host: if you can do so quickly, the house is about to come into session. caller: name is patrick. good morning. you could have dental work done, right. now now, they only pay to have a tooth pulled, not repaired. i have eyeglasses -- host: i'm sorry, we have to let you go. the house is coming into live session. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] act as vote on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each, but in no oovent shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, for five minutes. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. there are a lot of issues with which we have to contend around here. obviously dramatic increase in gasoline prices. we'll deal with the budget this week. f.c.c. reform is on the agenda for today. but one issue that hasn't gotten a great deal of attention that we are going to be addressing in the coming weeks and months is whether or not we deal with the issue of so-called jackson-vanik legislation and allow us to

proceed with extending permanent normal trade relations for us to be able to trade with russia. now, mr. speaker, as we look at this issue there are a number of factors that need to be addressed. first and foremost what impact is this going to have on our nation's job creators, those who are trying to grow our economy? and equally if not more important is the impact on human rights, the development of the rule of law, and the building of democratic inconstitutions -- institutions in russia. we all heard the statement made by the president just yesterday in his off microphone discussion with president medvedev about how things are going to go and the flexibility he'll have in his second term. mr. speaker, it seems to me that one thing that is very important for us to recognize is, there's action that we can take today that will allow us to deal not only with the notion of our creating jobs

here in the united states of america, but also tackling the very important human rights issue. now, let's also realize that russia is going to be a member of the world trade organization . all that's necessary now is for the duma, russian parliamentary, to ratify their accession. the question is will u.s. workers have access to the russian market? that's very important. but also as we look at the challenges of getting our economy growing, we recognize that the priority of that, as i said, mr. speaker, it's also very, very, very critical for us to do everything that we can to ensure the development of those democratic institutions in russia. the development of the rule of law in which we all know has been lacking based on what we have seen in the last election, and also to ensure the kinds of human rights and women's rights that have been ignored. so, mr. speaker, i'd like to

share with my colleagues a little bit of a letter that was just put forward by a half dozen of the lead human rights activists in russia. these are not my words, these are the words of these human rights activists. they say, those who defend the argument that jackson-vanik provisions should still apply to russia in order to punish putin's anti-democratic regime only darken russians' political future, hamper its economic development, and frustrate its democratic aspirations. they go on, mr. speaker, to say, jackson-vanik is also a very useful tool for mr. putin's anti-american propaganda machine. it's -- it helps him to depict the united states as hostile to russia. using outdated cold-war tools to undermine russia's international competitiveness. we, leading figures of the russian political opposition,

strongly stand behind efforts to remove russia from the provisions of the jackson-vanik amendment. jackson-vanik is not helpful in any way, neither for promotion of human rights and democracy in russia, nor for the economic interests of its people. mr. speaker, it's high time that we tackle this issue to ensure that we can promote human rights, the rule of law, and the development of democratic institutions in russia, and ensure that we, for the american worker, can create job opportunities right here in the united states. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. donnelly, for five minutes. mr. donnelly: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to honor an american hero, ara parseghian, who has led a life dedicated to coaching shall teaching others, serving others, and a life that has

given hope to families all across the world. many americans know about him through his legendary football career. before that, though, he proudly served our nation in the united states navy during world war ii. he went to college at miami of ohio. and was lucky enough to marry kathy davis. he was a leader and role model as the head football coach at miami of ohio, northwestern, and the university of notre dame, which is located in the congressional district that i'm honored to represent. mr. parseghian's impressive record at notre dame included two national championships and three bowl victories. accomplishments that resulted in his induction into the college football hall of fame in 1980. as a recognition of his tremendous achievements. more important, though, was his personal leadership and example and the character he instilled

in his players that he coached. to mr. parseghian it was a lot more important that his players be good citizens than good football players. he always wanted them to be good football players as well. what many americans may not know is mr. parseghian's most important work began after his football career. when he devoted his life to find a cure for neiman pick type skin disease and multiple score rowcies. -- sclerosis. in 1994 they learned that three of their youngest grandchildren were diagnosed with this disease. this tragic disease is a degenerative neurological disorder afflicting thousands of children and is ultimately fatal. rather than be overwhelmed by their grief, mr. parseghian and his family began a fight to find a cure for this disease. together they founded the ara

parseghian medical research foundation in 1994. it was devoted to funding research and finding a cure for neiman pick type c. in 1997 scientists funded by the parseghian foundation were able to isolate the gene responsible for causing neiman pick type c and has since made tremendous strides towards finding a cure. the parseghian family lost michael, krisa, and maria to this tarnle disease -- terrible disease, but the family and katie and ara have never lost hope. their efforts will end neiman pick type c and help families all across the world. mr. parseghian's commitment to medical research did not stop with the disease that took the lives of his grandchildren. ara whose sister, brother-in-law, and daughter have been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis has fought

nonstop against the scourge of m.s. which took away his beloved daughter, karen, just last month. while he was accomplished much as a coach on the football field, his devotion to others will truly define the era of ara. when i talk to my son about what it means to be a man, and what it means to live a good life, i tell him about coach parseghian. he and katie have epitomized devotion to family, faith, and country. may god bless ara parseghian and may he keep the entire family in the palm of his hand. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. the house is about to consider a budget in a dangerous hour in the life of our country.

last year we barreled past several urgent warning signals, the loss of our nation's triple-a credit rating, the size of the national debt surpassing our entire economy, a record third straight year of trillion dollar-plus annual deficits. i believe this is one of the last opportunities to avert a financial crisis unprecedented in our nation's experience and on a magnitude far greater than that which is now destroying greece. the blueprint passed by the house budget committee last week is a disappointment to those who believe that the budget can and should be balanced much sooner, and i certainly don't entirely disassociate myself from those sentiments. but the immediate issue before us as lincoln put it is not can any of us imagine better, but can we all do better? the approaching financial crisis demands first and foremost that we turn this country away from the fiscal

precipice and place it back on a course to solvency. this budget does so. indeed, it improves upon last year's house budget that died in the senate which according to standard & poor's would have preserved the triple-a credit rating of the united states government. this budget, i believe, will restore it. it is, of course, a long road back. balancing by the late 2030's and ultimately paying off the entire debt by the mid 2050's. even relying on the static scoring of the c.b.o. which presents the worst case scenario, it still means that my children who are now in college will be able to retire into a prosperous and entirely debt free america. sure there's a great deal in it for conservatives not to like, but that is not the issue. the issue is will this congress and ultimately this government

change its fiscal directory enough to avert the sovereign debt crisis that fiscal experts across the spectrum warn us is just a few years dead ahead. this is not some moonless night on the atlantaic. we can see this danger right ahead of us, and we can see that it is big enough to sink this great ship of state. we have precious little time remaining to avert it. this budget will turn us just enough to avoid that calamity and i fear we won't have many more opportunities to do so. the alternative is unthinkable. the president's budget would subject our nation to one of the biggest tax increases in its history, strike especially hard at the small businesses that we are depending upon to create 2/3 of the new jobs that americans desperately need. and even so, by its own numbers it never balances and thus courts the fiscal collapse of our nation.

hemingway asked, how do you go bankrupt? two ways, he said. gradually, then suddenly. for the last decade this nation has been going bankrupt gradually. history warns us if we don't change course very soon we will cease going bankrupt gradually and start going bankrupt quite suddenly. it may have happen through a chain reaction set off by a seemingly minor international incident. it may happen one day when a routine bond auction sours. interest rates will start rising rapidly. financial panics will begin. the government will have to respond by increasingly frantic efforts to maintain a stream of capital either through massive policy dislocations or catastrophic inflation. the approach of great cataclysm that is are so obvious to historians in let trowspect -- retrospect are often unheeded by temporaries at the time.

just 30 days before the outbreak of world war ii, neville chamberlain recessed parliament to go on extended holiday. let that not be how history remembers this congress. this budget's not perfect, but it is adequate to spare our country from the convulsions of greece. i wholeheartedly support this budget for that reason and i expect it will have the overwhelming support of this house. i can only hope that the senate this time will put aside its own differences and heed lincoln's plea that the dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy president, the occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. we must disenthrall ourselves and then we will save our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker.

often here on capitol hill issues large and small get sort of lost in the fog. but it was a pleasure last week 78 -- to watch some moments of clarity as hundreds of bicycle advocates flooded capitol hill delivering a simple, concise, powerful message that makes a difference in terms of how people live in communities large and small. . they were delivering a message that congress ought to deal meaningfully in a comprehensive fashion with the transportation legislation that has been stalled. they were delivering a message, "don't attack cycling, embrace it as part of a comprehensive approach to transportation." it is after all the most efficient form of urban transportation ever designed.

