when it makes its way through, we'll have an opportunity to expand that seven-year period. three amendments i offer to the bill, one, some of them were accepted, my first amendment requires that a study be conducted to identify the number of minorities versus nonminorities impacted by the act, in addition to the median incomes of those who are affected. my second amendment requires the attorney general to inform minority communities if it is derled the act has a disproportionate impact. both of those amendments, i believe, were accepted. mr. conyers: i yield the gentlelady three additional minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. i also offered one to require that states are required to pay penalties in cases where they run afoul of this bill. i am well aware of the needs of local communities an the needs

of economic development, but i am glad that this congress seeks today to stand up on behalf of private property rights and owners. i am delighted that in the course of working in particular with this issue, we have a fair and balanced approach. let me give you a very brief example. the history of eminent domain targeting racial, economic and poor neighborhoods. now, red lining may not be equated to condemning neighborhoods or eminent domain, but when you don't allow a neighborhood to refurbish itself, to refinance, you are putting it on the line quickly for being a target of eminent domain. a 2004 study estimated that 1,600 african-american neighborhoods were destroyed by municipal projects in los angeles. in san jose, california, 95% of the properties targeted for economic redevelopment are hispanic or asian owned,

despite the fact that only 30% of businesses in that area are owned by racial or ethnic minorities. in mount holy township, new jersey, a neighborhood which the percentage of african-american residents, 44%, is twice that of the entire township and nearly tripled that of burlington county. lastly, according to a 1989 study, 90% of the 10,000 families displaced by highway projects in baltimore were african-american. in my own home state of texas, i remember a very well-stocked neighborhood of teachers and various but-collar workers. we called it third ward, riverside, thriving area. it -- schools like e.o. smith and jack yates high school, and in the course of trying to develop a major highway, in fact, that neighborhood was ultimately in essence diminished, diminished greatly.

so as growth comes, i understand it, but i think this is an excellent balance. i want economic development. i want to see growth, but i'd like it to support and encourage thriving neighborhoods of all backgrounds and diversity. this legislation will help in doing so, and i believe that it will correct decisions made previously and allow texans, allow californians, new yorkers, midwesterners, southerners, northerners, easterners and westerners to have a fair balance when the government comes and says it's time to take your property. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation and with the distinguished gentleman's courtesy, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i think we have the right to close and we reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers, and i am prepared to return the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself such time as i may consume to say that i urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan legislation to restore meaning to the fifth amendment to the constitution as justice sandra dayo connor noted in her descent in that opinion, the kelo decision renders meaningless under this law because as the interpretation exists, as the court ruling exists, state and local governmented can seize property almost for any reason under the context of calling it for purposes of economic development and we need to change that. we need to make sure that private property is what people think it is and that is something that they have the right to own and not be interfered with -- by the government except for real purposes of eminent domain, taking land for pure public uses like roads and utilities and schools and other clearly

public uses. and i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1433 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a trial

subpoena issued by the united states district court for the northern district of iowa. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i will determine whether compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, sandra hamlin, district representative, congressman steve king. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the administration is bullying religions. yes, the government has required some religious organizations to violate their religion and provide certain health care coverage for their employees or else. after an immediate backlash

from the american public, the administration promised it would make some changes, but the same day it made its promise it finalized the original mandate as is with no changes. the originaliedic is now in effect. the big announce in change resulted in nothing. only more words. the administration said they had the power to issue this order because it was implementing obamacare. if the administration has the power to infringe upon a constitutionally protected right, what will follow? what individual freedom will be trampled next all in the name, we're in the government, we know what's best? the constitution is being insulted and violated. we should fear this type of unyielding power and religious persecution. after all, the constitution was written to protect us from this type of government, and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized.

>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of marilyn schmidt, a resident of the state of michigan who dedicated her life to the goal of achieving true universal health care for all americans. she spent countless hours, day in and day out, organizing, mobilizing and educating the citizens of michigan in order to build grassroots support for passage of a single payer bill in congress, h.r. 676. she passionately believed that every person in america should have access to quality, affordable and accessible

health care as a fundamental civil and human right. i knew mrs. schmidt for almost two deck odds. i had a profound respect for her unique leadership and in advocating for human -- leadership in advocating for human rights, universal health care, protecting social security and medicare. she belonged to numerous community and social justice organizations including the michigan improve medicare for all, the michigan alliance to strengthen the social security and medicare, the michigan universal health care access network and the oakland county welfare rights organization. for over 20 years she fought for human, economic and civil rights of the voiceless and the vulnerable citizens of michigan who wanted nothing more than a better life for themselves and their children.

thank you, marilyn schmidt, for remaining steadfast in your belief that health care should be a fundamental human right in this country. the people of michigan and all of those you helped and fought for will always remember your kindness, your courage and dedication to this just cause. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: imdirected by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california may proceed. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i look forward to this hour with my colleagues to talk about jobs. how do we create jobs in america? we're now well over 14 months of the republican control of this house and not one significant bill has passed this house that would create new jobs. many bills to wipe out environmental laws, many bills to wipe out regulations that protect the citizens of the

united states from pollution and contamination of one sort or another. but where are the job bills? we absolutely have to create the jobs in america and today we're going to take about an hour to discuss how we can create jobs in america. one of the principal ways is to make it in america. manufacturing matters. manufacturing was the heart and soul, the foundation for what a great middle class, the rise of the middle class in the united states. it wasn't too long ago -- it wasn't too long ago that manufacturing in the united states was a big deal. about 20, 23 years ago we had some almost 20 million americans in manufacturing. it also happened to could he

inside with those until -- coincide with those in the middle class. we saw a precipitous drop to some just over 11 million manufacturing jobs in america. that coincided with the decline of the middle class in the united states. so what we want to do today is to focus on how to -- how can we rebuild the american middle class? one of the principal ways of doing it is to focus on manufacturing and to focus specifically on rebuilding the great manufacturing sector in the united states. many, many ways to do this -- i notice my colleague from oregon is here to join us, and i know that there are many things that are happening in oregon that speak directly to this. one of which is competition between oregon and california

for the manufacturing of light railcars. i'll let my colleague from oregon go first, and then i'll pound on him that california is a better place to manufacture light railcars than oregon, but either way, they're made in america and that's through the benefit of all americans. please join me and let's see where we can take this. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i deeply appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak. i appreciate your leadership in focusing on the need to rebuild and renew this country, putting americans back to work, being able to not just revitalize our economy but our neighborhoods and strengthen our families. it is true that there are some areas where there are some great opportunities for healthy competition. the gentleman may be referencing the fact that recently we have started manufacturing a streetcar in

the united states for the first time in 58 years, and it's being manufactured in portland, oregon. but i would note that that project, manufacturing the streetcar, includes the work of subcontractors across the country including 40 in the midwest that had been so hard hit by some of the decline in manufacturing activity. . the point is that being able to make goods in this country, whether it's light rail, streetcar, heavy rail, whether we are dealing with fabricating steel for bridges and roads, rebuilding the power grid, these are all areas that are a tremendous source of family-wage jobs. i find no amount of irony, that

one of the major republican candidates for president somehow thought that president obama was being -- and i'm using his direct words -- eliteist by advocating that kids going to a community college or college education, my goodness, how out of touch can you possibly be, i don't know any american who doesn't want his or her child to be able to have the opportunity for further education and training. this is part of an agenda here. i look forward to the conversation this evening. at one point, i would like to cycle back to the spectacle we had on the floor of the house the week before we recessed for presidents' day, where we had the most partisan transportation

bill in the history of the house , narrow in focus, small in vision, dividing the various elements of transportation and that was so bad that our republican friends were embarrassed to even have a hearing on it. never before in the history of the house have we had a major surface transportation re-authorization that never even had a hearing. well, our republican friends have decided that that wasn't getting them anywhere, the outcry from transit agencies across the country and even from the people who advocate safe routes to school, the program designed for our children to be able to get back and forth to school safely, that they

eliminated and they put it on the back burner. but the point is, you are right, we've enjoyed, if i can use that term, their republican leadership of the house for 14 months. we have no economic development plan. we have no transportation bill. and we continue to have an opportunity to rebuild and renew america languishing. mr. garamendi: i thank you so very much circling back to the transportation issue. it is still before the house and there is no hearing. and the plan put forth by the republicans has gone nowhere and it hit the brick wall. one of the reasons it hit the brick wall, there was no way to create a modern transportation system in that bill. for example, we both talked about streetcars and light-rail cars. in california, there is a factory in sacramento that makes

light-rail cars. i'm delighted there is a factory in oregon, portland, that is building streetcars and the factory in sacramento is building locomotives. and the stimulus bill that gets bad press, totally undeserved, had a clause in it that american's taxpayer money was going to be used to make it in america. and that propeled both of these operations as cities decided they would use some of their own money, some state money, some federal money to enhance their public transportation programs. however, the transportation bill that you brought up just a moment ago, totally removes the public transportation sector from the bill. now i don't know how we are going to develop buses and trains and light rail, amtrak

without the support of the federal government. i know you were deeply involved in this. i heard you talk about this once before with a little bit of ani mation. >> i appreciate the invitation. today as we speak, people in michigan are voting in a presidential primary to help determine the republican nominee. i just mentioned one of them, my friend and former colleague here, rick santorum, with whom i served in the house, is the person who thinks it's eliteist that kids have the opportunity to go to school. the other gentleman, major contender who is even likely to win the ballot in michigan today, more republican votes, has been quoting as saying one

of his top targets if he is elected president would be to eliminate amtrak. mr. garamendi: seriously? mr. blumenauer: yesterday he was on the trail and this was one of his top five targets. mr. garamendi: is this mr. romney? mr. blumenauer: mr. romy wants to eliminate funding for amtrak. this is one of his targets. you know, the united states, in the past, i have been brought up short when i talk about the united states having a third world rail passenger system, because, you know, i've ridden railroads in places like malaysia or thailand. and we do an injustice to their rail systems. the united states is the only major country in the world that

does not have higher-speed rail passenger service. it is the only major country that has no plan to move forward. the president, to his credit, put forth $14 billion to be able to strengthen our rail passenger system, some of which, several billion would have helped with a california vision. the california voters have approved the opportunity to go forward. you know, it is frustrating for me, because there i know doubt that -- there is no doubt that americans will have higher-speed rail. but the question is coming back to the point that you have so alentlessly and eloquently developed on the floor here, congressman garamendi, is the notion of where will americans' rail system come from, because

the path we're on if we follow it with romney, who would zero it out, with republicans who have fought these investments every chance they get, the high i-speed rail we will have will be built and operated by the chinese. they'll design it and build it and the value will be added in another country and we'll pay for the privilege. the alternative is to invest here in the united states in the tracks, the signals, the equipment, to be able to revitalize a vital system of transportation, taking pressure off of airports and roads, but as i say, the choice is whether or not we're going to build it, we're going to own it and it would accrue to the benefit of the american public. mr. garamendi: you are right on an issue that is very close to my own policies, which is if

it's american taxpayer money that's being used to buy a bus, streetcar, or a train system in california or the metro system here in washington, d.c., then our money must be used to buy american-made equipment, plain and simple. those are american-made jobs. we had a bad policy in california, the san francisco-bay bridge, oakland-san francisco bay bridge, multi-million dollar project. the steel went up to bid a billion dollars or so of steel for the bridge. one contractor put in two bids. one bid was 10% cheaper and that was chinese steel. the other bid was american steel and it was 10% more. so the bridge authority in its wisdom selected the cheaper. turns out that cheaper is not

