the thermostat down to 60. sit there an shiver because after all, we have an american malaise that we'll never be the nation we were before and never be the nation again that we are today. that was jimmy carter's message. it also fits pretty losely to barack obama's message who has said, that elick trissity costs will necessarily skyrocket under his plan of cap and trade. so what are we doing? we vn have an administration and the on for tunists in the senate and house that are looking at the oil slick over the gulf coast, which is an environmental tragedy, and seeking to capitalize on that environmental tragedy by pushing cap and trade legislation which will cripple american industry. for example, and i don't think, mr. speaker, that i can give

the data on this, but i would just suggest that those that are interested should take a look at the american kiln sfwristri and understand that where we have kilns, it might be a dryer, you heat up asphalt and crank it through a barrel with heat in it and brings it through the other side kind of likeea cement truck cylinder, comes out the other side hot mixed asphalt. takes a lot of heat to do that, there's a lot of co-2 emissions. . it takes a lot of energy that emits co-2 and this would take the aluminum industry to look at the cap and trade proposals out there. industry after industry in america would be criipled by cap and trade legislation. the electricity would skyrocket.

the cost of our gas would go, our diesel fuel, jet fuel, i said our electricity. all nerg gets more expensive and just changes the proportionality of the cost per b.t.u. we would as a nation then make our energy more costly. now what the cap and trade legislation does is taxes everythinn that moves. just molving my hand back and forth you could count that in call res. and if you would take a 200-pound man and run him up the stairs, we could calculate how many calories would be consumed by that effort and you could turn that into and calculate that into b.t.u.'s and with the motor. this is energy, anything that

moves has energy. so this administration is for taxing everything that moves and a cap and trade scheme that would cripple america's economy and put us at a significant disadvantage from the developing countries in the world and in particular, india and china. underdeveloped countries. it cheapens it over there. what do we do? they produce things and ship it back to us and we buy it. what do we buy it with? we are buying it with credit. we are buying it up against the chinese. they are approaching $1 trillion and u.s. debt today. we lament the cost when a young person finishes their college education, receives their degree

and there's a number out there -- this is not a survey number but a scrernl ball park number, roughly $40,000 debt for a child, albeit a young adult, $40,000 to pay off that student loan. phatever that real number is, i'm wooking with 40, which is in the ball park and we worry about that student loan being paid off by that young person that has a college degree and entering a job market. i'm not word about that $40,000 because the baby born in america today owes uncle sam, the federal government, the share of the national debt, $44,000 to go into he nursery and bring the new baby out and there might be

new little miracle its wrapped up in blue or pink with their parents looking through the glass and going in and holding their beash, that's little babies, their share of the national debt, not their student loan debt, which if they get a degree, but these little babies' share offthe national debt, $44,000. $44,000, mr. speaker, for the privilege of being born in the ounce of america. it's not the case for an anchor baby that gets citizenship. and i disagree with that. that same little baby that is born today and owes the federal government $44,000, by the time he ties his shoes and walks into the fifth grade class, now i pick that, because that's 10

years, we have 10-year budgets here and we calculate our costs% over a 10-year period of time. 44 thundershowers in debt, welcome to america, this is the gift of life and you owe $ 4,000. a lot of them aren't going to pay their share. but the share for everyone who walks in by the time those $44,000 indebted children start fifth grade, they willow uncle sam $88,000. that's the number, mr. speaker. and we should be worried about a country that can't pass a budget that for the first time there have been budget requirements put into the rules here in the congress itself since 1974 when it began, this congress doesn't have the will or conviction to pass the budget because it is so abysmal, because the overspending is so atrocious,

because the spending they are conducting colt be defended and vote against the amendments. now, there is a legitimate debate going on in this congress and there is a legitimate debate going on. we aren't going to have a budget. this congress doesn't want to take responsibility. we will see them pack acknowledge a continuing resolution and pays off the political favoriiism in order to go into november and go on the other side and kick the can on the road and we will be here afflecks day in november and this congress will, by order of the speaker bring a huge omnibus pppeng bill to the floor. 3,600 pages, several00 billions

dollars dropped on the floor with 60 minutes to debate the issues, no amendments, voted up or down and the government shuts down. i will vote no. i would love to shut the government done for that irresponsibility. that is unlikell it will happen because the speaker has the votes and can do what she will. here wer mr. speaker, this is a country that is built upon the rights that come from god our liberty and freedom. built upon this foundation that i declare to be american exceptionalism. we are the greatest nation in the world and derive our strength from these pillars of exceptionalism from the rights that come from god, from our religious faith and foundation,% this core that is america and yet, we are afraid to say so.