burning calories instead of fossil fuel doesn't just save you money and make you feel better. it's good for our communities. it's the cheapest, fastest way to reduce congestion and air pollution, a very simple illustration as you can park eight to 10 bicycles where one automobile resides. it's good for the economy. over $6 billion a year is involved with the cycling industry, employing over a million people. they brought very specific examples. a study from wisconsin. tchr 1.5 billion of -- $1.5 billion of economic impact. 13,200 in an industry that too often does not get its

attention. in my community of portland, oregon, a medium-sized city, it's $100 million a year in our economy and well over 1,000 jobs. cycling is also very good for our children and our families. being able to walk or bike safely to school demonstrates kids actually perform better, parents are less stressed. it could save 6.5 billion trips a year of over 30 billion miles just shuttling kids back and forth to school. people frankly were outraged that my republican friends had targeted in their transportation bill elimination of the safe routes to school program. other than them, i haven't met anybody in america who is against this program that

empowers our children and helps our families. now is a golden opportunity as the transportation bill sort of collapsed and we're back at the drawing table is to look at how we leverage that $8 billion that we have invested in federal money over the last 20 years, that has touched every state and hundreds of communities. now is the time to celebrate that progress. now is the time to commit ourselves to a comprehensive transportation bill that makes it safer to cycle and walk. now is the time to have a transportation bill that will make every one of our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank

you very much. last week in the armed services committee we had general allen who oversees our military effort in afghanistan, and i have the utmost respect for general allen. in fact, general allen's former boss in the marine corps has some very kind words to say about general allen, which i read before i got into my questions. i would today like to quote the former boss of general allen, who's been my advisor on afghanistan for three years. and i actually read these comments to general allen before i got to my question. attempting to find a true military and political answer to the problems in afghanistan would take decades, not years, drain our nation of precious resources with the most precious being our sons and daughters. simply put, the united states cannot solve the afghan problem. no matter how brave and determined our troops are.

mr. speaker, i keep hearing the term, well, we're going to probably be out sometime around 2014. well, it's like many of you are guilty of and that's put it down the road. we'll deal with it in sometime. the problem is our young men and women are dying, getting killed and severely wounded by i.e.d.'s. i hope that the congress, when we get into may of this year and we start debating the d.o.d., the department of defense bill, that we'll bring up amendments dealing with afghanistan. the history has proven time and time again that no one, no nation will ever change afghanistan. and it was kind of ironic last week, i happened to be on the floor thursday when mr. hoyer was asking mr. cantor on our side, what is going to be the schedule this week, meaning today, this week, and then mr. -- mr. hoyer said to mr. cantor, well, why don't we bring up the senate

transportation bill, and i was just taken aback by mr. cantor's response. he said, we're just out of money. we're just out of money and we're spending $10 billion a month in afghanistan? i don't understand the mathematics around here. we can't bring up a transportation bill, a two-year bill because we're just out of money. but yet, mr. karzai, you can get your $10 billion a month and you can negotiate with the taliban and take the $10 billion that we're borrowing from the chinese to give to karzai to they can buy weapons to kill the american soldiers and marines. it just does not make any sense. mr. speaker, i have put together a resolution that i have asked the speaker, the north carolina house of representatives, tom tillis, who is a great gentleman, to introduce in the may session of the north carolina house, asking the congress to bring our troops home out of

afghanistan before the 2014 deadline, and i'm pleased to say that the tea party in my district -- don't agree with me on everything but they do agree with me about afghanistan. they passed this resolution at their meeting a month ago. we need to start bringing our troops home, not later. mr. speaker, i got beside me today -- and i am going to close in just a minute -- but a reminder of the cost of war. all the families who have cried and with pain, all the children that have cried because their mommies and dadies are not coming home, so i have -- daddies are not coming home. i have 14 posters. this is the latest one i saw in a newspaper. it's very profound. it is time for the american people to say to the united states congress, you have no money, you can't fix the roads, then you have no money to send to afghanistan to waste on a corrupt leader.

with that, mr. speaker, i will close the way i normally do. god, please bless the men and women in uniform. please, god, bless the senate that we will do what's right in the eyes of god. i ask god to please bless the president of the united states what he will do what's right in the eyes of god. i ask three times. god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, for five minutes. mr. green: -- the speaker pro tempore: all right. mr. green is not here. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from florida for five minutes.

ms. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. 20 years ago while serving as a school principal i founded a project in miami, florida. $1 million nationally recognized and honored foundation that specifically addresses the trial and tribulations of young black boys and sends them to college. it serves almost 20,000 boys throughout florida. in spite of that, this sign stands outside the door of my congressional office, and i change the number every day. it speaks loudly. trayvon martin's murderer is still at large. 31 days with no arrest. trayvon died because of racial

profiling 31 days ago. if you are -- walk into any inner city high school in the african-american community, mr. speaker, and ask the students, have you ever been racially pro filed, trust me, every one of them will raise their hands, boys and girls. you may ask, congresswoman, what does that mean? who is profiled and who is doing the profiling? i will tell you. boys by police officers. boys by vigilante wannabe police officers. boys who get into an elevator and then everyone else gets off. boys who walk down the sidewalk and everyone crosses the street. boys who watch people lock their car doors when they approach the car. boys who see a woman clutch their purse as they walk towards them. boys who will try to catch a cab but not one will stop.

boys who are followed around in stores while they shop. boys who wear hoodies. boys who wear dreads. boys who wear gold teeth. boys who sag their pants and boys who are walking, while black talking, while black eating and just plain being black. how do you think these little boys feel? it is a sociological problem that dates back to the days of slavery. these boys begin to see themselves not as real men but as cashing cantures of real -- caricatures of real men. racial profiling is not perceived. it's real and it's happening as i speak all over america today.

boys and girls who is called a menace to society, will one day grow up to be good men in society. those very same boys cry themselves to sleep at night because they don't know how to deal with the pressures and with the pain. you have to walk in their shoes to understand. not -- i call upon this congress today and upon this nation today, don't profile them. don't fear them. don't despair them. despies them. don't fill our prisons with them, and meeze don't hunt them down -- and please don't hunt them down like dogs and kill them. love them. educate them. they could be your son. they are all somebody's son, and they are, too, god's

children. 31 days and still no justice. shame, shame, shame. and today i again demand justice for trayvon. i demand justice for all murdered children. power to the people and power to the children. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield back? does the gentlelady -- the gentlelady yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, for five minutes. mr. mckinley: this is a time we can take a moment to bring attention and understanding to both the needs and the potentials of people with developmental disabilities.

this awareness month was first declared by president ronald reagan in 1987 to recognize the bright future that these american citizens have in front of them. thanks in part to proclamations like this, the perceptions of young people and adults with developmental disabilities has changed. on a personal note, as an individual with a significant hearing disability and a grandfather of a child with special needs, i am very familiar with the hardships of overcoming the obstacles of disabilities. my grandson, maxwell, has charged syndrome and deals every day with intense developmental and medical challenges. he's a true inspiration to his mother and our entire family.

during developmental disabilities awareness month, i encourage everyone to engage with people in our communities who have developmental disabilities and recognize their talents and abilities that will make this a better nation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. green, now for five minutes. . mr. green: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'd like to say all within the sound of my voice or may be viewing what is said, i am exceedingly grateful and i thank god for reverend al sharpton. reverend sharpton has been involved in the tray von martin -- trayvon martin circumstance for some time now. that is not unusual. what may be considered unusual is that he is involved and he has lost his mother. and he is acting under some

courageous circumstances that require courage, i might say, under these circumstances. i admire what he does, but i especially admire the fact that he is doing it under these circumstances and today he is funeralizing his mother. so to reverend al sharpton, i want to express my gratitude and i would like to just take a very short brief moment of silence and express my sympathies silently to reverend sharpton and his family. thank you. mr. chairman, i want to thank all of my colleagues who have supported what the justice department is doing. it is exceedingly important that people understand that this is a bipartisan effort across the length and breadth of this country. this transcends the lines that

can divide us. this is not about being a conservative. it's not being a liberal. it's about justice for trayvon martin. and i believe that people of good will come in all stripes, affiliated with all parties, and people of good will want to see justice done. my colleague before me expressed that it's been 31 days and there has not been an arrest. 31 days, but we are now hearing more about what may have happened, and i say may have happened because we have not had an eyewitness to come forward and give statements. it's important to note that what we are hearing is not coming by way of eyewitness testimony. someone has had someone say something that they are repeating. my hope is that there will be a thorough investigation. there should be an investigation. my hope is that we will have the opportunity to produce evidence by and through the

police to show what actually happened to the extent that the standard that is commonly used to make an arrest is applied to this case. and that standard is probable cause. not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. not clear and convincing evidence. but rather probable cause. is there probable cause to make an arrest? we have many laws that are coming into play, and i want to thank chairman conyers, chairman john conyers, i call him chairman, he's now the ranking member of the judiciary committee, i want to thank him because he is taking the lead today on a forum that will take place. in fact, he's making it possible for us to have this forum today. and at this forum today there will be some clarity brought to how the federal government is involved in these kinds of circumstances. in 2009 there was a hate crimes law that was passed.

there would be some considerable talk about this hate crimes law that was passed. federal jurisdiction has been expanded under the 2009 law. pursuant to the 14th amendment and the equal protection provided thereunder. there will be talk about how the justice department has a role in these processes from time to time. there will be talk about how financial support can be accorded the local constabulary under certain circumstances. there will be talk about how federal charges can be promulgated and enforced under certain circumstances. so i will be honored to have an opportunity to be at this forum today so that we can talk more about the federal role. but in the final analysis, here's what we are dealing with. we are dealing with the circumstance wherein there are at least two people who deserve a fair trial. two people, trayvon martin is one of the two people at least who deserve a fair trial. he deserves a fair hearing on what happened that day.

he cannot speak for himself, but there is evidence that speaks volumes about what happened on this occasion. that evidence has to be considered such that some im partial body can make a determination as to whether or not there should be an arrest. if there is an arrest, and i believe that the evidence exists such that there is probable cause, if there is an arrest, then there can be a trial and then there can be the transparency that the united states of america produces whenever we have trials, because there will be an opportunity for all sides to present their evidence in a court of law before a jury if a jury is desired. this is the way we do things in the united states of america. regardless of his color, he deserves a fair trial. regardless of what he had on, he deserves a fair trial. and to those who say that hoodies make you a criminal, be careful because you are getting dangerously close to saying women can cause themselves to become victims. dangerously close.