necessarily better and ultimately not cheaper. it turned out it was far more expensive. there were serious flaws in the steel and welding and 6,000 to 8,000 jobs were in china than in the united states. ultimately the cost was higher and we did not benefit in the united states, even in california, from the increased economic activity that would have occurred if the direct jobs in manufacturing and welding and fa bring indicating that steel were in the united states. we don't want that ever again. if it's our taxpayer money, from whatever source, then make it in america, use our money to buy domestic-made buses and trains and steel. we've got work to do. i put this one up here not to get away from the transit system and public transportation systems which are critically important, but we have 150,000 miles of road that need repair. the transportation bill that had been offered by our colleagues

on the republican side doesn't even get close to keeping up with what we need in the highway system and repairing the bridges that are falling down or could fall down across america. we have work to do. we need to re-ignite the american dream and part of that is the world's best transportation system. unfortunately, over the last decade or two, we have seen that decline in american status in transportation, whether we are in the third world or second world, we're surely not in the first world for hey transportation or the public transportation -- highway transportation system or the public transportation system. and this transportation bill that we must pass, the senate and the house, we must come together and pass a bill that is adequately funded that provides for public transportation as well as for the road transportation. our republican colleagues are not even close to that. they have a $75 bill -- billion

hole in their wallet. i know you have been serving on this committee and far more familiar with it than i am and let's continue with this for a while. mr. blumenauer: one of your points about the impact of that one piece of the bridge project, the $400 million element of steel, it wasn't just the steel itself. had we been developing that portion of the steel for the project in the united states, there would have been thousands of other jobs that would have been related to it to support that effort in terms of the manufacturing, the development, the people who provide the equipment to manufacture the steel and put it in place and the tools. it is a dramatic ripple effect. you referenced 150,000 miles of

road in critical need of repair. what's under the surface is even in worse shape. we have in the united states every day six billion gallons of water that leaks from water mains that are old, in some cases, unsafe and unhealthy. that's the equivalent of 9 thousand olympic-sized swimming pools. lined end to end, it would go from washington, d.c., to pittsburgh, pennsylvania. mr. garamendi: that's a lot of swimming. mr. blumenauer: it's a lot of water wasted and it is a problem in terms of undermining roads. we have all seen these terrible pictures of sink holes that develop. i used to keep them and use them for presentations. i stopped when one of the sink

holes was in my neighborhood in portland, oregon, which opened up and swallowed a maintenance truck. this is serious business. the american society of civil engineers every five years does a report card on the state of american infrastructure. and their most report card showed that we have $2.3 trillion unmet need and the grades ranged from c-minus to an f, in terms of water, electrical grid, transit, roads, bridges. this is serious business in terms of american quality of life and think about the hundreds of thousands of family-wage jobs if we were investing in rebuilding and

renewing america. and i know you appear to have a little statistic here. mr. garamendi: i would like to have handed this to you as you were talking about the expansion that occurs when you invest in infrastructure. and i ran over to get this, but i didn't want to interrupt your discussion. for every dollar invested in infrastructure investments, a dollar -- $1.57 is pumped into the american economy, that is the effect that occurs when you invest in this. and these are investments that pay dividends year after year. this is the immediate turnaround and you described it so very well, it's the small business that is fabry indicating and on and on. we invest a dollar today and get back $1.57, people paying taxes and we recoup this dollar investment. this is the immediate multiplier effect. but an investment that is say, a

water system in portland, oregon, that is old and needs to be replaced, that is now in the ground and is going to serve year one, two, three and probably for the next century. so it's not something that is used up. i suppose if we were to invest in an artillery shell and shoot it off in afghanistan, well, ok, that's one off, one time and it's gone, perhaps for good purpose, but gone. you invest in infrastructure in america, you get an immediate return and it's there for the next generation and the generation beyond. . . mr. blumenauer: the same society of american civil engineers have produced another fascinating report about what the costs will be if we don't invest in the water infrastructure. and they have documented tens

of billions of dollars of extra cost if we do not take care of these problems. it is not a problem that is unknown to american homeowners who quickly find out if you don't fix the hole in the roof you end up with massive structural damage. mr. garamendi: excuse me. you're getting too close to my roof. move on. don't focus on roofs, because i didn't fix it and, yes, i got to repair the inside as well as the roof. mr. blumenauer: the damage that you mentioned in terms of the roads that are in need of critical repair, the costs to the american motorists in terms of the damage to car suspension systems and tires, the wear and tear wears out cars more rapidly. delays in traffic for something like u.p.s., five-minute delay, i think translates to something

like $100 million of costs to them over the course of a year. and this $1.57 of economic impact for every $1 invested translates into over 25,000 jobs for each $1 billion that is spent on infrastructure. a far greater rate of return on -- than on military spending, on a lot of the other things. tax cuts, for heaven's sakes. this is really economic benefit. and particularly when we have a building trade sector where unions are looking at 20%, 30%, 40% or more unemployment, these are opportunities to put people to work tomorrow on things that people in america need today. mr. garamendi: we ought not

dance around one of the issues involved in this infrastructure . that's where's the money coming from, how are we going to pay for this? our colleague, rosa delauro, for more than 15 years have made a -- has made a proposal what europe has for the last 30 years now, an infrastructure bank, a way to finance those projects that have a cash flow. the specific ones that you are talking about, the bridge as a toll, has the ability to pay off a loan. the water system has a fee associated with the delivery of water. the sanitation system. all of those are what i call cash flow projects. i -- ms. delauro from connecticut has proposed an infrastructure bank where they have a 10-year note. we could borrow at the federal level for less than 2% now on a 10-year note, put that in the

bank, go to the pension funds around the nation and they all invest in the bank and now we may have $25 billion, $50 billion and in some cases depending how robust you could go, you could have $100 billion of capital in the infrastructure bank to fund the kinds of projects that have a cash flow associated with them. toll roads, water systems, sanitation systems, airports, bridges that have a toll associated with it. all of thotion things are possible, -- all of those things are possible, and in doing that you not only have the opportunity to finance those projects and obtain this kind of economic stimulation, but you have also taken off the general fund of the federal government and some state and local governments taken off of their general fund the burden of financing those. freeing up money for those infrastructure projects that do not have a cash flow associated with them. for example, many of the highways and byways and county

roads throughout america where there's no fee associated with it. so we have the opportunity to finance these things if we could just get off the dime, please, please, the leadership in this house, move us forward, give us a project that we can actually put in place, an infrastructure bank and other kinds of projects that will actually create jobs. mr. blumenauer: the gentleman is absolutely correct. now, there are lots of ways of going about this. you know, ronald reagan in 1982 understood that the gas tax, a user fee, could be used to help the country at that point which was in a serious economic recession. ronald reagan signed into law a nickel a gallon increase in the gas tax that helped spur

economic development activity. we have right now unnecessary, if you don't want to raise a tax, there are unnecessary tax benefits that are flowing, for instance, to the largest oil companies that no longer need these tax breaks. in fact, george bush, the younger, famously -- mr. garamendi: george w. bush, the most recent bush. mr. blumenauer: said when oil prices got to $50 a barrel, oil companies didn't need incentives to drill for the most profitable commodity on the face of the planet. we've watched it go $100 a barrel or more. we could completely capitalize the infrastructure bank the gentleman talked about just by unnecessary tax benefits to oil companies which the majority of

the american public would approve in a heartbeat. there's also a just -- the expiring tax provisions on the wealthiest of americans would just half of that, half of that would enable us to fully fund the transportation gap over the next 10 years, over the next 10 years. i have bipartisan legislation that would deal with a water trust fund that would leverage close to $1 trillion because of what the gentleman said that there are other funds flowing for infrastructure like that, $1 trillion of development over the next 20 years. there are opportunities here for us to step up and meet the needs of america to rebuild and

renew it. mr. garamendi: we have work to do and americans want to go to work and they want things made in america. i was interested in what you were saying about the use of our tax code. the big five oil companies in america, exxon, chevron, b.p. and the other two have in the last decade $1 trillion of profit. $1 trillion of profit for those, yet at the same time, those big five get $4 billion a year in tax subsidies. our tax money going to those companies as if he they don't have enough of our -- as if they don't have enough of our money. they do. if we bring that back for infrastructure investment, you could use it, as you say, with transportation because it's associated with transportation. you could use it for clean energy. you could use it to capitalize -- let's say you take three years of that and suddenly you

have $12 billion. we could capitalize an infrastructure bank. all of that is possible if we get away from the notion of continuing to help the oil industry, the wealthiest industry in the world doesn't need our tax money as a subsidy. and we ought to reel that money back in and use it for things that really create investments in america. there are other ways we could do that. we had what are called bonds. build america bonds. those have expired, but those were extraordinarily useful for small cities, big cities and counties to build infrastructure. many, many things can be done but unfortunately we are now 12 months, 14 months into the current control of the house by our republicans and not one of these things have come to the floor to rebuild the american economy. we have work to do, and we can do it. i just want to point out that the democratic caucus, our

colleagues on the democratic side have introduced 36 make it in america bills, different kinds of ways to do it. my two bills deal with our tax money for transportation, the gasoline tax, use it to buy american-made steel, equipment, buses and the other one i have is using our tax money if we're going to subsidize wind turbines and solar cells, we buy american made. and this is a way of keeping jobs in america. i know you have some additional thoughts on this and let's continue on. mr. blumenauer: well, it is one of the very real problems we are facing in terms of building it in america. we are in the process of constructing a wind energy industry in the united states. it's been remarkably successful over the course of the last 20 years. we've watched the price per kilowatt hour produced by wind

drop draw -- dramatically, dramatically. and yet we are watching these wind turbine farms, you have them in california, we have them in the pacific northwest, they're in the midwest, they're in texas, they are providing revenue to rural america. farmers and ranchers are being able to harvest the wind, literally -- mr. garamendi: with the caos and sheep beneath the -- with the cows and sheep beneath the turbines. mr. blumenauer: at the same time this is low carbon. this is not adding to our greenhouse gas effect. it's not something that's being exported overseas, giving money to people who don't like us very much. at the same time it is building this infrastructure, people who are now manufacturing wind touchins in the united states, people who -- turbines in the

united states, people who are putting up, fabricating these towers, people dealing with the transmission capacity. but i will say that one of the things this congress should do is to extend the production tax credit. we've talked about benefits that flow to the oil industry long past time that they were necessary to provide incentives for them to develop oil resources, but we have provided a little bit of an incentive to help get the wind energy business competitive. well, that production tax credit expires at the end of the year, and already we are watching investment patterns start to pull back because people are uncertain that they can go ahead with large-scale projects, investing millions, tens of millions of dollars,

not certain they will continue to have this tax benefit. that's outrageous. of the $4 trillion of tax provisions that are going to expire at the end of the year, the opportunity for us to actually have deficit savings by recalibrating some of those, at a minimum we ought to step up and we ought to step up now to be clear that the production tax credit is in fact going to continue so we don't shut down the wind energy industry, we don't lose the manufacturing and the construction to say nothing of clean, renewable energy. that would be a tragedy. we have bipartisan legislation. i introduced with my friend from seattle, congressman reichert. we have a number of very distinguished co-sponsors, including yourself. this is something that

shouldn't be languishing. there is a bipartisan interest in making sure that the wind energy industry doesn't shut down and that we continue making it in america. mr. garamendi: thank you very, very much for bringing up that issue. i do have the two major northern california wind farms in my district. one in solano county. my own history in this goes back to 1978 when i moored the first state law to pro-- when i authored the first state law to have a tax credit for those that built the wind turbines way back in 1978, so we've come a long, long way on this and we ought to get it going. i notice you are going to have to go and i'm going to wrap up shortly after you leave. we've gone through a lot of things here. i am just going to bring one more issue and that has to do with the price of fuel in america today. .