we shrink away from simple truth. and i happen to have heard a speech, the president of the %% n.r.a., he doesn't know i'm coming here to say this, but i was listening as he wrote thinks speech and i wrote this down. he said, if you know the truth is on your side, say it and shout it as long as you can. it might be as loud as you can. stand up, shout them down and don't you back down. waynela pier, president of the n.r.a. and who has defended our rights. impressed me with the clarity of his delivery. i take us to a subblet matter that is on my mind to some degree and has to do with what's going n from the white house

and the presidency through the justice department. now the attorney general came before the judiciary committee sometime in late may before we broke for the memorial day period of time and he testified under oath that the justice departmenn is not a partisan agency, that they don't operate on a partisan basis and driven by the law. well, i look at the president and the attorney general and a number of other representatives of this administration that's hard for me to accept that statement on face value as being truthful because here's what i see and what i know. the president of the united states spoke out openly and plainly about the arizona immigration law and made a case in his view that there was a

built-in prejudice or bias or profile in the arizona law because he said that if a mother were taking her daughter out to get some iie cream, they could find themselvesshaving to produce their papers because presumably of their face. arizona law forbids such a thing but the president allegations such a thing. either the president misinformed the people or he hadn't read the bill. i'll opt to the side of he hadn't read the bill. i hope that's the case. and then we had the president -- let me say eric holder, the attorney holder, alleged there could be a profile that would bring about discrimination against people. durns out that even though i asked eric holder before the

judiciary committee, you have been charged by the president of the united states to use the force of the justice department to go against the arizona law, s. 1070 by senator russell pearce of arizona, that legislation that has been siped into law and enacted on the last day of july of this year, eric holder intends to bring about profiling. when someone says profiling in american society, they don't mean profiling according to whether you are a member of mensa or a sierra club. this is racial profiling. when i say they, people on the left, self-progressed progressives, they mean racial profiling. the president implies, empowered

by arizona's immigration law s. 10780, the attorney general does the same thing and the ordered the justice department to invalidate arizona's immigration law. and when i asked under oath, point to me in the contusion where you believe arizona's immigration law has violated the united states constitution, the attorney general could not do so. so in the alternative, i said point to me a federal statute that present eements arizona law. the attorney general could not do so. i said point out to me case law that is controlling that would indicate that arizona's immigration law might be unconstitutional or invalue dated by a federal court, the

attorney general could not point to a single case precedent either. if he fails to be able to point ppto the constitution, federal statute that could preempt or case law that controls, the attorney general of the united states that he's still using the resources and the authority of the attorney general's office, the entire justice department of the united states seeking to in validate arizona's law, which mirrors federal law and is as ccnstitutional as federal immigration law and can't point to any place that might violate but still willlng to testify that his department is not political while he admits that the president ordered him to use the department for what i believe to be political purposes. and for each of them to imply or

con sent that they didn't read the law but tell the american people what to think about it, that's political. and it's unjust and it's not consistent with the constitution, nor with federal statute, nor with case law. that, mr. speaker, is what's going on -- excuse me. and so, in addition to this, we have in arizona's law, we have other people who have weighed on this, other people who have similar, let me say, information to work with. the president doesn't read the bill and seeks to talk against it.. the torn general is on the record is the american people are cowards when it comes to race. i'm not. but somer they turn against people against people who speak