be careful. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for five minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. today i want to talk about something that's very important, a great opportunity that this congress is going to lift the red tape from washington and allow the entrepreneur spirit of america to take hold. we know that three years into an economic recovery america's labor and capital markets continue unprecedented challenges, entrepreneurship is at a 17-year low. deeply troubling as we know that 40 million jobs since 1980 have been created by small businesses or start-ups. now, what's interesting about this is that this is -- those are the folks that are likely to fail when you create a small business. right? but still we have netted 40

million new jobs out of this one sector over the last 0 years. now, fixing this mess that we have seen in this recent downturn won't happen overnight and there's no silver bullet for fixing it. but we have to recognize that america has seen a world catch up. catch up to what once was the most vibrant capital market on the planet. here in the united states. and the world was caught up because they see how -- what that does in terms of job creation. so they have caught up in terms of regulation and they allow capital for more easily in other jurisdictions and around the world. according to the world bank the doing business report found the u.s. fell from third to 13th in the ease of starting new businesses. falling that quickly just in the last five years. because of dodd-frank, credit

is less available, more costly than it was before. so we have restricted opportunity for businesses to get the lending that they need. and at the same time we haven't updated our securities regulations in 80 years. no significant read or write since the 1973 securities act and 1934 securities and exchange act. they put in place restrictions that were right at the time. right. you had this new technology called the telephone. you had folks hawking securities on street corners in new york, so they wrote regulations at the time that were applicable to the time. we know that the internet is a fully mature ecosystem now. we know that billions of dollars are transacted just on east bound alone. people have an online reputation and social network they can utilize. we want to take that power and actually allow businesses to use that power of the internet and social networks.

that's why i filed and we passed, this house passed the entrepreneurial access to capital act that provides those updates so you can actually have crowd funding. what is crowd funding? crowd funding is the best of microfinancing and crowd sourcing. you use a wide network of individuals and you can raise capital for your new business, your start-up, or your 1345u8 business -- small business. so we passed that and sent it to the senate. the senate didn't do anything. they didn't act. so we repackaged the bill and put it within the jobs act. this house passed it with an overwhelming majority nearly 400 votes. we sent it to the senate and the senate changed a few small provisions. we hope to pass that bill this week and send it to the president's desk. what the legislation called the crowd funding does is remove

that restriction on communicating, which the 1933 securities act puts in place, and lifts the cap on investors that the 1934 securities act provides for. so, crowd funding is a great opportunity for small businesses to raise equity. unfortunately, the senate decided to amend a few small provisions within this crowd funding act that we are able to pass here in the house. i believe a few misguided ill informed provisions. one, expanding liability provisions for issuances of and

misguided. i would ask the senate to come around to fixing these provisions. owe think it's very important the house pass the jobs act this week so we can make it more democratic, more in touch with the market as it is today. so i ask my colleagues to vote for the jobs act and i ask the president to sign this bill so that we can help capital formation in the united states and get people working again. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, the esteemed mr. shimkus, for five minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's been a couple weeks since i have been able to come down to the floor and talk about nuclear waste. as you know through the past year i have been coming to the floor, i am chairman of the environment and economy, subcommittee we have jurisdiction over a lot of

different types of waste. one is nuclear waste. i also have come to the floor to just give a short history lesson on where we are at, where we should be, and the problems that stand in our way. in 1982 the national government passed a nuclear waste policy act. in 1987 amendments were then offered that said we need to have a long-term geological repository and that repository should be yucca mountain. so i have been going around to the country and looking at the different places where we have high-level nuclear waste. whether it's on the west coast, the state of florida, massachusetts, in the central part. today i go to the state of colorado. which has nuclear waste in the state and i want to compare it to where it should be. as a review, yucca mountain is by law defined as a place where we should put high level nuclear waste. curm there is no nuclear waste

on site, the waste would be stored 1,000 feet under ground. the way would be 1,000 feet above the water table because it's in a desert. and the waste is 100 miles from the colorado river. now compare that to the nuclear waste that is at a location called fort st. vrain. currently there are 30 million tons of uranium of spent fuel on site. the waste is stored above ground in vaults. the waste is less than 258 feet above the ground water. and the waste is one mile from the south platte river. a mile from the south platte river, 100 miles from the colorado river. so part of this debate is why haven't we moved and complied with federal law? we all know that. the senator from the state of nevada who's made it his

personal crusade to block our ability to proceed and has blocked funding for the final scientific study. so let's look at -- this whole debate has moved into the political arena, not the arena of law. and in the u.s. senate you really need 60 votes to move public policy. i have been coming down to the floor and looking at senators from states that surround colorado and see where they have either declared their position or cast votes on the national repository yucca mountain. and as you see from texas you got senator core anyone is a yes. coburn is a yes. bingeman -- bingaman is no. my two friends the udall

cousins, both tom and mark, we will check the record but i believe that they have cast a vote in the house and if not they haven't state add recent position. why is that important? because we have been tallying where the senators are. and right now we really need 60 votes to come to the conclusion, we already spent $15 billion, and we have no nuclear waste on site. right now based on our calculations we have 45 senators that would support moving of high-level nuclear waste to in. . -- to yucca mountain. we have 17 new, we don't know their position, but -- and we have 16 who have stated or have -- they have voted in the past as no. . so our challenge here is to get these senators on record and and we have had votes in the house in which we had about 300 members of this chamber, a

bipartisan vote in support of moving forward on the funding of the scientific funding to finally finish a single repository at yucca mountain. it's very important for our national security. it's very important for all the locations around. we already have 104 nuclear power plants in this country, all have nuclear waste onsite. we have nuclear waste that's involved with our defense industry. back at fort st. varn, that was supposed to be transported to idaho. litigation kept it there. if we don't move that waste then by 2035 the federal government will have to pay the state of colorado $15,000 a day until we take the responsibility that we have committed to as a national government. i appreciate this time, mr. speaker, to come down. we'll continue to get through all the u.s. senators and attempt to try to -- i get to

the magic number of 60. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the messenger: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to the house amendment to s. 2038, cited as the stop trading on congressional knowledge act of 012 of the stock act. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, for five minutes. mr. bilirakis: thank you very much. today i rise to honor and commemorate greek independence day. on march 25, 1821, archbishop raised the flag of revolution over the monastery. liberty or death, mr. speaker, became the battle cry. this day, to start the greek

independence, was not chosen by chance because it is coincidence with the greek orthodox church. it coincides with the greek orthodox church, the anunsiation of the mother of god. indeed, it is not a coincidence because the mother of god was their champion and their protector. as we all know, the price of liberty can be very high. socrates, plateo, paraclese and others throughout history warned we must maintain democracy only at great costs. our greek brothers earned their liberty with blood as did our american forefathers. the freedom we enjoy today is due to the sacrifices made by men and women in the past. like the american revolutionary s who establish --

revolutionaries who established this great democracy, greece won independence for greece and her people. they faced what appeared to be insurmountable odds. this was the 19th century davis -- david versus goliath. the revolution of 821 brought independence to greece and embolden those who still sought freedom throughout the world. it proved the world that united people through sheer will and perseverance can prevail against tyranny. the lessons the greeks taught us then continue to provide strength to victims of persecution throughout the world today. by honoring the greeks' struggle for independence, we reaffirm the values and ideas that make our nation great. i take great pride in both my greek and american heritage and each time perform my constitutional duty eats, i am doing so in the legacy of the

ancient greeks and the americans. as thomas jefferson once said to the ancient greeks, we are all indebted for the light which led ourselves out of gothic darkness. throughout the american history, greece and her people have stood as a staunch and unrelenting ally of the united states. in 1917, greece entered world war i on the side of the allies as well as when they were invaded in 1940 during world war ii. the enemy was then forced to divert troops to greece to protect its southern flank in 1941. alongside the american and allied forces, greece played an integral role in defeating the enemies. i would be remiss if i stood on the floor today and did not also paid hom a.j. to the american and greek sold --

homage to the american and greek soldiers who fought during the korean war. as many know, each night the outpost was defended by only a single company of american of greek soldiers. the chinese had anticipated an easy capture. however, they did not anticipate the resolve of our soldiers to hold it at all costs and therefore making withdrawal not an option. due to harris' defense, the enemy ultimately called off their attacks due to the heavy losses suffered. this, ladies and gentlemen, was heroic. for the first time in united states military history five rifle companies together, four american and one greek, would receive the prestigious distinguished citation for the outstanding performance of their shared mission. in expressing his sympathies with greece revolting its

ottomo -- ottoman rulers, thomas jefferson said, we don't know the sufferings like your countrymen. none offer for sincere and ardent heaven to their success. presenting ourselves the combined blessing of liberty and orator, we wish the same to other countries to -- and to none more than yours which the first civilization, civilized nations presenting examples of what man should be. i stand here before you today to commemorate the greeks who fought against oppression. i stand here before you today to celebrate that day, march 25, 1821. by doing so we reaffirm the common democratic heritage we

share, and as americans we must continue to pursue this spirit of freedom and liberty that characterizes both of these great nations. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

the senate today is working on a bill to repeal oil and gas breaks. that's under way. all of the senate on c-span 2 and the house at noon on c-span. a number two of the oral arguments on the health care law. under consideration today, the individual mandate on whether congress has the power to force people to purchase health care coverage. is it constitutional? the court convened for the second of three days in their historic arguments just after 10:00 eastern this morning. the session promises to be the first concrete look at how the nine justices view the law the president signed two years ago. the associated press reports on those attending including the attorney general eric holder, the health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius were

in the courtroom on monday for the arguments yesterday. republican senator jeff sessions and the florida attorney general yesterday as well. the court is underway. about an hour into the second day of testimony. our coverage plans, we will have coverage from the court beginning at about noon eastern on c-span3. once again, we expect the oral argumentss from today to be released around 1:00 eastern. oral arguments. that will be on c-span3. follow that on c-span.org and on c-span radio. lots more on c-span.org/ healthcare. anderday's oral arguments the transcript. and you can participate on facebook and twitter. watching some of the reporters that are reporting on the arguments today, a health policy

reporter tweets that there are much bigger crowds than yesterday and she says it's impossible to hear the tea party speakers because supporters of are yelling and we love obamacare. we have cameras on the supreme court side of capitol hill watching the gathering of protesters on all sides, as you saw this morning. so we will have a look. live coverage from capitol hill, c-span cameras are there. our coverage gets underway at noon eastern. your comments and phone calls and more. oral arguments about 1:00 this afternoon. all that on c-span.org and c-

span radio and on c-span. -- follow that. >> sorry about that. we were having a little audio trouble with the cameras.