thank you my friend from oregon bringing us the northwest perspective on this. i went out and purchased gasoline this past week when i was in california and something around the range of $44.15. why are we seeing this sudden rise while in the midwest in the united states there is a surplus of oil. what's happening here? i think we can look to several different things that are taking place. one thing we know that is taking place is speculation. because of the dodd-frank legislation, the government has the power to deal with speculators and i know the president picked this shup up last week and he said this is something that a special task force has been set up in the department of justice to ferret out the speculation that is taking place in the gasoline

markets. i had heard a rumor that the united states is actually exporting gasoline. in fact, we are. we are exporting 26 million gallons of gasoline a day. yeah, you heard that right. we are exporting over 26 million gallons of gasoline a day. and the energy companies say the price is going up because of a shortage of gasoline. what are you selling me? there is a shortage when we're actually exporting gasoline? why are we doing that? well, we import gasoline, too. but your imports are balanced by exports. so how does that help america? i don't think it does. speculation, the export of gasoline and you wonder why the prices are going up? and certainly the speculation has to do with the question of iran and whether we are going to shut down the straits of hormuz.

but the reality is fl is a glut of oil in the midwest that out to be used for refining gasoline in the united states. we ought to make it in the united states and keep it in the united states, 26 million gallons a day being exported. we would like to have that in california and have it drive down the price in california. there is not a shortage. there may be a shortage of wisdom and maybe in excess of market-driven policies here, but we have a crisis in the united states and certainly the price of gasoline. a lot of discussion about drill, baby, drill. ok. let's understand that we are now drilling and producing more oil in the united states this year than in the previous eight years. that's right. right back to the republican administration when george w. bush was in power and the republicans controlled both houses. the drilling of oil was at an

all-time low. as we've come into this period of time, we've seen the production increase to the highest it's been in the last eight years and more to come. but the opening of the oughter continental shelf, the alaska national wildlife refuge will have nothing to do in the near term, the next five, 10 years, because of the length of time it takes to produce from those new areas and by the way, you don't need to waive every environmental law in the nation or in the state to go, get that oil. off the coast of california, you don't even know, you don't need to get onto the ocean to get to the oil. you can drill from the land, reducing the risk to the environment, to the marine environment to near zero and access oil that is six miles offshore. we ought to be looking at those things and one other thing and i

will wrap with this and so if my republican colleagues need time to get here for their next hour, here's fair warning. natural gas, extraordinary asset for america. natural gas is readily available. we are producing more natural gas in america now than ever before and we are discovering that we can get even more. we are looking at an extraordinary asset. this is an american asset. it is a strategic asset and leading to the creation of jobs in america right now. in my own district that i share with representative george miller, we have seen the dow chemical plant in pittsburgh and on the antioch line, we are seeing dow chemical coming home, bringing jobs back to america, investing a large sum of money, millions and millions of dollars

in that facility because of the low price on natural gas. all across this winter in every part of america, we've seen homeowners, heating bills not soar but actually decline. yes, it has been a warm winter but the price of home heating in the atlantic and new england states and midwest, the price of natural gas is at an all-time low. last year it was $4.40 but five years it was in the $10 to $12 range. we are seeing an incredible opportunity for america. energy is the foundation, the foundation of our economy. and when you have a ready supply in abundance, you ought to recognize that as a strategic asset. and yet in committee after committee in my own natural

resources committee, i have seen my republican colleagues put forth bills that would export natural gas, take this strategic asset and send it overseas because the energy companies can get a higher price overseas. they don't need a higher price. they are doing quite well, thank you. what we need is a low cost energy source in america. do not allow -- do not allow by legislation or by consecutive order the export of natural gas from the united states. there's a little bit that now goes to canada or to mexico under the nafta agreements all of that in pipeline, this week, one of the big wall street hedge funds decided to invest $2 billion in a texas scheme to build a lick which fide natural gas export facility. i suppose it's nice to build it,

but by golly that is america's ex asset that is going to be sent overseas. you send that overseas, you are going to drive up the price of natural gas. farmers are going to pay more for their fertilizers and home heating prices rise as those exports of this strategic asset rises and see that dow chemical is going to make a different decision to take advantage of the low cost of natural gas and say america is so screwed up it's taking one of its most basic strategic asset and selling it to the highest price. i think back of a story in the bible where there was a birthright sold for a bowl of porridge. we ought not do this.

so with that, if my republican colleagues are anywhere nearby, they can claim their hour. we have gone through important things. make it in america agenda, 36 democratic bills that would build our economy and would cause us to come back and rebuild our great manufacturing sector. it will happen. it's government policies that over the last 25 years have caused the american manufacturing base to erode. policies such as tax breaks for american companies that would send their jobs offshore. we stopped nearly all of that before the democrats lost power here in congress. and we ask our republicans to work with us inputting into law these 36 bills that will cause us to rebuild the american middle class, to reignite the american dream and give the middle class the opportunity to

engage in manufacturing. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. jackson of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair lays before the house the following message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, attached is the text of a presidential policy directive establishing procedures to implement section 1022 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012. public law 112-81 of the act, which i submit to the congress as required under 1022 c-1 of the act and it includes a written certification that it is

in the national security interests to waive the requirements of section 1022 a-1 of the act with respect to certain category of individuals which i submit to the congress in accordance with section 1022 a-4 of the act. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on armed services and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. bishop: i thank you, mr. speaker. i'm coming tonight to talk about one of the issues that is extreme significance, in fact every town hall meeting i ever held, one of the first questions if not the first question that is asked is about illegal enentry into this country and

border security. so in talking about what the issue is before us, this is the map of the united states that is divided into the border patrol sectors, the areas in which the border patrol has and as you see from the numbers, there is a vast difference in the number of people who are coming ellie -- illegally into the country. if you go to the sector of maine, last time we had verifiable figures, last time we had complete figures from border patrol, only 56 illegals are apprehended trying to get into maine, which has to tell you there is not a whole lot of people coming over here from nova scotia and taking hockey jobs. but if you look in the tucson, arizona, sector, which is only part of arizona, not the entire state of arizona, 51%, a quarter of a million people, the last two years for which we have complete data, a quarter of a

million people. 51% of all the people who illegally came into the united states and were apprehended came through the tucson, arizona, sector and apprehended in the tucson, arizona sector, which has to bring about the simple question why. why is arizona shes this part of -- why is arizona, this part of arizona, the obvious choice of those trying to get in this country illegally? and the answer lies in the next chart. this is the border land along our southern border. the black line is 100 miles from the border which is by definition both by statute, the legal jurisdiction of our border patrol. the area in red is the area that is owned by the federal government in those areas. you will see that that specific area of arizona, almost 80% of that is owned by the federal

government. almost 21 million acres of land owned by the federal government in sharp contrast to like the texas border and the northern border. of that 21 million acres, roughly 21 million acres, an area of the state of connecticut and delaware combined is wilderness and that isn't including endangered species and habitat. those areas in red is where we find the federal government prohibiting the border patrol from doing its job. the border patrol has access in the white areas, private property, to do their job. it is only when the federal government stops the federal border patrol from doing their job on federal property that we seem to have a problem and unfortunately those coming into the country seem to realize that this area where the federal government stops the federal border patrol on federal land as unusual and bizarre as that seems, becomes the entrance of

choice for them coming into this country. i'm not talking about immigrants and people trying to find jobs in some particular way, this is the entrance of choice of the drug cartel. the best estimate, only an estimate, 40% of those coming into this area of arizona are part of the drug cartel. they don't care if the economy is going up or down or e-verify or not, they are trying to come into this country. and will tell you 80% of the illegal drugs coming into this drug are still coming by the drug cartel in this area. and what is worse, it is not just the drug cartel but the kind of human degradation taking place. "seattle times" story and the title was pair accused of enslaveg illegal mexican immigrants. the story was about the human trafficking that we have which is a very serious problem and the kind of violent acts that

are used against women and children on this federal property. . it highlights the kinds of vimet acts happening here on american soil, the accounts of rape and other violent acts against women an children. the counties down there on the border have ample evidence, you go along these routes of rape tree, in which the drug cartel members, sometimes other illegal immigrants, will rape females and force the victim to leave an article of clothing, usually an undergrarment, on the trees an make this as if it is a type of monument to the horrible activity taking place on government land. and still we do not give the border patrol access on government land that they have on private property.

we are a sovereign country and by definition, a sovereign country controls its borders. that's what we should be doing. unfortunately, we are not doing that at all. this is what the border down there in arizona will look like from the air. going along here is a fence, the fence doesn't go all the way up the mountainside, there are some areas where fencing doesn't make sense and cannot be done. there is one road along the fence. that is the access our border patrol has in this particular area. and in some cases, that becomes the sole access. if you talk to the border patrol agents by themselves. when they will be honest with you, they will tell you they don't need more money to fight this problem on the border. they don't necessarily need more personnel. what they need is access. east-west access so they can go somewhere other than along the one road that follows the borderline and the border fence. that is what becomes extremely

significant. what is so bizarre, what is so bizarre in that is that the border patrol must obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies before its agents can maintain roads or install surveillance equipment on the lands or do what we ask them to do. and that, frankly, is simply wrong. and once again ludicrous. it is one of those odd things that we stop the border patrol from doing their job and instead we find that environmental degradation is taking place but not by the border patrol, not by american citizens, but by those who are illegally coming across. this simply is one of the pictures of the kinds of trash that is left behind on private property and on public property. tons of which must be picked up. resulting from the fact that we

do not have a border -- border patrol with the ability to pa these areas. i hate to say this, the drug cartel who is coming over doesn't care about wilderness designation or about endangered species' habitat, they don't care abthe endangered species unless it can be eaten. what they do is simply leave behind all the trash as they're coming through. there is something wrong with that. this is another picture of what takes place there on the border. the sack tuss, cacti along the boarer, is an endangered species that has been cut down by the drug cartels. if any other american did that, that would be a felony. for them, all this is is a nice roadblock around one of the few roads that are there so when somebody else comes down there in a vehicle and stops, they are a perfect target for mugs an robbery and anything they want to. you'll find some cacti down

there has dwra graffiti which shows where -- graffiti on it which shows where the cartel is in operation. there have been several fires down there the last large fire in arizona and mexico started in two parts, part in northern arizona was probably started by a camper. but in southern arizona, that wasn't it. forest service has yet to determine who started that fire that spilled over into new mexico, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars of damage. but they have ruled out everyone except, well, illegal aliens that happened to be close to the known smuggling trails where the fire started. what happens down there is, there are three types of fires that are started. two of them on purpose. one is a distress fire new york which case there's somebody coming across the border, in a dire situation, lost their ability to go any further and