openly against these issues. and people like the president of the united states who, when informed of the issue of professor gates and officer crowley having their incident in cambridge when the officer conducted himself as a peace officer, when there was a call to come because someone was breaking into a residence in the neighborhood, officer crowley applied to that task. . . professor gates objected to having someone there to help protect his property. president obecause -- obama sided with professor gates. the american people know it. he couldn't bring himself to

apologize. he was looking for a way out. that's high he had the beer summit on the south lawn, that's why prfsor gates and officer crowley came down and -- why professor gates and officer draw lee came down to the lawn and had that beer conference, it seemed odd to me that brought one beer on a tray, then went back, then brought another beer on a tray. but the one who conducted himself in a just fashion is rethe one who received an apology from the one who did not conduct himself in a just fashion. i would argue that the president and professor gates had an obligation to apologize to officer crowley because first the president had prejudged that situation, his ppknee jerk reaction defaulted favor of the african-american professor and against the irish cop. that's what happened. i don't think anybody that watched this innident could think otherwise. we had the president of the

united states who defaulted in favor of alleging that there would be racial profiling take place in arizona because of their immigration law and he perpetuated a flat-out misinterpretation and it may well have been willing -- it may well have been willful of arizona's immigration law to the rest of america. we should be able to look up to the president of the united states and trust he is properly briefed an he's factual when he presents -- and he's factual when he presents something that is american branch policy. we should trust the president for that. the president should have people around him who he trusts that would go back and read the law and brief the president. it's obviously to -- obvious to all of us to all of us who watched this and read the law that the president did not read the law, if he was briefed it was off the moveon.org website. he's ssrrounded by people who read those websites who believe them, and i'm not sure the

president has access to the objective truth, given the people around him and given the way he's responded. so you have two cases where the president's default reaction falls in the favor of an individual because of skin color as opposed to individuals because of the rule of law. let me just say truthh justice, and the american way. there's a default mechanism in place. he has an attorney general who follows that same path who lectures the american people and says that the american people are cowards when it comes o race. well, he's not being a coward when it comes to race. his administration hurricanes agency, the justice department has can selled the most open and shut voter intimidation case in the history of america and the -- in the case of the new black pan chers -- panthers in philadelphia, who much of america have seen on videotape, youtube, paramilitarily

uniformed individual, members of the new black panther, standing there in berets with a big old billy club, smaaking it in their hand as white people come to vote, calling those people crackers. and telling them we're taking over this country, we're going to be in power after that that's the summary of a generalization of their statements but the accuracy of that record is out there on youtube for all to see. that case, open and shut. the case was made by the justice department under president bush. as the handoff took place and went over to the eric holder justice department under poth because ma, what happens, mr. speaker? loretta king in the justice department can selled the most open and shut voter intimidation case in the history of america because it would have brought about convictions on those new black panther party members. and one of the assistant -- the

one of the attorneys general, thomas perez came before the jew care -- judiciary committee testified that they got the harsh punishment possible. it was false he knew it the day he said it, misinformed, he was under some pressure and needed to get off the hook. that's the matter of the congressional record. he was under oath. it's something we should pursue. it's unlikely we can get anywhere with it. that's tom perez. and so, the administration has can selled the most open and shut voter intimidation case in the history of america. it was a done deal. they can selled it. the administration, loretta king in the justice department, can selled also the will of the people in kingston, north

carolina, that's -- in kinston, north carolina. they dropped the g they didn't want to be another kingston, north carolina. they voted by referendum the will of the people, the numbers, it's generally memorized but maybe not specifically accurate, 70% to 30% they voted to end the% partisan local lechee in kinston, next, and no longer label the candidate with an r or d by their name. because kinston is a covered district controlled by the voting rights act if they're going to move a voting booth 10 feet down the hallway, they have to get the permission of the justice department under federal law. under the justice department, loretta king is the one who speaks for the justice depprtment, for eric holder she issued a letter that can selled the election results for kinston, north carolina, and