>> [unintelligible] [crowd chanting something about obamacare]

[the sound of someone beating bongo drums]

[chanting and drumming]

[no discernible audio]

[chanting] >> some of the sights and sounds outside of the supreme court today. one of the reporters we're following, he tweets about the

argument so far. he said in his blog -- "we're halfway through the mandate argument. it is clear that the four more liberal members of the court will vote in favor of the mandate. some expressed significant skepticism. one of the reporters that we are following on twitter, more coverage coming up at noon eastern live from outside of the court. coming up after about 1:00 eastern, the court will release the same day audio of today's oral argument and we will have that for you at about 1:00 eastern. the house coming back in at noon eastern and we have a preview this morning to today's oral

argument on today's "washington journal." session was's devoted to a technical issue about whether the court can rule on the constitutionality of the affordable care act. the judiciary is limited by the constitution in what it can rule on, what it can deal with. in this case, there is a law that congress passed that

limits the court's jurisdiction to rule on taxes and the challenge to taxes. this is a convoluted way of saying it but i talked to two irs commissioners who said that this is a very important law. if you are going to have an orderly amount of taxes, you cannot have people going to court to challenge the law before they pay their taxes. otherwise, people can delay paying taxes for a week or a year and they will do it, they will go to court. how does that apply to this case? the affordable care act requires individuals to buy health insurance and if they don't, there is a penalty and the penalty is paid through your income taxes.

i think that we both come away with thinking that the court does not view this as a bar or a prohibition for them ruling on the merits of the case. host: that was the consensus? guest: i think so. in some ways, it was a nice portal of what will be three days of sometimes over heated shouting. to spend 90 minutes on the first day on this 19th century tax law that creates a bar for the court. a very technical discussion.

this is the court doing what the court does best, reading the statute, grappling with the text, and really soul-searching on whether or not this is the moment for the court to dive into this case. i agree with tony. i agree with almost everyone in there. more importantly, this cannot be a bar to the court's really getting to the merits, which they will do today. host: let's listen to a couple of the justices. here is justice breyer, talking with the court-appointed attorney, robert long. [audio clip] >> congress has no real used the word "tax." it says penalty. this is not in the internal revenue code, but for purposes of collection.

why is this a tax? >> there are penalties in the internal revenue code that you really could not say are related in any close way to some other tax provision. there is a penalty discussed in the briefs for selling diesel fuel that does not comply with epa's regulations. there are all kinds of penalties in the code. host: tony mauro, what did you hear from that exchange? guest: it's sort of a semantic debate. walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. they might not have used the word "tax," but it is a tax. in the early part of this, the obama administration wanted these challenges to go away, so they viewed it as a tax. then they decided the word "tax" was not very appealing. that's why the court appointed of bob long.

host: is that unprecedented? guest: that usually happens. you do reach out and appoint someone. i think bob long did a masterful job. also, the severability issue. in many ways, both parties agree on critical issues. the court, again, has to reach out and asked someone to argue it. in the clip you just played, it really does show the way in which the obama administration has had to take this type of position, where they have to toggle between calling this a tax and a penalty, depending on which argument they are making.

host: i want to show the exchange between justice samuel alito and the attorney, donald verrilli on this. [audio clip] >> today you are arguing the penalty is not a tax. tomorrow you'll be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. has the court ever held that something that is a tax under the constitution is not a tax under the anti-injunction act? >> no, but the court has held that something can be -- the nature of the inquiry that we will conduct tomorrow is different from the in nature of the inquiry we will conduct today.

host: was that satisfactory to justice alito? guest: the solicitor general's answer was plausible. it does not say the word tax. for tomorrows purposes, it does matter. i do think it goes back and forth to what tony says. there was a real political resistance to calling this a tax. that's having a real, absolutely substantial legal implications in the case. host: some are saying today is the big day. yesterday was technical. today is the super bowl for nerds, as i've heard some people say.

on capitol hill, people are up there already. they have lined up to get inside. people are protesting outside, opposed, and in support of this legislation. tony mauro, set up today. guest: today is the big argument. as one of the lawyers is challenging the law said, this is the heart of the law, the individual mandate, the requirement that every american, with some exceptions, must buy a minimum level of health insurance or else pay a penalty. the purpose of that was to sort of broaden the base of revenues

so insurance companies will have some money coming in to pay for the other benefits of the law. without this heart and soul of the law -- the debate tomorrow will be whether the law can survive at all. the issue here is whether this requirement to buy insurance is constitutional under the enumerated powers of congress. the commerce clause power, the power to regulate commerce, the opponents of this law say this is not commerce. a decision not to buy insurance say you are not entering commerce. how could congress regulate it? there's also the taxing power, which we were mentioning. the government has said it has the power to enact this kind of law based on that, and also on the necessary and proper clause, which is sort of a catchall phrase in the constitution that says congress can enact laws that are necessary and proper to enact all the other duties.

the administration has a number of justifications for this law. each one of them probably will be discussed at some length today. host: we will be airing the oral arguments at 1:00 p.m. eastern time, around the time the court releases them to the public. you will be able to tune into c- span3 to listen to what the justices had to say about the individual mandate, and also c- span radio, and c-span.org. on the individual mandate, there are a lot of partisan opinions about this. new's another poll in "the york times" today showing how the american people break down on the issue of the individual mandate. further down on the poll, when

it comes to requiring all americans to have health insurance coverage by 2014, 51% disapprove. 45% approve. when you look at other parts of the law -- overwhelmingly popular. pre-existing conditions, children to stay on the current policies, offering discounts. those are more than 50%. people like those parts of the bill. this is politico this morning on the individual mandate. "it will not affect most americans. the fight has been so loud that people think it will hit everyone." the health reform law has some exemptions --

host: let's get to phone calls here. people are waiting to talk to you two about what is up for today and what happened yesterday. ralph, democratic caller in michigan. go ahead. caller: yes, i wanted to talk about the history of the individual mandate. apparently, it was a republican idea. it was used in the romneycare in massachusetts. newt gingrich supported it in 1993. i am mystified about the huge outcry against what i would call in incremental change in the health care system from the right wing. would romneycare then be unconstitutional? would requiring buying a car insurance be unconstitutional? is there a federal law requiring hospitals to treat indigents? is there a federal law?

guest: i will start. certainly, it is in disputed that this was originally a conservative idea. it came out of the heritage foundation. a came as a response to hillarycare. there was a response that if we're going to have this socialized medicine system, let's have a republican alternative that is market-based that asks people to buy insurance. the genesis of this idea was conservative. i think it is also true that people like chuck grassley, who used to say this is a great idea, this anti-free-rider idea. hospitals are not allowed to turn you away. you really are subsidizing the

uninsured. that was the idea. now senator grassley's response is that it is unconstitutional. states are allowed to do a lot of things the federal government is not allowed to do. you cannot quite make the analogy that romneycare is unconstitutional if obamacare is unconstitutional. in principle, you are right. romneycare is a much beloved in massachusetts. host: here is the front page of "roll call" this morning showing rick santorum. he held a news conference on capitol hill to talk about this legislation, the health-care law, and he also said this is like romneycare, and taking a political stab at his opponent.

we covered this news conference. if your interested in watching the whole thing, go to c- span.org. tony mauro, do you want to add? guest: it is remarkable that something that was viewed as constitutional and necessary has turned into something that is evil. something has happened in the last years. host: isn't there an argument there from the right to say we do not want the government telling us we have to buy something that we do not want to have to buy? guest: there is certainly some merit of that. the government wants us to do a lot of things. they want us to be eligible for jury duty.

we have to register for the draft. things like that. the obama administration has said health care is a huge national problem. in order to attack it, you have to have a number of strategies. one of them is to require a broad revenue base. host: it comes down to the commerce clause and whether or not you can force americans to buy a commercial product. will we hear the word "broccoli" today? guest: this case is about slippery slopes. at the end of the day, this case has been constructed not just on a bad idea to force people to buy health insurance. as tony says, there's good reason for that. the whole case is based upon the idea that if you can for

somebody to do x, you can force them to do y. this gets a huge amount of traction. even judges say, if we sign off on the proposition, well, forcing people to eat broccoli -- clearly the government will be able to force you to eat broccoli and kale and vegetables will take over. this argument has had an enormous amount of popular support. you may not hear the word "broccoli," but you will hear the argument that there is no limit. that is really the heart, i think, of the objection. it's not just about obamacare. it is about what comes next. host: senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and others plan to hold a news conference today at 1:30 and we will have coverage of that.