they need rescuing, you start a fire because obviously the firefighters will come an you'll get rescued. there's also diversion fires started specifically. a diversion fire is to make sure when the fire starts over here and everyone runs over there to stop the fire, it means over here is now open for your diversion into this country. the drug cartels have this down to a habit and style all their own. the third part, simply an accidental fire. i think the assumption is that the last fires down there were probably accidental fires, started by those coming across the border illegally put not for a diversion an not for a distraction, just, it was a problem that caused us enormous amount of public -- loss of public wealth and public time in trying to fix that particular problem. the department of interior simply claims that the 1964 wilderness act takes precedence over everything else that is takes place -- taking place on

this property. they say that this -- that their duties are to fulfill this particular act, not necessarily to control the border. one of the letters they sent reads very carefully. the issue of emergency vehicle access by the u.s. customs and border protection on the san bernardino wilderness area, actually it doesn't say that. it says issues remain and we seek your, the border patrol's, assistance in resolving them as quickly as possible to prevent the significance and irreparable damage we believe is imminent. we are concerned with operating vehicles anywhere other than the roads, road dragging and other activities that could cause erosion and mobile -- and mobilize fragile hydraulic soil characteristics of the san

bernardino area. what that says in simple terms is, it doesn't really matter what the border patrol does, you don't want them to disturb the soil even if it means being able to apprehend somebody illegal, especially of the drug cartels coming over there. they would rather have the soil not bothered than find somebody entering this country illegally, especially part of the drug cartel. this is where i started. this is a response from the department of interior to the border patrol in this area. the issue of emergency vehicle access by the u.s. customs and border protection has been in dispute over the past few months. the recent exchange of letters failed to clearly identify the needs of our two agencies and reach agreement on how to best

proceed from my point of view, the way to best proceed is to stop the drug cartels from smuggling illegal drugs over here, not necessarily what took place. in fact, what they desaied then was, what this says is, the federal land managers believe it is their duty to enforce restrictive laws associated with the i woulderness act even if it helps the drug cartel in their human -- in their drug trafficking and smuggling and other criminal activities that are occurring as they cross into the united states. the chief went on to say, emergency circumstances exist, that's nice of them, when human life, health, and safety of persons in this area must be immediately addressed. access to the refuge by the border patrol will be limited to the use of established administrative roads. however, you may access on foot to patrol or apprehend suspects. managers of the land are dictating to the barder patrol

how they will do their job. i might add that this definition of what considers the chance of the border patrol actually going in and doing something rapidly is not what the memo of understanding between the department of interior and the department of homeland security actually said. they came up with their own definition, to stop the border patrol from doing it. now, under this recommendation, the border patrol has to drive around this refuge which adds hours to get to the other side, which obviously if you're trying to capture somebody, something just doesn't work. so since that's what is taking place, how does the department of superior decide to solve the problem. it's easy. they put up gates. that was the result of that exchange on how to solve the problem. of controlling our southern border. well the department of interior -- what the department of

interior did is put up a gate with a lock on it on the san bernardino national wildlife refuge. it's amazing that they thought this solves the problem because what this gate does is block out the border patrol from going in this area. it doesn't lock out anyone else. doesn't lock out the drug cartel, the human traffickers or anyone else from trying to come in to this particular area. early on, when janet in a 308 tau noah -- nan etna poll tau noah became head of the -- janet napolitano became head of security, she said, one necessary is prohibitions against mechanical conveyance, reich four wheelers, or in the air. the u.s. border patrol depends

on these conveyances. the removal of such advantage being generally detrimental to its ability to accomplish the national security high pressure mission. in simple language if you stop us from going on motorized vehicles in these areas, we can't catch the bad guys. this includes that these types of restrictions can impact the eff ka soif operations and be a hainedrans to the maintenance of officer safety. it makes their job more difficult and it puts them at risk. for example, she continued, it may be inadviseable for officer safety to wait for the arrival of horses for pursuit doctor for pursuit purposes or to attempt to apprehend smuggling vehicles with a less capable form of transportation. in simple words again. if the idea is of the department of interior that the border patrol, when they come to one of these special areas, have to go on foot, they have

to chase them down on foot or wait until a horse arrives so they can chase them on horse p.a.c., while the drug cartel are using motorized vehicles, that does not make sense. but that is indeed what is happening down there. she continued on with a different correspondent. it illustrates that in areas where the border patrol has been given access, the regreth and rehabilitation of the land has improved but overall the removal of cross-border violator, stopping the drug cartel from coming across the border, from public lands is a value to the environment as well as to the mission of the land managers. the validity of this statement was evidenced recently when the vehicle fence project south of the buenos aires national wildlife area received praise from a biologist. the biologist was encouraged by the regrowth taking place to

the north of the vehicle fence subsequent to its installation. what she was saying very simply is -- simply is when you stop the border patrol from being able to do their job they don't do their job and the bad guys come across and the bad guys don't care at all about the environment or what the laws are or what the rules are. if you were able to stop them, then all the degradation that takes place by the drug cartel coming across the border can be fixed and can be fixed well. now i have to admit, that was early on in her administration with the department of homeland security. i have to admit also of late, the department of homeland security has been told to simply tell us everything is going fine down there on the border. things are getting better. we are working together nicely. not quite the same story i got on the trips down there to the border when i talked to the people. in fact, one of the things that is actually disturbing is the committee ha staff has been refused access to even talk to

homeland security personnel ever since we started making this particular kind of push my assumption is that there is a reason that the cartels are trying to go through this arizona sect cror. the reason relates to the kinds of lands down there and how we treat those lans. the reason simply says if we allow the border patrol to do their job, we will all be much more secure an the concept of stopping the border patrol from doing their job on federal property is simply unacceptable. and yet, that is indeed what we are doing right now. to the department of interior's response to that, they said the following in a memo, 2008. congress has directed construction of these facilities, meaning the public lands, and there a compelling national security issue, but these towers and buildings an associated equipment and motorized activities within congressionally designated wilderness would be contrary to protecting the prime evil feel

of the area and contrary to the dede-sire of congress. do they want us to believe that congress welcomes with open arms the drug cartels coming into this country? . that the kind of human degradation, the kind of crimes, crimes against humanity is something congress wants to perpetrate? that's really what they want us to say? further on, the department of homeland security, proposals would not preserve natural conditions. this is once again, interior's memo, would make the imprint of man's work substantially noticeable and would substantially reduce opportunities for solitude or a presumptive or unconfined type

of recreation and impair these areas for future use by the american people. the d.h.s. proposals do not fall under the exemptions for prohibition of use under section 4-c of the willed deerness act and are prohibited. reduced opportunities for solitude, unconfined type of reckcre sayings? maybe they do have a point. the operatives would pretty much reduce the solitude in a pretty serious way along the border, but unfortunately that is the approach,. so what does the department of interior propose for this? rather than allowing the border patrol to do their job and control our border which a sovereign country would do, you tell americans that travel is not recommended, the goal is to

stay away from these particular areas. the approach was simply this, since the areas of american land on the american border aren't safe, let's do whatever we can to stop americans from going down there and in so doing, seal these areas to the drug cartel. that will be one of the ways of solving the problem, since that's not a terribly, terribly politically correct approach to warn the american public of the danger of traveling through american territory, perhaps you can put up a softer and gentler sign, which is a travel caution. smuggling and illegal immigration may be encountered in this area. proceed at your own risk. i'm sorry, this may be the approach, but it's the wrong approach and i wish this was just limited to the arizona border. same line was used in a national park and other federal lands

around the border. we simply know that it is not safe to go into these areas where criminal activity is taking place and the problem is, no one is doing anything about it. almost all of the organ pipe national monument was closed to visitors, along the arizona border. i saw an article which a portion, a portion of organ pipe was opened up to visitors. that's wonderful. however, if you went there, you had to go with an armed guard. there was an article written eight hours ago talking about the opportunity of people going down there, where the park ranger wearing a bullet-proof vest told the tourists that they would be going on a travel in a van. he told them there would be law enforcement officers hiding in the hills and closely watching their two-hour nature hike while another pair of armed rangers

would follow the tourists closely from the ground and had m-14's. as the group loaded into the advance one woman whispered, does it make you worried, we have chest protections and we don't got none of them. homeland security is saying that in this park, things are getting better. i think theyr because finally they allowed homeland security to put up nine surveillance towers in the park making it easier for the agents to detect new foot traffic so the drug runners are no longer waiting in the hills for them, waiting to see where the towers cannot contact them. see, that's what we're doing, and that's simply not a viable approach to it. let me try and tell it to you this way. obviously, a fence by itself is not enough to secure the border. we do need electronic tracking

devices. this is a picture of one of our mobile tracking devices. very high-tech and very wonderful and if you notice it is a truck with a traffic device on it. in the organ pipe national monument, they tried to move this from point a to point b. and the end result was that after six months, the land managers finally said, ok, you can move this truck from point a to point b, by that time, it wasn't worth it. it's a truck. if the land manager studied this issue for six months and said, the land is too precious in that part and you can't go at all, maybe i would understand it. but that's not what he said. he said you are going to wait for six months and i'll review it for six months and then he said back up the truck and move it. these devices are essential for us controlling the border, but it's essential if it is a mobile

device, it has to be mobile and has to have the ability of backing up the truck and moving it to somewhere else. there is another example of the fog horn antelope, in an email regarding testing of replacing of equipment, they could do the following. a biological -- a person shall be present at the proposed location of these traffic monitors for the sonoran long-horn. the monitor must have experience. the monitor will scan the area and if observed, any kind of activity will be delayed until the antelope are moved. they cannot be encouraged to vacate the area. and if the border patrol was to run across a group of these, their job was to back up no

faster than 15 miles an hour until you were out of that particular area. one of the things that we have found out that is taking place down there is basically department of interior is insisting omit gation. i think there are other words that i would rather use, mitigation funds coming from the department of homeland security, conducting the calculations we conducted a couple of years ago said as of that date, $10 million of federal money has gone to the border patrol supposedly to protect our border and then instead been reverted to the department of interior to hire things or buy other property in the name of mitigation of the environmental damage caused by the border patrol. unfortunately, there is no way to mitigate against the mitigation damage caused by the drug cartels and human smugglers

nor does the department of interior seem to care about that. i'm joined here by a good friend from arizona, who knows this full well. this is where he lives and understands it and he also sits on the committee that talks about these particular areas and has introduced an amendment on the re-authorization bill that comes from his committee. the representative, mr. quail, i will -- mr. quayle, i will yield to you. mr. quayle: i thank you for your leadership on this issue and working with me to put in issues which we hope will come to the floor in august because it's a serious issue. as the gentleman from utah was talking about, the amount of destruction both on the environmental side and just on the human side from these drug smugglers and lume smugglers in very environmental-sensitive areas in the desert is

devastating and think what has happened south of the border, 30,000 people killed by drug cartel violence in the last five years. last year, i was with other members of the arizona delegation and we were at the douglas port of entry and night before, they had video which is 70 yards from the border and state police cruiser stopped just south of the port of entry, entered into an establishment unloaded hundreds of rounds of ammunition and killing handfuls and wounding dozens. they are taking advantage of the weak spots within our border and if you look at arizona border specifically, about 305 miles of federal lands in arizona, which is about 83% of the 370-that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks arizona-mexico board is federal lands and right now, we don't