declared that they would have partisan elections in the city council in kinston, north carolina, because african-americans wouldn't know who to vote for if they didn't have a d beside their name. mr. speaker, that is fact. that's the letter that was written and issued by our %- justice department under the pen and the signature of loretta king under the guidance and control of attorney general holder. now if we talk about things that have a racist flavor to them, to presume that african-americans can't figure out ho who to vote for unless tthey have a d beside their name, i guess you could make the argument that you want to profile all the african-americans and declare that they're all democrats and therefore it makes it simple if you just label the people they want to vott for with a d. i think that has all kinds of racial implications. i don't think those implications have any place in the application of the law or

the applicatton of the constitution in the united ptates. there should be equal justice before the law. this lady justice needs to be blindfolded and stay blindfolded. everybody should be subbected to the same level of law and enforcement without regard to race, creed, color, ethnicity, national origin. the numb of other indicators. but i listed most of them in title 7 of the civil rights acc right now. this goes on. this is the justice department that can't find a dollar for an individuul to commit a minute, let alone a career or a team to- investigate acorn. acorn. the corrupt criminal enterprise that everybody in america knows% is a corrupt criminal enterprise, has been undermining the very foundation that sits underneath our constitution itself that, mr. speaker, is a legitimate

election. %- legitimate elections -- the legitimacy of our elections is what keeps thh constitutional republic functioning and %% functioning and alive and gets - us back to well. acorn has damaged all of that acorn has threatened all of that think acorn has diminished our liberty and freedom and undermined the foundation for our constitution. any justice department worth its salt would investigate acorn. but eric holder can't touch that. whether it's thed orer of the president who used to work for acorn, i don't know. but we should remember the president of the united states worked for acorn he represented them in court he represented them pro bono in court. could you imagine being an attorney general and representing somebody pro bono and not agreeing with their agenda. he worked for them in the former project vote which is

where the president, barack obama, made his reputation for organizing communities and politics in chicago. project vote is part and parcel of acorn. the novet united states is acorn. he's identified with acorn he made his reputation with acorn. he's worked for and with acorn. he's trained acorn workers. now when he said during the campaign to his supporters, get in their face, pretty consistent with the message they train acorn activists, get in their face. intimidate bankers, see if you can get them to make more bad loans in bad neighborhoods. let acorn be the judge of if they're making enough bad loans in bad neighborhoods which -- is a big part of why the economy is in this downward spiral. the pressdent was complicit in that which brought about the problems in america by working with and for and representing acorn. then, when he was elected novet

united states, he sought to pove the united states census from the commerce department into the white house where he could manage the census of counting the people, real or imagined, in the white house. and the public uproar over acorn caused him to back away from that and sever the relationship that he had, that acorn was to be working as a contractor with the census department. doesn't mean because they decided not to have a formal contract with acorn that acorn wasn't going to be involved in the census. we know that people are policy, that there are a lot of acorn people involved in the census. how could there not be with nearly half a million people working to create the 306 million or so people that we are. when we follow the money, when we track acorn, if the path -- the path leads us to the white house. acorn should be investigated by any legitimate justice

department. kinston, north carolina, didn't need to take place. the voice of the people said, we don't want partisan elections. we don't want to vote for the political party, can selled by loretta king and the justice department. we don't need to have voter intimidation with new blackk panthers out there with billy clubs and a justice department that would can sell a prosecution that was open and shut. where could you better send a message than putting the people that are the new black panthers that are clearly guilty under the heaviest penalty allowed by law. this is all part of the character and the makeup of this administration. this administration who plays the race card, this administration who defaults in favor of whichever minority they think might be the one that would most likely support their political party and their agenda.

i point to the new black panthers, i point to the president's remarks on the mother and the daughter going to get ice cream in arizona, i point to the justice department can selling the prosecution, the open and shut case, by then almost closed case of the new black panthers in pennsylvania, philadelphia, of the city, their municipal referendum on no partisan elections in kinston, north carolina, the failure of the justice department to investigate acorn and the fact that the president spoke out, this moves into a little bit of a little bit different subject area, but it also ties in, in my view, together, and the president, demagoguing arizona's immigration law not having read it, the attorney general doing the same thing and finally admitting he'd not read the bill. janet napolitano, director of homeland security, demagogguing