go to c-span.org. here is monty on twitter today. gary is next. republican in detroit. good morning. caller: good morning. i am getting quite confused about this health care. i have to buy a car insurance. i need automobile insurance. i understand the reason for that, because uninsured accidents could destroy my family. i do not see the difference in health insurance. if you are sick or you get tired -- host: this is a thread we heard all throughout the day yesterday on "washington

journal." already, the first two phone calls bring up the issue of auto insurance. tony mauro? guest: as dahlia said, states can do things that the federal government cannot do. a number of states require auto insurance. it is not a federal constitutional issue. it's one of the mysteries of the federalist system, why states can do certain things. it is the result of the constitution. host: it is not a federal mandate that you have to of all insurance. this comes back to the commerce clause. can the congress regulate interstate commerce across state lines? guest: that has also become sort of a catchall provision of the constitution. congress passes a lot of laws

and cites the commerce clause as a justification. sometimes, it is a stretch. certainly, the challengers to the law think it is a stretch here. certainly, there's a way to distinguish requiring people to eat broccoli or to buy american cars. the argument is that everybody at some point is going to need health care, and that a decision not to buy health insurance is an economic commercial decision. you are basically postponing your participation. host: and having other americans pay for it. monica, independent, miami. go ahead. caller: i think the car insurance was a great example. it is not a mandate. the whole thing behind the -- i can understand the republicans fight and some democrats.

the mandate. telling somebody they have to do this. if you do not do this, there's a penalty. you will run into all kinds of problems with people proving i was a dirt-poor, so there's no way for me to get this insurance. there will be a whole bunch of confusion, even with the taxes. for them to say they are trying to determine whether its a tax or not, if it's not clear, the supreme court has the right to step in on this matter. i think it's leading to bigger government. i am an african-american independent. i do agree that this is leading to bigger government. you open the door to this. you are going to open it to other things. host: when will we find out? guest: typically, everyone says we will hear by the last week of june. i find it hard to imagine how

they will get this out by the last week of june. that's what everyone is saying. yesterday, if there had been some possibility the court was going to take the anti- injunction act seriously, and the could not even hear the case until 2015, i think this would be an easy one. it looks like this one will not go that way. the court's going to get to the merits. we will see a big opinion by the end of june. host: today, the individual mandate. tomorrow this issue of -- if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, does that and validate the rest of the law. also, they talk about medicaid expansion. on friday, the nine justices gather in a conference room. just the nine of them. no clerks or anybody else in the room. what do they do, dahlia?

guest: this is a great moment. they are so cloister's that the most junior justice has to open the door when someone knocks. just nine of them will talk about the case for the first time. they will discuss what they've just experienced, their initial impressions. the chief justice will take a straw poll. i think they will probably go through that issue by issue on this case. where are you on the medicaid issue? where are you on severability? then there will be a tentative -- here is what the wind feels like. i should be very clear. we will never know anything until the decision comes down and we read the last paragraph. host: ben in ohio with an e- mail.

host: this brings up our previous caller who talked about the history of the individual mandate. there's a story in "the washington post" this morning. if you have not heard about this, it's something the two reporters talked about here. that is "the washington post" this morning. ben in turlock, california. caller: i may not be as knowledgeable as you 3. they do this on purpose to keep this complicated. you need to be really, really informed on what's going on with it before you can come up with a conclusion.

it is part of a destabilization. even the guy sitting there with you and the lady -- all the people talking about auto insurance. auto insurance is not the doctor who will cut you open. there's a big difference between mandates army having to register -- mandates on me having to register. host: you're arguing this has a better impact on millions of americans lives and their

pocketbooks? caller: yes. it is a little step to a host: that brings up the passion on both sides, tony mauro. are the justices aware of what's going on outside the courtroom yesterday and today? talk about that. guest: it really was remarkable. there were hundreds of protesters on both sides. the supreme court, there are demonstrations routinely out there. it is usually off to the side place in washington. of don't often see a lot passion expressed about issues in the supreme court. it reminded me almost of bush versus gore in 2000, where there were huge demonstrations.

as to whether the justices pay attention, they are not immune. they read the papers. most of them do. justice thomas says he doesn't. most of them do. they are aware of what is going on. it is interesting. the demonstrations have to occur on the sidewalk. they cannot be on the marble plaza. there's a federal law prohibiting demonstrations on court property. the court did not want to be viewed as an institution that could be lobbied or swayed by public sentiment. it has been sort of memorialized in the law, the idea that the court is not prone to politics. host: it is interesting that there is a law about that. if u.s. americans if the supreme court is influenced by politics, 80% of respondents

said yes. let's go to illinois. john, democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning. two questions. one is more geared to the guests that you have. it is a legal issue. a lot of people are calling in and talking about this not being a good idea. i hope you can address how archean the arguments can be. -- arcane. my second issue -- everyone knows there's a lot of hypocrisy involved. exactly how much is involved? you talk about the history of this bill.

in 1992, when clinton first tried to do his health care, the republican response to that -- when he wanted to force employers to cover everybody, their response was the individual mandate. this was about free market. you have to go out and you have to buy your own insurance. the people behind that, some of those are the same republicans who are willing to support arguments at the supreme court who say this is unconstitutional. the guy who called in about lenin and socialism -- the leaders of his party were a sponsor of the individual mandate. one more thing. i am almost done. not only were those people sponsors, gingrich was in support of this. host: dahlia, if i could have to take the first part of that. the justices are not going to say one way or another about the individual mandate.

what are they going to be talking about? guest: they are going to look at the commerce clause. it says to regulate between the states. economic activity. these are words. they mean something. there's a box. the box says this is within congress' commerce clause powers. wickard v. filburn. congress can regulate a former growing wheat. the more recent 1990's cases about the gun-free school zones act and the violence against women act. the court struck close down. -- struck those down. i think he is quite right. this seems archaen. -- arcane.

this is a simple job. the kids could do this. does this fit inside the box or outside the box when it comes to the power of the government? host: let's talk about what the justices might say. we are showing our viewers the cops that have the tickets to get in for those waiting in line. how many seats are there for the public? guest: 400 total. guest: i think there are about 150 for the public. host: yesterday, there were 1 20 for the public and 35 three two four minute seats rotating. 76 bar member seats. an overflow room, as well. 42. those who get a ticket this morning will be some of the

lucky few. we also heard yesterday about the militia act. tony mauro, can you talk more about that? guest: i think we will hear more about that today. this is the law that george washington signed into law that required people to buy firearms for self protection. the obama administration has latched onto this case as proof that congress can force you to buy something for the greater good. whether that is a meaningful precedent or not, i'm not sure. it is a bit of a stretch. the decisions dahlia was mentioning have sort of superceded that in terms of

defining what the commerce clause power is. host: dahlia, i want to talk about which justices to listen to today and of those justices, who might be the fifth or the six vote either in favor or against. guest: i am so glad you asked that. i think we have become sloppy in this country. everyone assumes this is a 4-4 court and justice kennedy in the middle. there's a possibility that going on. i think there are things that are much more interesting. one is justice scalia, the court's rock-ribbed republican. he is one of the most conservative justices. he has written extensively about the commerce clause about medical marijuana. this is somebody growing marijuana in her kitchen garden to relieve pain.

the court said no, the government can regulate this within the commerce clause power because it has implications for interstate commerce. justice scalia has written that that's ok. the other important person is chief justice john roberts, who has also written quite extensively about the power to regulate in that case for the federal government to regulate dangerous sex offenders. we do not have a history of all the conservatives writing that the commerce clause should be extreme circumstances. the last couple of decades, since the 1940's, even the conservatives have come to accept a pretty broad reading of the commerce clause. it's not just kennedy we want to watch today. it is scalia and the chief justice. host: "known for strict interpretation.

john roberts took the seat in 2005. the former reagan and bush administration official has linked his role to that of a baseball umpire." tony mauro, go ahead. guest: dahlia was right to mention these other justices who might not be as predictable as you think. i think chief justice roberts is very aware of holes like the one you mentioned that suggest the public thinks it's an entirely political process. he would factor that into his considerations and say we should not just vote on political lines. we should not be that predictable. i think we might see an interesting combination of justices on both sides. host: here is an e-mail from

d.w. in seattle. he said yesterday was a pretty interesting proceeding. host: laura, a republican in tampa, florida. good morning. thank you for waiting. go ahead. caller: good morning. i work with insurance every day and people needing insurance, needing authorizations. it breaks my heart. two years ago, my premiums doubled. this year, i do not know how much [inaudible] -- how much they went up. the out-of-pocket expenses go from $10,000 -- people cannot

afford that. even if they have insurance. it doesn't help them as much as it should. host: you are in favor of this law? caller: no. host: i miss something there. -- missed. caller: it has already affected everyone. between the premiums and the insurance companies running away with the cost and out-of- pocket expenses double and triple -- you know, people cannot afford that. they have discount plans that only covers $200 per day for a hospital stay. the rest is patient responsibility. it is horrible. host: frank, an independent. caller: thank you for the opportunity. as a society, we have to begin thinking about whether or not it is appropriate to make a profit off of getting sick people well. that's what it comes down to.

i used to think this was a pretty clear-cut issue, that it would be declared unconstitutional. the longer a study it, the less sure i am. -- the longer i study it. host: frank, let me jump in there. the longer you study it, the less likely -- why? can you pinpoint one issue? caller: i think the congress does have that broad authority. i really think they do. i really do think the commerce clause is going to allow congress to do this. i did not think so before, but i think so now. maybe it would be great to hear from them about that. i also want to ask them if they don't think this is a beautiful, textbook, almost shakespearean example that the to determine the end. isn't it a shame congress did not create a system we could buy into?