have the ability to actually go on to those federal lands unless they abide by the memorandum of understanding which says they have different definitions of when they can go and apprehend somebody. the fact of the matter is these drug cartels, they are anymoreble and watching every move that our border patrol agents are making and they know where the weak spots are and where the surveillance equipment is and for our border patrol agents for us to go and move it where the traffic has increased, they have to go to the department of interior to get prior permission. there was a g.a.o. study that said it could take up to four months, four months to move a piece of surveillance equipment or move motorized vehicles on to various areas of federal lands. now i understand the need to protect the delicate sonoran

desert but it is being decimated by drug traffickers. i personally believe that our border patrol agents and customs officials will take a much better job in being sensitive to these areas while trying to protect the citizens of this country from the violence that is streaming across the border. this is such a big and serious issue that not that many people know about it. mr. bishop from utah has taken the lead on this and i commend him for it and i look forward to working with you on these issues going forward because we need to get a handle on our border and we have to allow our agents the ability to have the unfettered access to federal land so they can do our job and protect the borders. mr. bishop, i thank you very much and i yield back. mr. bishop: i appreciate you joining me here because you live

in that state. your constituents know the fear that is taking place and americans who live on that particular border, the danger that is down there. and once again, this isn't an issue that will go away if the economy goes sour, these are the drug traffickers and the worst kind of people and if we are going to be a sovereign country, we have to control the border, if for no other reason. whether the total number coming across is getting lessor is increasing, we don't have definite figures, doesn't matter. one drug cartel still coming across the border is one too many. i appreciate very much and i realize you have another obligation the go to. he added a premise into where we are going because where we are going is the violence that is taking place on the arizona

border. we know about fast and furious and what a silly idea this was, ludicrous program to arm the drug cartel and the arms they were given by the federal government is coming back to harm us. along the border we have had a specific row of people who have not been harassed by the drug cartel, but have been killed by the drug cartel. 2002, park ranger who was shot and killed in the line of duty while pursuing a member of the mexican drug cartel that had crossed the united states border into organ pipe national monday you metropolitan. 2008, another agent killed in the line of duty after being hit by a vehicle after it crossed illegally in the united states which is the i am perial sand do you knows, which is b.l.m. lands. rob krentz, rancher,

multi-generational rancher on his own property. ron crants was -- krentz was ready to have a knee replacement and was on an a.t.v. vehicle with his dog and came across a group of illegals who were there part of the cartel again was the assumption and usually what happens is they are slight, but in this case, there was no flight and he was not able to fly and both he and his dog were shot. the one we assume that did the shooting came across that wildlife refuge where the gate was locked to prohibit the border patrol from going in there and doing their job and when we assume his exit back into mexico was a route that went back out of his way so he could go back through that same area that was off limits from

the border patrol from totally doing his job, he lost his life because of our policies that don't make sense. december 10, 2010, brian terry was shot and killed on forest service land with guns that were obtained through the fast and furnish yous program. . the grand jury sealed indictment in the death of brian terry said border patrol operatives were patrolling the area, the criminals were looking to assault border patrol agents and it happeneded because we are not taking control of our border. as sad as that is, this is another look at the border. you can see the fence is still running along and the one road along the fence is running along. unfortunately, there's a gap in the fence.

that gap is an endangered spee's habitat right of way so the species can go from one side of the border to the other. unfortunately, i will tell you it's not just an endangered species that gos from one side of the border to the other. that is endemic of the situation we have down there where our border policies and land policies take precedence over border security. that is simply what we ought not or should not be doing. our solution is simple. it's house bill 1505, the national security and federal lands protection act. the simple answer of what this bill does is it allows the border patrol to do on federal property what it already can do on private property. it says our number one priority should be controling our borders to stopping the drugs and violence that is taking place in arizona. this bill protects legal use of the land such as mining and

hunting and camping an fishing. in an effort to try to make sure that we can protect american property for american use, not for drug cartel use. there were simpler versions of this that simply said, oh, well, you can't stop the border patrol from doing what they need to do to meet their needs. unfortunately, some of the administration in these departments laughed at us and said, that's not going to work. you can't tell us what won't happen. so we wrote the bill to be proactive and tell what the border patrol can do. it also had to put in there specific, this is once again from the department of interior insisting on it, we put down the specific environmental laws that can be abridged only for the purpose of protecting the border. it is the same list, the same list that was done about five years ago. when the department of interior insisted we had, as congress we had to list specific environmental laws that could

be broached in order to complete some of the fencing along our southern border. same rules, same laws, same element. so the border pa central can do their job. that's whate does. there was one group that was opposed to it because they said, you know, the border patrol has found -- is found 15 to 20 miles north of the border. yeah, their jurisdiction is up to 100 miles north of the border. they also said that surveillance status shows there are nearly 8,000 miles, some estimates of 20,000 miles, of illegal wildcat roads cutting through this border area. i want you to know, it is not the border patrol even though this group tried to blame the border patrol thor -- for these 20,000, if indeed it is that high, miles of roads. they're not creating that. it is the drug cartels that are cutting roads through our habitat, through wilderness areas, so that they can use

them for their drug smuggling activities. if you go down there you can simply see on the ground where these trails are. if you fly bf it you can see where they are. if you go to high points you can see where their nes are, so you can see very clearly and very easily where they have their lookout spots. actually, i went to one of those. just over the board entire mexico. i was unimpressed. one of the things they were leaving behind was tite coke. they only drank diet coke. if they'd had dr pepper, i might have been impressed with their taste. but what we're trying to do is make sure this border is secure so americans can go into american property and be secure. i have heard rumors we are trying to limit public access. that's not true. we are trying to make public

access safe. that's the job of the government, to make our borders secure. i have been told that this is a simple land grab. we are trying to -- some groups out there who simply don't understand what's going on tried to label this as a giant land grab. i don't know how you can call it a land grab when the federal government is simply trying to allow the border patrol to do its job on federal land. we're not expending any more power or opportunity to the border patrol. we're just saying federal lan should not stop them from doing their job. there are some that will simply say, well if we ignore this, it will simply go away. this problem is not going to go away. it is too deep. it is too severe to simply go away. there was one last reason why this approach is extremely important. as i said at the very beginning, almost every town hall meeting i have, an i'm saying this in conclusion, as i said in the begin, almost every town hall meeting that i have,

they talked about immigration. immigration issues are complex. sometimes there are going to be comple -- they are going to be complicated and will require compromise and consideration. and right now, out there, there's a great deal of anger and anxiety in a lot of people simply because we are not controlling our borders and american lands are not safe and there is too much violence taking place. and it simply is wrong to prohibit our border patrol in favor of allowing the drug cartels and those doing human trafficing to have free access into this country. if indeed we are serious about long-term immigration, the first thing you have to do is recuse thing an, -- reduce the anger and reduce the anxiety level. the first way to do that is be able to look at the american people and with a clear conscience, an in truth, look them in the eye and say, our border are secure. we control who comes into this country and who does not come

into this country. because that is what -- that is what a sovereign nation does. our hope is that we can pass this bill and take the first step to controlling the border. which is simply to allow the border patrol access to where the border patrol needs to be. to give them the same opportunity on public lands that they have on private lands because it is very clear, border patrol knows what they are doing. they are doing a good squob. where they are allowed the freedom and flexibility to do their job the issue of illegal immigration and illegal entry into this country of all kinds, but especially illegal entry to this country by the bad guys who are trying to put illegal drugs and other kinds of crimes an bringing them into this country where they are allowed to do their job, they are successful. what we have to do is new look on federal property, where the federal rules prohibit the border patrol from doing their

property and change that. simply allow them to do their job. house bill 1505 does that. until we do that, we will never move forward into a larger solution to our immigration problem an we will continue to have illegal drugs and other kinds of crimes against humanity taking place on american soil and it will not stop. that's why this bill is so important. with that, mr. speaker, with gratitude for allowing me this moment to go through this particular issue, i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes.

mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i always learn something when i hear from my friend, professor bishop. it has been staggering to hear the testimony over the last several years as to what has gone on on our border. we used to be a law and order country where the law meant something. but we've seen that eroded. our democratic friends, before mr. bishop spoke, speaking of selling our birth right and i

enjoyed hearing them talk about how you know what we ought to use our energy in this country. well, welcome to the republican position. that was great to hear. that's just fabulous, to hear our democratic friends because as we know, one of the things that mr. bishop pointed out, there have been regulations and government bureaucracies used to not only prevent us from enforcing our immigration laws but also to prevent us from utilizing our own resources over and over and over. for heaven's sake, somebody's got 800 safety violations like b.p., prevent them from drilling. but don't prevent everybody from drilling. the things the government should be allowing entities to do, like providing the energy that we have, we got more

energy than any country in the world relative to size of other countries -- than any country in the world. relative to size of other countries, we're not the biggest but we have more natural resources than any other country in the world has been blessed with. it's amazing. but this administration and even before this administration, our democratic friends, prohibiting from bureaucracies, through laws passed, using our own energy, has been just an outrage. it's the poor single moms, those struggling, to make it through the month with what's left on the limits of their credit card so they can still buy gas so they can get to their job so they can get a paycheck and pay down their credit cards enough to buy gas for the next month.

those are the people that are hurting the most. ironically, the people that donate to democrats 4-1 over republicans, they did to obecause mo over mccain, four to one, wall street executives, big bank executives, all they have to do is endure name calling from the president, they get richer than ever hoped. yet we get back to freedoms that made this country the greatest country in history. i believe that. and prominent among our freedoms, you can find in the first amendment, congress, doesn't say states can't, because there were some states that required religious test, but congress shall make no law

regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. there's no mention of separation of church and state. no mention of the wall of separation. that was in a letter thomas jefferson wrote to the danberry baptist the same thomas jefferson who came to church every day he was in washington, d.c. while president, came to church right down the hall in the house of representatives and at times had the marine band come play the hymns. he didn't see that as a problem for the constitution's prohibition against establishment of religion but he certainly would never have dreamed of prohibiting any christian from practicing their religion as this admferings has now done and attempted to do. -- as this administration has done or is attempting to do.

or freedom of the press. the press is free to slant the news however they wish. for example, when gas prices were going up in 2008, the mainstream press, mainstream media, had four to one more stories about the price of gas going up then than they do now and the price is now higher than it was then. could it be that the mainstream media has a vested interest in keeping the president that they put in office, in office? keeping him there. but they've got that freedom of the press they can keep slanting their stories as they wish. . the right of the people to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a redress of

grievances. first amendment. well, there is a great big grievance that a majority of americans have and it's with the president's health care bill. front and back, very thin paper, so you can get all the pages, all of the obamacare in here. and there you are. the president's health care bill . it's interesting -- there's a story everett white, filed february 16, maybe from our friends, points out that d.o.j. argued that the penalty is a tax, talking about the penalty

in the health care bill. it's a tax when it filed its opening brief with the supreme court in the obamacare case the court will consider this march. well, we know february 16 in response to a question from the great representative scott garrett of new jersey, asked the director whether the individual mandate man pelt for failure to buy health care is a tax. and he answered that it is not a tax. today, we had secretary sebelius, the secretary of health and human services that is overseing the implementation of obamacare. secretary sebelius also indicated that it's not a tax.