now we pay almost $11,000 per year for insurance. i would rather buy into medicare. it would be a better program, i would get a better value for my dollar. host: frank, you might be interested in this poll by purple insights. they surveyed previous supreme court clerks -- people who have already left the court. of those that responded, 65% thought this law will be deemed constitutional by the court, and 35% unconstitutional. dahlia? guest: the american coubar association took a different poll. 85% said it would be upheld.

if i could respond to frank, one of the things he points out that is worth thinking about -- we look at this very historically. it is true, absolutely. a huge, landmark law -- the likes of which we have not seen in this country. there was the minimum wage law. when congress passed social security, there was a sky is falling feeling. simply because it is big and dramatic -- it had to be big. it had to be that elaborate in order to fix the problems we all acknowledge. every time that's ever happened in this country's history, the response has been -- this is making me very nervous, therefore it is unconstitutional. host: the public getting

escorted tour of the door. 10:00 a.m. is the start time for today's debate. bob, democratic caller in dallas, tx. caller: good morning. hello. the broccoli comparison. i doubt the broccoli-growing industry would oppose that. i find it interesting that the insurance industry opposes something that requires people to buy their product. i do not understand it. and what i found interesting was this whole issue of standing, whether the court has the right or the ability to even hear this case. justice kagan brought up a scenario where a poor person who is required by the legislation to have insurance, but is excluded by the same in

legislation later on from the penalty. would that person have standing? it kind of sent the attorney into a tailspin. who has been penalized at this point? if someone pays it or does not pay it -- who is injured? host: bob, let me throw that to tony mauro. guest: that's a very good point and some people have said that's one of the reasons it is an important jurisdictional issue. normally, the court does not rule on things prospectively. they wait for a case or controversy. there has to be some injury. the point that some people make is that no individual has been injured get by the individual mandate for the penalty.

there are several plaintiffs who claimed they do not want to buy health insurance or that they are saving up money to buy health insurance. in that sense, they have already been injured. that seems a little thin. also, states have challenged the law, as well. they claim they are already incurring more cost as a result of the new law. host: we're taking your phone calls, your tweets, and your e- mail. this one is from doug. don, a republican in fort wayne, indiana. good morning. caller: i am opposed to this. we've been retired some time. our former employer supplied us. we are on medicare. supplied us with a supplemental

insurance policy to help cover some of the overruns that is not paid. if i am forced to pay this amount of dollar to buy an insurance policy through the government, well, i could see my company that i left and retired from probably dropping my supplemental insurance. it is going to happen all over the country. host: don, let me get your response to this story in "the new york times" today.

host: what do you think, don? even as the federal government does not, some states are looking at doing this themselves. caller: i have to cross that bridge when i come to it. another thing, too -- is the premium or the amount of insurance that sometimes families have 10 people and somebody else has four. every individual, man, woman, and child will be placed on this policy. how much will it cost per person? is everyone going to pay the same price. host: are two reporters here are supreme court experts. tomorrow, we will be joined by a health care reporter to answer those types of questions.

go ahead. guest: unless i'm really mistaken, if you are on medicare already, you do not have to buy an additional insurance policy. the individual mandate only applies to people who are not already insured. host: massachusetts, lee, an independent. go ahead. caller: i am wondering how the commerce clause applies. health insurance is internal to the state. you cannot buy health insurance outside of your state. i don't know how this applies to a mandate governing interstate commerce. host: dahlia lithwick, have you heard that? guest: i am not sure i understand the question. i think this was another way the law tried to empower states. this law was trying to be

market-based and make everybody happy. this was a way to give states power so they did not feel stripped of their authority. it's another way in which it seems to have created more of a backlash than not. guest: i think it is true that states generally are the ones that regulate the insurance industry. certainly, there are national health insurance plans. my plan at work is based in connecticut. i live in virginia. i'd think it would be hard to claim it's not an interstate commerce type of transaction. host: dave on twitter. "if obamacare is constitutional, what happened to the power of limited government?" anne, a democrat in fresno, california. good morning. caller: i have a few things to say.

first, with the penalty -- people are confused thinking it is a tax only because it's processed through the irs. it has nothing to do with your taxes. this is just a penalty where they collect the money, just like they do for back child support payments and things like that. they take it away from your refund. host: dahlia, is that something that robert long argued yesterday? guest: had the obama administration called this a tax from the get go, we would not be having a lot of the constitutional fights we're having now. it gets a lot easier. they did not call it a tax because nobody likes any law that says, "we are going to tax you."

this was a political decision. her question is a good one, which is, how is the court going to think about this? that was the predicate for yesterday's argument. it will be a big part of today's argument. it really does go back to the walks like a duck question. what matters more, that it is labeled a tax? host: tony mauro, what about the aspects of whether or not this is a revenue- raising penalty. was that its intention? guest: i do not think that was its intention. this was raised yesterday. the congressional budget office has estimated that this penalty, once it is up and running, will generate as much as $5 billion per year, which is not insignificant. it is intended as a penalty and not intended to raise revenue. host: if this sounds more

interesting than you thought it would yesterday, you can go to our website, c-span.org, and we have the oral arguments right there from yesterday's proceedings. you can listen in to what the justices and the lawyers responding had to say. maverick on twitter. baltimore, frank, a republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask a question. justice scalia -- there was talk about him being objective and ruled against the marijuana woman in the case in california or something like that. host: it was gonzales versus raich in 2005.

go ahead, frank. caller: are they so political that we can expect them to always vote for president obama's position? host: let's have tony mauro take that one. guest: that's a good question. that's why some people thought justice kagan should recuse herself from this case because she was solicitor general when this law was enacted and the strategy was being developed. some of the justices are more predictable on this case than some of the others that dahlia mentioned. whether that means they are all in lockstep or following the orders of the obama

administration, i do not think so. i do think it is -- i think those four liberal justices, breyer, ginsberg, kagan, and sotomayor are pretty certain to vote in favor of the law. guest: i think it's fair to say in this particular case, the only justices of the nine who is really on the record saying that he agrees with the kinds of arguments that are being made here, the kinds of commerce clause arguments that would return us to the 1940's and the pre-new deal court is clarence thomas. two years ago, i would have said the only justice who would have supported striking down a mandate on this very novel idea that we want to set the clock back and really unwind the view

of the commerce clause, the only person i would have said it would support that would bea clarence thomas. it is fair to say the other eight are theoretically in play. host: clarence thomas, nominated by george h.w. bush, took the seat in 1991. his wife is active in conservative cases. ses.au detroit, don, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: looking at this, i wonder if i've awakened to some orwellian government. -- nightmare. it's hard to believe the government will force me to buy insurance or else. insurance companies, who in my opinion are kind of criminal, because they deny health care at every opportunity and they raise premiums every chance they get. so i will be forced to do

business with companies whose practices i disagree with in principle. this is really amazing to me. there's going to be trouble. i can promise you that. host: you are calling on the line for democrats. caller: i am a democrat. i voted for obama. four years ago, i supported hillary, which raise a lot of eyebrows. i still supported her. i'm not one to vote for obama. i'm going to sit out or vote for a republican in spite of what's going on. host: will this issue bring you to the polls to vote for someone other than president obama? caller: what will bring me to the polls? host: this health care law, are you passionate enough against it that you will vote for a republican in 2012? caller: i will. i think i got hoodwinked when i voted for obama. he has been a stealth republican as far as i can tell.

there's not much difference between him and bush. this is something republicans would never do. i do not support republicans. i'm against bush and all that nonsense with though wars. -- with the laws. this is something republicans would never try to push on. host: don, a couple callers have brought up that republicans came up with the idea of the individual mandate. if you're interested in that, "the washington post" has a story today. if you are interested in finding out the history of this a little bit, you can read that "the washington post" story. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we expect oral arguments to

released around 1:00 eastern. about no hardat questions from the right. you'll hear it at 1:00 eastern on c-span3. the u.s. house is coming in next. they will take up a bill that will make it easier for small businesses to raise capital. later, a bill changing the process for the federal communications commission. live coverage of the house now on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray

loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day. bless the members of the people's house. help them to think clearly, speak confidently, and act courageously in the belief that all noble service is based upon patience, truth, and love. may these decisive days through which we are living make them genuine enough to maintain their integrity, great enough to be humble, and good enough to keep their faith always regarding public office. as a sacred trust. give them the wisdom and the courage to fail not their fellow citizens nor you.

and may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. mr. mchenry: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? the gentleman asks unanimous consent -- mr. mchenry: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents in western north carolina and my neighbors

and i are really upset about what's happening at the price of gasoline at the pumps. what we see out of this administration and what we see out of some extreme environmentalists is an unwillingness to tap our natural resources to relieve the price at the pumps today. we have seen out of this administration solyndra. we have seen scandal after scandal with this green energy policy lending coming out of the stimulus from a couple years ago and out of liberal policies in washington. what my constituents want to see is real exploration so we can lower the price at the pumps. that's what we deserve and that's an action i ask this administration to take. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. baca: madam speaker, here we go again.