yet, the d.o.j. has argued basically that the minimum coverage positions are well within congress' commerce power. the d.o.j. contends that congress has broad power under the commerce clause to enact economic regulation. the d.o.j. contends the minimum coverage provision is an integral part of an economic scheme of regulation and the provision itself regulates the economic conduct with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. it certainly has had an effect on interstate commerce. darn near killing it. the minimum coverage authorized by congress' taxing power, contingent with d.o.j.

d.o.j. argues that it operates as a tax law and assessment under congress' taxing power is not dependent on whether it is a tax. but any way, interesting time -- that's from "national law review," that assessment. and today, the question to secretary sebelius and she disagrees with d.o.j. as well. they are -- there are just a number of issues with this bill. and the recent demand by the administration that the catholic church, catholic hospitals provide free contraceptives was not about contraceptives.

anybody who needs contraceptives can get them. it's not an issue. shouldn't be. people who want them can get them. it's not an issue, although some are trying to make it out to be. it's about the prohibition of the free exercise of religion. incredible that a white house would decide that they get to tell the catholic church which parts of the religious beliefs that this white house will allow them to practice and even coming back after the white house had all these people come in, meet and decide and discuss, they should have come back and said, sorry, you were right.

we never intended to indicate we had the power to tell you you could not practice your religious beliefs. so the white house came back and said, the white house came back and said, in effect, well, we still obviously have the power to tell you what parts of your religion you cannot practice. but listen, catholic, church, we are going to do you a favor, even though we have the power to prohibit you from practicing your religious beliefs, we're going to require the insurance companies to provide this feature even though it goes against your religious beliefs, will require the insurance companies to provide that. now, how stupid do you have to be to not understand that when a requirement of an insurance

company policy is dictated by the government, it's going too have to be a recouping of that expense from the people who buy those insurance policies. so that was no remedy. the church, the catholic hospitals are going to have to provide those policies that provided that. they just weren't going to be required to tell the insurance companies to do that because the government did it for them. what a ridiculous end run to do the same thing. but the white house did not even address a real core issue. i'm a baptist, and i don't have the same beliefs about contraceptives, but this is so

dangerous, this is such a violation of our first amendment , for this white house to think for a moment they have the authority to tell any religious group -- and here's the kicker, any religious person that they cannot practice an important tenet of their religious beliefs is unconscionable. now the administration says, oh, catholic church, catholic hospital, we'll work with you. what about catholic individuals who believe with all their heart the things that are taught by catholic schools, by the catholic church and expounded by the pope himself? how powerful a pope does the white house or the president, any president, have to be to

dictate that what the pope says is not going to be observed in america by any individuals who are here in the united states? haven't heard a lot of discussion about the freedom of individuals that this was not talking about the freedom of the church or hospital. it was talking about the freedom of individuals, and even if the white house tries to accommodate some hospital, some church, what about the beliefs of an individual? a catholic in america who's told, sorry, this president is going to trump your pope and you're going to have to pay for what you believe is against your religious beliefs.

it's unconscionable. unconscionable. think the founders would have put up with that? as dennis miller said, are they willing to go to war and die and risk everything over a tax on their breakfast drink? you think they wouldn't be willing to fight for the right to practice their religious beliefs. so many of the early settlers came here to get away from the prejudice and discrimination against christian beliefs. they came to america hoping to have freedom of worship. it's interesting to hear in israel that the muslims who are

most free to practice the islamic beliefs as they feel led to actually in israel, because depending on which administration is in charge in iran, syria, egypt, wherever, you better not get too far afield from what the administration of that country believes. here in america, people are free to practice islam, christianity, buddhism, hinduism, aetheism, so long as it doesn't threaten this nation as a whole. we were told by the president there is no chance that any federal money would ever go for

abortion. and some of our friends actually bought into that representation. turns out wasn't true. some of us tried to explain back then, you can't bind with an executive order what the law says specifically. it sets out requirements for health care providers, clinics, insurance policies and there are those that will provide abortions and ultimately there will be tax dollars since dollars are fungible that there are will be dollars used for abortions under obamacare. if obamacare is constitutional and the mandates in obamacare are constitutional, there is nothing the federal government cannot dictate. as i have said from here many

times, this obamacare, 2,400 pages was about the g.r.e. it's what it's all about. this bill is about the gmple r.e., the government running everything, because if the government has the right to control everyone's health care in america, they do have the right, then, to tell your children what they can or can't eat, to tell your children that their parents or parent is not fit because they don't know how to feed a child, because it agrees with what the government says, they have the right to tell you what you can put in a vending machine, they have a right to tell you whether or not you are exercising enough, they have a right to tell you you use too much butter when you should have used something else in cooking.

they have a right to do that if they have a right to control your health care. if this is constitutional, the government has the right to tell every supreme court justice how they can live. and if any supreme court just diss thinks they'll be immune from this government telling them how they can live, what they can eat, what they can do, what they cannot do, then they are amusing themselves friffously -- friffously, because that day will be coming. and sure, this administration knows they stake the deck with justice kagan. anybody who would send an email about having the votes to pass obamacare, how wonderful that is, just amazing. we keep wondering how many

emails have not been provided. the noble thing would be to -- and we should have known when liberal groups that want the government to control everybody's lives, were so adamant throwing stones at justice thomas, it was clear that we have seen this method before. what that means is, they were nervous about somebody else who was a shoo in to vote for the president's bill to have that issue raised about them. that's what they always do. as soon as i saw these ridiculous allegations about justice thomas because his wife had an opinion, didn't see any liberals screaming about somebody with the aclu, whose

husband had taken strong positions on different issues, that she wasn't qualified because or the accuser said, because her husband had an opinion. but some of these same liberals, so-called, took that position, gee, if clarence thomas' wife has a position, he must be disqualified. . . the hypocrisy goes on and on. hopefully justice kagen will tell us all of the emails, allow us to see all the emails that were sent, all of the consultations in which she was a part. then we'll see the truth.

this bill required the spending of $105 billion at a time we didn't have $105 billion. we're having to borrow over $42 billion, $43 billion of that from other places. including china. china doesn't mind seing this happen. i think they realize it will help bring down this nation financially. the president said it would cost less than $1 trillion to implement. well, the first c.b.o. score came back over $1 trillion, director of c.b.o. called over to the white house said it's more like $800 billion. once he gets in place, he said, we had a mathematical error or two, it's over $1 trillion. that's why c.b.o. deserves to have a plus or minus error, margin of error, of 25%, plus

or minus. we keep coming back to this one thing. this bill is not nearly as much about health care as it is the government running everything. running individual lives. sam adams, john adams, thomas jefferson, those who gave their lives for our freedoms, would never have stood for this. the government running everything, but it's true, if the government can do this, if the federal government can do this, there is nothing that is closed to the government's direction and law.

if the government has the right to direct everyone's health care then this opens the bedroom to federal government jurisdiction like nothing ever has. not immediately, but eventually. is that what people want? do you want the federal government being able to say, this practice is ok, this one in the bedroom is not ok? because see, we're in charge of your health care and we've seen it ends up cost manager if you do this, that, or the other, so we're going to prohibit that. if they can direct against someone's religious beliefs certain bedroom practices be allowed, they can direct which ones can't be.

direct what the catholic church or catholic individual has to provide or pay for, they can sure tell them what they can't engage in as well. this opens a door to the government's running everything like never before. this month marks two years it's been passed against the bill of -- the will of the american people, against the will of most state legislatures. against the constitution. is it a tax? is it not a tax? it appear this is administration will say whatever it has to say to try to get this held as constitutional. and i can say unequivocally

that if the supreme court were to hold this bill and its mandates an its intrusions into every area of personal being, they uphold that as constitutional, it will give me no satisfaction to someday say to a justice of the supreme court whose religious beliefs have been violated, i told you so. none. it will break many of our hearts. that there was such blindness. but i have that hope that springs eternal in the human breast that there is still enough reliance on the constitution itself and our supreme court that they will

recognize the door that is opened, they'll recognize the inconsistencies of this administration in trying to come up with some argument to justify these violations of our freedoms. some say states require you to have auto insurance. that's only if you're going to drive on their roads. if you're going to participate in that privilege, then yes, but nobody is required to have auto insurance if they're not going to drive a car on the highways and in fact, the only insurance that's been required by any state, mandatoryly, is insurance to cover someone else who might be harmed by an individual's driving and harming them. i don't know of a state that requires insurance on an

individual hurting themselves while they're driving. only liability. now, we do have the problem in massachusetts where massachusetts basically had a mandate. other than that mandate in massachusetts, most state -- no state has ever been able or even thought of tried to require the purchase of a product. and you want to know, it's said this is going to be for the working poor. we already have medicare and medicaid and until this administration, with the help of speaker pelosi and leader reid in the senate, where they gutted $500 billion out of medicare, until that happened, there was not going to be any damage to medicare. we were going to take care of our seniors, take care of our poor.

but you look in this bill as i have, i've been through the whole thing, you go through there and fine out if you are just above the poverty line, you're working, you're doing everything you can to get by, to make it with your family. but you can't afford as good an insurance policy as is mandated by the federal government, this administration wants you to have an additional tax on your income. as if that's going to help. this hurts the working poor. it devastates medicare by pitting people against our seniors, taking $500 billion away from medicare. it's time for america to rise up again and make clear, this is unconstitutional and i think

even the supreme court would hear that. when americans rise up and say, you're not governing every aspect of my personal life like this opens the door to doing. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adyourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. -- to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopt. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m.

primaries wrapping up shortly. we will have all kinds of coverage for you, with the victory in and concession speeches. we'll take your calls, your tweets and your emails, all that have coming up this evening as the polls close in michigan and in arizona. live coverage coming up tonight here on c-span. president obama today criticized his republican rivals. he spoke at the united auto workers legislative convention in washington. his comments are about a half an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, to introduce the president of the

united states, please welcome u.a.w. president, bob king. [cheers and applause] >> whoa. thank you. i am so honored as we, as the u.a.w. are so honored today. we know that when our backs were against the wall, when auto workers and steel workers and parts workers, jobs and lives were threatened, when all the polls were against us, when we had republicans attacking us , dr. martin luther king said, you can tell the quality of a person and i paraphrase it, the quality of a leader of where they stand in times of adversity and struggle.

and our next speaker stood behind us and saved our jobs and saved our industry and when our sisters and brothers in the public sector were being attacked, this president stood, spoke out, stood for workers' rights to collective bargaining and the importance of workers and unions to democracy. sisters and brothers, i want to give you our friend, our brother, the champion of all workers and working people in america, the president of the united states, president barack obama. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> are you ready to stand and fight for the great america with this president? [cheers and applause] >> this is not a political event. >> how's it going, u.a.w.? it is good to be with some auto

workers today. [cheers and applause] all right. everybody have a seat. all right. get comfortable. go ahead and get comfortable. i'm going to talk for a little bit. first of all, i want to say thank you to one of the finest leaders that we have in labor, bob king. give it up for bob. [cheers and applause] i want to thank the international executive board and all of you for having me here today. it is a great honor. i brought along somebody who is proving to be one of the finest secretaries of transportation in our history, ray lahood is in the house. give ray a big round of applause. [applause] it is always an honor to spend time with folks who represent the working men and women of america.

it's unions like yours that fought for jobs and opportunity for generations of american workers. it's unions like yours that helped build the arsenal of democracy that defeated fascism and won world war ii. it's unions like yours that forge the american middle class , that great engine of prosperity, the greatest that the world has ever known. so you guys helped to write the american story. and today you're busy writing a proud new chapter. you are reminding us that no matter how tough times get americans are tougher. [cheers and applause] no matter how many punches we take, we don't give up. we get up. we fight back. we move forward. we come out on the other side stronger than before. that's what you have shown us.

[applause] you're showing us what's possible in america. so i'm here to tell you one thing today. you make me proud. you make me proud. [cheers and applause] take a minute and think about what you and the workers and the families that you represent have fought through. just a few years ago nearly one in five auto workers were handed a pink slip. one in five. 400,000 jobs across this industry vanished the year before i took office. and then as the financial crisis hit with its full force, america faced a hard and once unimaginable reality.

that two of the big three automakers, g.m. and chrysler, were on the brink of liquidation. the heartbeat of american manufacturing was flatlining. and we had to make a choice. with the economy in complete freefall, there were no private investors or companies out there willing to take a chance on the auto industry. nobody was lining up to give you guys loans. anyone in the financial stecter -- sector can tell you that. so we could have kept giving billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to automakers without demanding the real changes or accountability and return that were needed. that was one option. but that wouldn't have solved anything in the long-term. sooner or later we would have run out of money. could have just kicked the problem down the road. the other option was to do absolutely nothing and let

these companies fail. and you will recall there were some politicians who said we should do that. some even said we should let detroit go bankrupt. you remember that. think about what that choice would have meant for this country. if we had turned our backs on you. america throwing in the towel, if g.m. and chrysler had gone under. the suppliers, the distributors, that get their business from thy these companies, they would have died off. then even ford could have gone down as well. production shut down. factories shuttered. once proud companies chopped up and sold off for scraps. and all of you, the men and

women who built these companies with your own hands, would have been hung out to dry. more than one million americans across the country would have lost their jobs in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. in communities across the midwest it would have been another great depression. and then think about all the people who depend on you. not just your families but the school teachers, the small business owners, the server and the diner who knows your order. the bartender who is waiting for you to get off. that's right. [applause] [cheers and applause] their livelihoods were at stake as well. and you know what? what's else is at stake? how many of you who have worked the assembly line had a father or a grandfather or a mother who worked on that same line?

[cheers and applause] how many of you have sons and daughters who said, you know, mom, dad, i'd like to work at the plant, too? [applause] these jobs are worth more than just a paycheck. they're a source of pride, they're a ticket to a middle class life. they make it possible for you to own a home and raise kids and maybe send them, yes, to college -- [cheers and applause] give you a chance to retire with some dignity and some respect. these companies are worth more than just the cars they build. they're a symbol of american innovation and know-how. they're the source of our manufacturing might. if that's not worth fighting for, what's worth fighting for? so, no, we were not going to take a knee and do nothing.

we were not going to give up on your jobs and your families and your communities. so in exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. we said to the auto industry, you're going to have to truly change. not just pretend like you're changing. and thanks to outstanding leadership like bob king, we were able to get labor and management to settle their differences. [applause] we got the industry to retool and restructure and everybody involved made sacrifices. everybody had some skin in the game. and it wasn't popular. and it wasn't what i ran for president to do. that wasn't originally what i thought i was going to be doing. as president. [laughter] but you know what? i did run to make the tough calls and do the right things. no matter what the politics were. [cheers and applause]

yeah. and i want you to know, you know why i knew -- know why i knew this rescue would succeed? you want to know? it wasn't because of anything the government did, it wasn't just because of anything management did, it was because i believed in you. i placed my bet on the american worker. [cheers and applause] and i'll make that bet any day of the week. and now three years later, three years later that bet is paying off. not just paying off for you, it's paying off for america.

three years later the american auto industry is back. g.m. is back on top as the number one automaker in the world. [cheers and applause] highest profit in its 100-year history. chrysler is growing faster in america than any other car company. ford is investing billions in american plants, american factories. plants to bring thousands of jobs back to america. all told the entire industry has added more than 200,000 new

jobs over the past 2 1/2 years. 200,000 new jobs. and here's the best part. you're not just building cars again. you're building better cars. [cheers and applause] after three decades of naaqs, we're gradually putting in place the toughest fuel economy standards in history for our cars and pickup trucks, that means the cars you build are will average nearly 55 miles per gallon by the middle of the next decade. almost double what they get today. that means folks, every time they fill up they're going to be saving money. they'll have to fill up every two weeks instead of every week. that saves the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time. that means we'll have cut our oil consumption by more than two million barrels a day. that means we have to import less oil while we're selling more cars all around the world. [applause]

thanks to the bipartisan trade agreement i signed into law, with you in mind, working with you, there will soon be new cars in the streets of south korea imported from detroit. and from toledo and from chicago. [applause] and today i talked about this at the state of the union, we're doing this today, i'm creating a trade enforcement unit that will bring the full rorse -- resources of the federal government to bear on investigations and we're going to counter any unfair trading practices around the world including by countries like china. america has the best workers in the world when the playing field is level. nobody will beat us and we're

going to make sure that playing field is level. [cheers and applause] because america always wins when the playing field is level. and because everyone came together and worked together. the most high-tech, fuel-efficient, good-looking cars in the world are once again designed and engineered and forged and built, not in europe, not in asia, right here in the united states of america. i've seen them myself. i've seen them myself. i've seen it at chrysler jefferson north plant in detroit where a new shift of more than 1,000 workers came on two years ago, another 1,000 slated to come on next year. i've seen it in my hometown at

ford chicago assembly where workers are building a new explorer and selling it to dozens of countries around the world. there you go. i've seen it at g.m.'s plant in ohio. where workers got their jobs back to build the chevy cobalt and g.m.'s plant in detroit where i got to get inside a brand new chevy volt fresh off the line. even though secret service wouldn't let me drive it. [laughter] but i liked sitting in it. [laughter] it was knight nice. -- it was nice. i bet it drives real good. and five years from now when i'm not president anymore i'll buy one and drive it myself. [cheers and applause]

[choud chanting] [crowd chanting] >> look, i know our bet was a good one because i had seen it pay off firsthand. but here's the thing. you don't have to take my word for it. ask the chrysler workers who were brought on to make sure

the newest high-tech transmissions and fuel-efficient engenerals -- engines are made in america. or ask a steel worker in tennessee whose jobs were saved from going abroad. ask the ford workers from kansas city who are making the f-150, america's best selling truck, a more fuel efficient truck. and you ask all the suppliers who are expanding and hiring and the communities that rely on them if america's investment in you was a good bet. they'll tell you the right answer. and who knows? maybe the naysayers will finally come around and say that standing by america's workers was the right thing to do. because i've got to admit, it's been funny to watch some of these folks completely try to rewrite history now that you're back on your feet. [cheers and applause] the same folks who said, if we went forward with our plans to rescue detroit, you can kiss

the american automotive industry goodbye. now they're saying, we were right all along. or you've got folks saying, well, the real problem is, what we really disagreeded with was the workers. they all made out like bandits. saving the auto industry was just about paying back the unions. really? even by the standards of this town that's a load of you know what. [cheers and applause] you know, you -- about 700,000 retirees have to make sacrifices on their health care benefits that they had earned. a lot of you saw hours reduced or pay or wages scaled back. you gave umsome of your rights as workers. promises were made to you over the years that you gave up for the sake and survival of this

industry. it's workers, their families. you want to talk about sacrifice, you made sacrifices. this wasn't an easy thing to do. let me tell you, i keep on hearing these same folks talk about values all the time. you want to talk about values? hard work, that's a value. ing out for one another, that's a value. the idea that we're all in it together and i'm my brother's keep and sister's keeper, that's a value. [cheers and applause] they're out there talking about you like you're some special interest that needs to be beaten down. since when are hardworking men

and women, who are putting in a hard day's work every day, since when are they special interests? since when is the idea that we look out for one another a bad thing? i remember my old friend ted kennedy. he used to say, what is it about working men and women they find so offensive? you know, this notion that we should have let the auto industry die, that we should pursue antiworker policies in the hopes that unions like yours will buckle and unravel, that's part of that same old you are on your own philosophy that says, we should just leave everybody to fend for themselves. let the most powerful do whatever they please. they think the best way to boost the economy is to roll back the reforms we put into

place to prevent another crisis. to let wall street write the rules again. they think the best way to help families afford health care is to roll back the reforms we passed that's already lowering costs for millions of americans. they want to go back to the days when insurance companies could deny your coverage or jack up your rates whenever and however they pleased. they think we should keep cutting taxes for those at the very top, for people like me. even though we don't need it. just so they can keep paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. well, let me tell you something. not to put too fine a point on it, they're wrong. they are wrong. [cheers and applause] that's the philosophy that got us into this mess, we can't afford to go back to it, not now, we've got a lot of work to do. we've got a long way to go

before everybody who wants a good job can get a good job. we've got a long way to go before middle class americans fully regain that sense of security that's been slipping away since long before this recession hit. but you know? wheave got something to show -- we've got something to show. all of you show what's possible when we pull together. over the last two years our businesses have added about 3.7 million new jobs. manufacturing is coming back for the first time since the 1990's. companies are bringing jobs back from overseas. the economy is getting stronger, the recovery is speeding up. now it's time to keep our foot on the gas, not put on the brakes. and i'm not going to settle for a country where just a few do really well and everybody else is struggling to get by. [cheers and applause]

we're fighting for an economy where everybody gets a fair shot. where everybody does their fair share. where everybody plays by the same set of rules. we're not going to go back to an economy that's all about outsourcing and bad debt and phony profits. we're fighting for an economy that's built to last. that's built on things like education and energy and manufacturing. making things. not just buying things. making things that the rest of the world wants to buy. and restoring the values that made this country great. hard work and fair play. the chance to make it in you really try. the responsibility to reach back and help somebody else make it too. not just you.

that's who we are. [applause] that's what we believe in. you know, i was telling you, i visited chrysler's jefferson north plant in detroit about a year and a half ago. now, the day i visited some of the employees had won the lottery. not kidding. they'd won the lottery. now, you might think that after that they'd all be kicking back and retiring. and no one would fault them for that. building cars is tough work. but that's not what they did. the guy who bought -- funny you ask.

the guy who bought the winning ticket, he was a proud u.a.w. member who worked on the line. so he used some of his winnings to buy his wife the car that he built. because he's really proud of his work. [applause] then he bought brand new american flags for his hometown because he's proud of his country. [applause] and he and the other winners are still clocking in at that plant today. because they're proud of the part they and their co-workers play in america's comeback. you see, that's what america's about. >> that's right. >> you know, america's not just looking out for yourself, it's not just about greed. it's not just about trying to climb to the very top and keep everybody else down. when our assembly lines grind

to a halt, we work together, we get them going again. when somebody else falters we try to give them a hand up. because we know we're all in it together. i got my start standing with working folks who had lost their jobs. folks who had lost their hope because the steel plants had closed down. i didn't like the idea that they didn't have anybody fighting for them. the same reason i got into this business is the same reason i'm here today. >> all right. >> i'm driven by that same belief that everybody, everybody should deserve a chance. so i promise you this, as long as you've got an ounce of fight left in you, i'll have a ton of fight left in me. [cheers and applause] we're going to keep on fighting to make our economy stronger, to put our friends and

neighbors back to work faster, to give our children even more opportunity, to make sure that the united states of america remains the greatest nation on earth. thank you, u.a.w. i love you. god bless you. god bless the work you do. god bless the united states of america. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> white house coverage coming up tonight on c-span. the arizona and michigan primaries are winding up. michigan polls, most of them

anyway, closing in about 20 minutes. at 8:00 eastern. some do stay up until 9:00 eastern. where we'll have results for you tonight. victory and concession speeches and of course your comments and phone calls as well. all of that coming up tonight live on c-span. we're also going to take you shortly to georgia. newt gingrich has been commaining -- campaigning in in state ahead of supertuesday. we'll have that live from there once it gets under way which should be just a few minutes away. >> in the meantime, to capitol hill where today house republicans introduced a jobs plan made up of a package of bills aimed at supporting small businesses and loosening federal regulations. house majority leader eric cantor spoke and he's joined by speaker john boehner and other house leaders. >> good afternoon. thanks for joining us.