this week the house will vote on yet another republican plan to end medicare as we know it. the american seniors have given a lifetime of service to our nation. they deserve better than to be left out in the cold. if it becomes law, the republican budget will lend medicare guarantee a secure health coverage for our seniors and replace medicare with a voucher system that will give our seniors a premium support payment. even worse, the republican budget gives big tax breaks to millionaires, billion yars, and big oil companies. our economists agree the republican plan will destroy 4.1 million american jobs by the end of 2014. last year the american people weren't fooled by the dangerous and house republican budget. if we don't work for the first time it's not going to work this time. let us work together, and i statelet us work together in a bipartisan budget that does not favor the simple rich over

seniors and the middle class. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today to discuss the budget. contrasting the republican plan which would strengthen and extend medicare and the president's plan that would actually maybe allow medicare to go bankrupt only two years later than it would otherwise. one particular provision in the president's budget, a cut in reimbursements to access to hospitals would endanger access to nearby hospital care for millions of seniors, including those served by the 48 critical access facilities in nebraska's third district. however the republican budget provides an alternative which ensures access to coir without relying on arbitrary cuts. our plan would also focus federal support, future federal support on the sick and poor while ensuring no change for those at or near retirement. madam speaker, inaction now

will only guarantee medicare is more problematic in future years. we must act now to ensure it remains solvent for those who depend on it most. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise to express my deep concerns about the postal service's facility closure process. mr. higgins: testimony at a recrept postal regulatory commission hearing brought to light details of a study kept secret because the projected billions of dollars in losses despite facility closures. it would also reveal mail volume would take a huge hit due to service standard changes. if the postal service has no plans to change its course, further proof that the postal service is operating under an ill-conceived decide now, justify later strategy. the buffalo processing facility recently developed a training session for postal employees that is now the template for a

national model. this facility is scheduled for closing. it doesn't make sense. my colleague, gerry connolly, is asking the postal service to release the poll results from this study and i agree. we should not and cannot stand by and watch these facilities close without taking all facts into account. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. rerned my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, prom's job killing e.p.a. is at it again. last year the e.p.a. proposed a rule on al lloyd's production that would close down the last two manganese al lloyd facilities in america costing over 500 direct american jobs and thousands of indirect jobs. mr. johnson: one of the facilities is in my hometown of mare yet, ohio. these allies are vital components to the -- alloys are a vital componen tote steel

industry. the proposed e.p.a. rule would require scientifically unproven and costly process controls to be installed on the two -- on the two facilities and the e.p.a. has ignored the warnings that if the proposed rule is finalized it will not be economically feasible for these plants to continue to operate. furthermore, if this rule is finalized, american steel companies will be poresed to import this vital raw material from china or other foreign sources. tailed i will begin work with my house colleagues to ensure e.p.a. does to the go forward with job killing rule w that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? >> yes, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to bring an important concern to my colleagues. every one of us here is a sacred commitment to care for those warriors willing to serve us overseas. one of our major concerns is

making sure they are employed when they return back home. what's alarming is the department of defense recently issued a change in their policy that will undermine our ability to do that. i'm referring to the department of defense post deployment mobilization respite account. this important policy is designed to give our brave warriors sufficient time to transition back into the private sector. pdmra is an important tool that gives them that opportunity. the change by the d.o.d. reduces the number of paid transition days that were promised to our men and women after they deploy to the war zone. halfway through for many of them their third or fourth deployments now taking that back when their plans were set this spring when they returned home. while they are in iraq and afghanistan, that is certainly not the right thing to do. every single one of us wants to balance the budget and must focus on that. simply not on the backs of veterans and warriors serving this nation. i ask my colleagues to join me in asking the department of defense to reverse course on this policy, higher -- hire our veterans and keep our moral commitment to them.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognize dr. gerald sveum, president of williams baptist college in arkansas. for 48 years he has announced his retirement after 48 years. he will no longer be on campus every day, his influence will be felt. he started his career as a professor of history government and economics. in 1973 became academic dean of the college and held the titles of vice president for executive affairs. in 1995 he agreed to become the fifth president of williams baptist, a role he's filled since that time. he's stepping down after presiding over a transformation of the campus. either every building of the campus or has been constructed or ren nated under dr. sveum. it has expanded its official and reputation. it broke into the top tier of

"u.s. news and world report" rankings and climbed again this year. we honor him for his 48 years of service to williams baptist college and the countless lives he's changed. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. butterfield: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: madam speaker, the republican budget cuts at least $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over the next 10 years while it increases the defense budget. it reduces taxes to a level that will wreak havoc on the federal treasury. the rate of poverty is at its highest level in nearly 30 years. the republican budget would increase poverty and exponentially raise the misery index for hardworking american families of the the ryan budget also wreaks havoc on seniors. the american people must know this republican budget which has been endorsed by all three republican presidential candidates, will end medicare as we know it. their plan is to get the federal government out of the medicare program. republicans simply want to

provide seniors a small voucher to purchase medicare insurance on the private market. most seniors will not have the money to do that. the ryan budget shows medicaid cuts of $810 billion. they want to get the federal government out of the medical assistance program to low-income families and place that burden on states with an underfunded mandate. madam speaker, the ryan budget is absolutely shameful and misleading. house democrats will fight it to the end. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. ms. kaptur: thank you. madam speaker, ones again republicans in the house have put forward a budget that ends medicare as we know it. this is an all-out republican assault on medicare and our nation's middle class. who benefits from this republican budget? millionaires certainly do. think wall street bonus boys. this republican budget would give them an additional tax cut of $187,000.

that's for starters. yet lower and middle class americans, people making $20,000 to $30,000 a year, they get no tax cut at all this. republican budget also gives away $3 trillion in tax cuts to corporations. republicans real priorities? cutting the safety net, ignoring the damage to the deficit. the republicans would end the promise of medicare for both current and future beneficiaries by shifting the program to private insurance financed by vouchers. the nop partisan congressional budget office says says the republican budget would reduce benefits to seniors and force many to spend much more than they do today. why are the republicans so intent on making seniors sacrifice first? why not call back wall street bonuses? i urge my colleagues to vote against the republican budget, support the democratic alternative. protect seniors and our middle class. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. sires: to address the house

for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: madam speaker, on march 17 the world lost a great spiritual leader. his holiness. i rise today to join the millions of coptic christians in mourning his death. this past sun st. mary's catholic church held a very moving memorial for the pope. an estimated 1,000 mourners gathered in the cathedral while thousands more listened to the service in nearby rooms. there was an outpouring of grief from people of all faiths. leaders from many religious and secretaries were in attendance to pay homage to the pope, including his grace, bishop david, the bishop of the arch diecies of north america. as we mourn the loss of a great leader, we remember and embrace all that the pope has done for the coptic community in egypt and around the world. the beloved leader of the coptic christian church has provided immeasurable contributions to further

promote tolerance and interfaith dialect in egypt and how communities of different faith can live in harmony. as egypt continues its transition, egyptian leaders must work to uphold the rights of all religious people and discrimination. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hanabusa: madam speaker, i local paper this morning and read something that said the affordable care act is known as obamacare. at first i cringed because that's the way republicans refer to it. you're absolutely right. obama cares. that's why we have that law. think about what he looked at in wait and 2009. there were 50 million people -- in 2008 and 2009. there were 50 million people uninsured. that could bankrupt any family.

but with the affordable care act, think what you have. women no longer have to be worried about being discriminated against a pre-existing condition. seniors don't have to worry. they will have preventive care and they will close the doughnut hole. small business can avail themselves of tax credits. yes, madam speaker, obama cares as do the democrats. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman seek to -- seek unanimous consent? the gentleman is recognized. >> i ask my colleagues to support pro-growth economic policies that will help americans get back to work. mr. yoder: many americans are struggling to pay for their bills and provide for their families. unfortunately, many of the policies coming out of the washington in the past years have prolonged our economic

stability. with small businesses creating two out of every three jobs in this country, we need to support policies that eliminate costly regulations and open up new avenues for access to capital. that's why i'm happy to support the jobs act. this bipartisan legislation will help new business formation, open up access to capital and help businesses create jobs. madam speaker, let's work together in a bipartisan fashion, on the jobs act and other legislation, and let's help put americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. johnson: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to the ryan republican budget that will end medicare as we know it. reminiscent of last year, the republican budget provides tax breaks for the millionaires and billionaires while ending the medicare guarantees for our

seniors, sticking them with the bill for rising health care costs. the proposals in the republican budget lack balance and jeopardize the health and economic security of our nation's seniors. the 300,000 texas seniors who have saved almost $200 million on prescription drug costs since the affordable care act was signed into law will be forced back into the prescription drug doughnut hole. i urge my republican colleagues to end this attack on our seniors as they have already been through enough and we have given the rich too much leeway while the middle class and poor pay for the bills. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: i see $2 trillion to

$3 trillion, tax cuts during a time of war, something unprecedented in this country's history. and now we're seeing more of the same. a republican budget that would increase spending on defense despite the fact we spend more than every other country combined on defense that would provide tax cuts to the very wealthiest in this country. the office of management and budget estimates that millionaires will see $150,000 in tax cuts with this budget. so who pays? anybody who relice on medical research for a cure or to stay healthy will pay. our education will pay. pell grants and head start for poor children to get educated will be gutted. medicare will pay. medicaid will pay. in my district where highways and railways are critical, investment in those things will be gutted. we all pay if this budget becomes law. i urge, implore my colleagues to reject the republican budget

and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. yarmuth: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yarmuth: madam speaker, a recent analysis of american tax revenues revealed that in 2010 as our country was recovering from the great recession, 93% of new income went to the top 1% of earners. that's $288 billion more exclusively for the 1%. i'm sure my friends across the aisle were outraged that 7% could go to waste on the other 99% of american families. their solution? the republican 1% budget. a gift basket for millionaires and billionaires. inside is a permanent extension of the bush tax cuts which have created an income gap in this country on par with cam

of at least.