as you will see, we members are here joined by many entrepreneurs from across the country who have come here today with success. because their success was earned by running businesses and succeeding in the very tough economy that we're in. as has been noted, these entrepreneurs made it through the crash years of 2006 and 2008 and there's plenty of entrepreneurs who have not. and it is for them that we're here. we are here to make sure that we can jumpstart -- jump start this economy. we're here all behind what's called the jobs act, that we'll be voting on in the house next week. this is the jobs act, jump start our business startups act. it is a exillation of bills -- compilation of bills that have -- some of which have been

voted on the floor of the house with heavy bipartisan support. these are bills which also reflect the work of the president's jobs council. and as has been shown today, the white house has said, we need to get started jump starting our business startups. and that's exactly what the bill does. many of the members who are here, who will speak, had bills in the package. they ranged from increasing the ability for small business to access capital to bills which tend to reduce the regulatory burden on startup businesses and frankly allow them to flourish and grow. and that's what we believe is the secret to the success of growing this economy, it is get the small business engines started again. so with that it's my pleasure to call upon lori, she's president of an oil company in bloomfield hills, michigan, a successful entrepreneur who is here in washington to join the effort to try and jump start

our small businesses. >> thank you. thank you. first of all i just want to say that as we look at our country and how to motivate our economy, it's entrepreneurs. every company in this country was started by an entrepreneur. and so what leader cantor has done for us is he's given us this opportunity to unshackle some of these things that have been binding us. so at my company, which is an energy company, this is going to create jobs, let us have the opportunity to create jobs and we're just really grateful for that. thank you. >> next, of course, is the speaker of the house who has been nothing but a champion for the small businesses, being a small business man himself, knowing the importance of growing our small business space. >> let me just say thank you and your team and all the members behind us who have worked hard to put this bill

together. red tape, bureaucracy, lack of access to capital, makes it difficult to create new businesses. right now we have new business startups at the lowest level we've seen in some 30 years and if we're serious about growing our economy and creating opportunities for our fellow citizens, making sure that we get rid of the red tape and the people have access to capital, are critically important. as eric said, i used to run a small business. i know about the red tape, the bureaucracy, and how difficult it is to put the capital together, to take an idea and to turn it into a real business. so i want to thank all of these members for their work. during the state of the union address the president called for ideas just like this in order to increase business startups in our country. and i hope that the democrats and the white house will join us in moving this very important bill. >> next up, i'd like to call

upon the majority whip who has one of the hallmark bills in this package, kevin mccarthy. >> thank you, mr. leader. i will tell you, at age 20 i started my first business. a small deli. didn't put a lot of thought in the name so i named it after myself but it's still successful. in today's environment, i don't know if i could start it gefment the biggest challenge we have is access to capital and regulation. you wonder, is small business really the place we should focus? in my view it's the only place. every statistic shows you the greatest growth in america, if you take from the last recession to the beginning of this one, is small business. seven million new jobs were created by small business. 60% of those seven million came from companies five years old or younger. and as the speaker just said, we're at our lowest level in 30 years. this is a great opportunity to

find what the future holds. this will jump start it and allow it. now the challenge when it comes to access to capital whifment started my first small business, i wanted to open five more delis. kind of tough for a bank to loan to a 20-year-old kid. but because i grew up in a different side of the neighborhood, the rules that we had based in 1933, i couldn't go talk to somebody that had capital that wanted to invest with me privately unless i had a previous relationship with them. i would have to go register, take my money, get an attorney and register with the s.e.c. well, that's yesterday. today we want the ability to have a good idea for capital to find the idea, but also when you have the ability to find capital in other places, you get different terms. you don't have to make the monthly payments, you're able to grow and prosper the business and get the idea. so let's match a strong idea with somebody that wants to match capital and go out there. and the one thing people don't realize today, there's more

cash on hand than at any other time in the last 50 years. and it sits there because of the uncertainty of this country. this will knock it down and unshackle it. >> next up is a member of the financial services committee and our chairman of the republican conference, mr. hensarling. >> thank you, leader. we know that we continue to be in the slowest and weakest recovery in the post war era. and one of the reasons we are, as previous speakers have pointed out, is that new business startups are at one of their lowest levels in decades. not unlike our majority whip before coming to congress i was a small business person. and the two great challenges that i had as a small business person was access to capital and government red tape. the jobs bill addresses both of them. i certainly want to thank leader eric cantor for heading up this initiative.

but we have to jump start our small businesses. we know that it is the animal spirits that adam smith wrote about in 1776, that are the key to job growth in america. we want to help unleash those animal spirits, to jump start this, to help our small businesses get greater access to capital. and even bernie marcus, who is the founder and former chairman of home depot, once said he couldn't even start home depot today. we want to make sure that the future home dee toes get their starts -- depots get their starts. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of it. >> next, a member of the financial services committee, chairwoman of the financial institution subcommittee, from west virginia, shelley capito. >> thank you, mr. leader. thank you all for being here today. i am really excited to be here for this bill for two reasons. number one, last week when i

was home, many of us were home, i went to our tech park. it form early had been a huge research facility for what was then union. but the community leaders got together had they downsized and thought, what are we going to do with this area and what it is is exactly what we're talking about today? it's for entrepreneurs, new ideas, to create the businesses of the future for a state like west virginia as they're transitioning away from some of the more traditional ways, economies of our state. and the question i got in this meeting at the chemical alliance zone is, what are you doing for entrepreneurs and startups? so i talked about the bills that we had passed through committee, through the financial services committee, some that we had passed through on the floor. the other reason i'm excited about this today is the other question i got is, are you guys ever going to do anything together? and i don't think they're meaning us together. they mean us as america, yes, but as democrats and republicans. this is something we agree.

on. we've shown it in committee. we've done it on the floor. i think we can do it. the president is supportive of this because he knows it will relate in job creation. and i know i only said two but i have one other thing. the other thing i like about this bundle of bills is it does look to the future. it looks as how to use the internet, the newer technologies to create capital, to eliminate regulations and to be more efficient and to reward those bright young minds that are trying to find a way to not only provide for themselves, but provide for members of their community. >> next is the individual who actually -- whose bill will serve as the base bill and the sponsor, steven pincher from tennessee. >> thank you, thank you, mr. leader. i was home last week speaking to a graup of constituents and up with of them said, mr. pincher, we need jobs. you need to bring us some more jobs. and i said, news flash, guys. we don't create jobs in the halls of congress. the private sector creates jobs. and that's what this package

does. it puts the focus back on the private sector, back on capitalism and the free market. i was thinking, the heartbeat of america is in the heartland of america. not in washington, d.c., on a beautiful day like this that we have here. it's good that we were sent here a year and a half ago almost to do what we're doing today. this is a process, it's been a tough journey but this shows you that we can work together and hopefully our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will get behind this and show the american people that this still can be the greatest country on earth and our children can have the brightest future, more bright than even we've had. so thank you. >> next is the gentlelady from new york, also serves on the financial services committee, dr. nan hayworth. >> thank you, leader. compliments to you and our colleagues here for introducing a bill that will truly transform the climate for our businesses. in ways that we desperately need. i represent the hudson valley

of new york and in fact we do have folks right at home i can think of very directly. biotech entrepreneurs who are growing companies right in the hudson valley. they are creating life-saving innovations, they are creating jobs and the jobs act will provide them with the fuel that they need to grow. this is what america is about. this is the best of america. it's about our entrepreneurs, our innovators and all of the people who rely on americans to create and innovate and all of our american people who desperately need jobs and will have many more of them based on this act. so i want to thank the president for voicing support for this bill today and i am confident that it will pass through the house and i compliment our colleagues again. >> questions? >> [inaudible] .

>> i've not spoken to him today but i certainly plan to speak with him and work with the speaker on seeing what we can do to try and make sure this package of bills gets to the president's desk. and as we saw this morning, the president seems willing to actually work with us and perhaps we can sign this into law. >> speaker boehner. there was a tragedy in ohio yesterday, your home state. do you think that tragedy will cause any new legislation in terms of guns in this country? >> clearly our heart goes out to the families of those two victims. the violence like this should not be toll rate in our society -- tolerated in this society. but let's be honest. there are about 250 million guns in america and so they're out there. but people should use them responsibly. >> mr. speaker.

on the highway bill. leader reid in his own words suggested you had given up on your bill. i'm not sure if i heard him right. he suggested you had given up. is that the case? are you still workingen to? >> when you figure out what your question is, we'll let you ask it. [laughter] >> have you given up on the highway bill? >> no. we need to pass a highway bill. clearly the bill that came out of committee has had its share of difficulties. and the leadership's working with the chairman to try to bring a bill to the floor that can pass. >> i was just with steve case at a panel discussion. he is back on a plane, he has to speak at a dinner in california tonight. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> most of the polls closing in michigan in under five minutes. 8:00 eastern, some staying open until 9:00. arizona closing a bit later. we have will complete coverage of the two primary races, with victory had and concession speeches. we will have your comments and phone calls, of course all of that getting under way tonight here on c-span. and you can follow on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. we're waiting to take you live to georgia, candidate newt gingrich has been campaigning across the state ahead of next tuesday's supertuesday primary date in georgia. and we'll take you there live once it starts. but on this day of the michigan republican primary, mitt romney was in the michigan town at his headquarters where he talked with supporters, took some questions from the media and we'll show you as much as we can until the newt gingrich event gets under way.

>> i don't even know how i'm related to all of you guys. i'm the great uncle and you're the great aunt to some of these here, right? oh, yeah, ok. we got some family here. we've got the governor here. i want to hear the governor. don't you think, have the governor say a word or two? >> well, thank you. it's great to be here and it's very exciting to be parts of this campaign. we have the right man for the job. it's great to have anne and mitt in our state. thanks time for michigan to show off, for all the good things we're doing. and the best part is, as we've got a leader that's shown he's got the background, the experience to do the things we're doing here and to take him to washington. i spent three days in washington starting last friday and it's a mess. it is time to get our act

together there, to go off on a very positive way. and to do that we need the right leadership. and so that's why i really appreciate all the time you're doing, calling people, getting people out, encourage everyone to vote today. this is the day that really matters. and let's show them that michigan anders really care about our -- michigan understand -- michiganders really care about our country and get this man to the white house. >> thank you guys. you were making calls to republicans today. this is a good thing. yeah. yeah. and the santorum campaign is making calls to democrats today. so we want to make sure we get republicans out to vote. we want this to be a process where republicans choose their republican nominee. we don't want the democrats to choose who they think is the easiest person to run against. so you guys, let's get the calls done and get republicans out to vote.