i have seen larger numbers. $150,000 in 2014. our seniors deserve better. i look forward to a real bipartisan effort to preserve the promise of medicare for future generations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> permission to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lewis: madam speaker, again this year the republican budget would end medicare's guarantee to our seniors. the republican budget takes aim at the very heart of our moral obligation to our seniors. medicare has been both a blessing and a life line for our seniors and disabled. our seniors have worked a lifetime to make our country great and we will not break our promise that medicare would be there for them in their retirement. medicare is at the core of our social compact, is at the heart of what has made our nation

strong. we must not turn medicare into a voucher program. we will not, we must not balance our budget on the backs of our seniors. with that, madam speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the bipartisan senate passed highway transportation re-authorization bill, we all know that in this global economic -- global economy we we now live, in order to truly be competitive we need to have a 21-z century infrastructure to match a 21st century economy, but we are not there. our nation right now is facing a fragile economic recovery. knows that we are -- nowhere is

that more apparent than rhode island which has an unemployment rate of 11%. map 21 will help rebuild america's economy on a stronger foundation. it will provide finance to critical highway and transit projects in support of two million jobs, 9,000 of them right in my home state of rhode island. it could result in additional job loss, threaten our economic recovery, and countless families. the senate has done its job. it's time for the house to do the same. let's bring map 21 to a vote and move forward on a path to rebuilding our roads, communities, and economy. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island yields back his time. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. high pressure system the clerk

received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 27, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. that the senate agreed to without amendment house concurrent resolution 108, appointments, u.s. commission on international religious freedom. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of lule 20 -- much rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later today. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek

recognition? mr. bachus: i move to suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment to h.r. 3606. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3606, an act to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. senate amendment. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to add any extraneous material on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bachus: thank you. madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the jobs act and i urge the house to approve this bill today so that we can send it to the president for his immediate signature. and the president has indicated

that he strongly supports the legislation. the jobs act is a victory for unemployed americans who are literally crying out for jobs. it is a victory for small companies and for entrepreneurs who want washington to reduce the red tape that stifles innovation, economic growth, and job creation. the jobs act will do exactly what its title says, jump-start our economy by creating new job opportunities for america's start-up companies and small businesses. i ask unanimous consent that i introduce into the record some statistics on the number of jobs created by new companies. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bachus: thank you. as chairman of the financial services committee, i'm proud that the jobs act is comprised

of six pieces of legislation that originated in our committee and received overwhelming bipartisan support. in fact, managing this bill for the minority is the gentleman from connecticut who was the sponsor of one of those six bills, and i commend mr. himes for his work on all of these bills. the jobs act is proof that republicans and democrats can come together and find common ground, work together, and offer legislation that will help small businesses. small businesses are the growth engine of our economy. a study between 1985 and 2005 found that 96% of the jobs created at new companies are created within five years of an i.p.o. and this will make those

companies who want to offer an i.p.o. the opportunity to do so at a much reduced cost. nearly 65% of new jobs traditionally are created by small businesses. now, that's not the case in this economic recovery. almost all the job growth has come from large corporations which is really the opposite of what you normally see. small businesses have not been being formed, being created, and have not been growing as they should. and there is two reasons for that. one is regulation. and these regulations are costly, they are time consuming, and they are simply inhibiting the growth of small businesses. the second reason is the lack of capital. now, there are two ways traditionally to raise capital. one is to go to a bank, a lending institution, and ask for a loan.

well, because of tighter lending standards, these new companies don't have a track record. so they don't have a record of generating profits. many of them are offering new services, new products that have not really found a market or have a small market. and it is a risk involved. so when banks turn those companies down, the other path is for someone to invest in those companies. and that is exactly what this bill does. it offers those companies an opportunity to receive investments, capital investments from individuals who want to participate not only in the risk but in the reward. with the jobs act, start-up companies like those -- there's innovation depot in birmingham, alabama. there are several start-up companies with new products, new services, and it will allow

those companies and companies throughout the united states, people with new ideas, new services, new products like a google of the future or ebay or amazon, you talk take those companies, they didn't exist 20 years ago. now they are the fastest growing companies in america. there are other goingles, there are other ebays, other amazons, other chick if i lays just waiting -- chick-fil-as, i want to commend the senate and thank the sponsors of this legislation. finally i want to salute this house for coming together when it counted and to address the lack of growth in jobs in our small businesses. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky. -- connecticut. mr. himes: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: madam speaker, i am thrilled to be participating in the management of this debate today and want to start by thanking chairman bachus and thanking my friend on the other side of the aisle for the bipartisan and collaborative spirit with which we moved this legislation. this is important legislation but the process by which it moved is something we should celebrate. this is a time, of course, when the american people are none too happy with us, but this bill was done collaboratively with the support of the president of the united states, the majority, and the minority in the house, and it will be good for our economy. so i thank the chairman for his leadership on this, the ranking member, and all that participated in the creation of this important legislation. as the chairman said, this is good stuff. it has received the support of entrepreneurs, of industry associations, of people on both sides of the aisle because it

does very, very important which is acknowledge that regulation is always a balance. it's not always good, it's not always bad. and one of the duties of legislators and regulators is to make sure our regulation is finally calibrated to protect us, to protect us from fraud, to protect us from mortgages that blow up, to keep our air clean, to keep our water clean. but if it's done in two-handed fashion, it can compromise the vibrancy that provides so much economic opportunity in this country. every day this institution should be focused on finding that balance. and that's what this bill is about. it's been criticized here and there by people who i think are of the mindset that any retreat , any revisitting, any amendment to our current regulatory structure is about idea. that can't be the right way to think about this stuff. regulation like anything else has to adapt to change with the times.

what we are doing here is particularly important because we are talking about the regulation of small banks, which, let's face it, have a tough time competing against the big banks. and it's about our start-up and emerging growth companies. that nay not have the free cash flow in their first couple years of existence to completely adopt all of the regulation, the disclosure that we might expect of a multibillion dollar corporation. we have provided an on ramp for entrepreneurs to, as they gain curncy, as they increase their revenues, as they become more of a presence and frankly therefore affect the lives of more people, to gradually work into the full regulatory structures of sarbanes-oxley and other regulations. that's a good things to do. today in palo aalto there are companies that might not have made it but for this legislation. in connecticut and massachusetts there are startup companies for which this legislation will make the

difference between thriving as the chairman said, maybe being the next microsoft or next google and not making it. i'm very happy that we have in a bipartisan fashion put forward this legislation which will be good for economic vibrancy and opportunity in this country. and again thank the chairman for his collaborative and thoughtful work on this bill. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i yield at this time to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert. for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the chairman for yielding. madam speaker, the american economy has the capacity and resilience to overcome most any obstacle. we see it time and time again in the face of foreign crises,

natural disaster, or fiscal adversities. american entrepreneurs and job creators never stop innovating, but to harness that power and the jobs that come with it, we need to clear a path for the start-ups and pledge ling business that is bring new goods and ideas into the marketplace. that's the purpose of h.r. 3606, the jump-start our business start up or jobs act. this legislation package includes six bipartisan proposals, many of which i co-sponsored, to streamline or eliminate the regulatory and legal barriers that prevent emerging businesses from reaching out to investors, accessing capital, and selling shares on the public market. this legislation will this legislation will make it possible for businesses to access financial opportunities that is currently limited to larger corporations and eliminates needless costs imposed by s.e.c. and other regulators.

for tens of millions of americans, including some in my suburban chicago district, there is no priority than job creation. over the last few months, unemployment has slowly receded to 8.3% nationally and 9.1% in illinois, but washington must pick up the pace and that means unleashing the drive and ingenuity of hardworking americans. i urge my colleagues to support the jobs act and empower american businesses to do what they do best, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. hymes: continue to reserve the balance of -- mr. himes: continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has 13 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from connecticut has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i'd like to

recognize another illinois congress -- illinois congressman -- not another congresswoman, mr. dold, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: i certainly want to thank the chairman for yielding, and i think it's important, and i'm delighted to be able to speak here on this bipartisan piece of legislation. madam speaker, as part of any jobs agenda, i breeb that increased access -- i believe that increased access to capital for small businesses is absolutely critical. that's why i am a supporter of this bipartisan jobs act. when we empower small businesses to grow and expand, we enable them to create jobs and get people back to work. as a member of the financial services committee, i co-sponsored several of the bills that are in this package because they allow small businesses to increase capital formation, spur the growth of small businesses and pave the way for our small businesses and entrepreneurs to create new jobs. 2/3 of all net new jobs, madam speaker, are created by small

business. we have 29 million small businesses in our nation. if we can create an environment here in washington, d.c., that enables half of those small businesses to create a single job, think about where we'd be then. finding new ways to spur the economy is not a republican idea or a democratic priority, but it certainly should be an american priority. as a small business owner, i know that we have to start putting people before politics and progress before partisanship and remain focused on finding solutions for the barriers that stand in the way of entrepreneurs and job creators. i want to encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan piece of legislation. madam speaker, pieces of this legislation aspects of this bill passed this house with over 400 votes. we hear a lot about the gridlock that's going on in washeds. when we can get legislation -- going on in washington, d.c. when we can get legislation that passes with over 400

votes, that is what the american people are asking for us to do, coming up with solutions for the problems they face, to try to stem the 8.3% unemployment which we know is much larger when we include the underemployed and those who left the work force. we need the senate to act. it's absolutely critical. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation, find common ground and move our country forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, a member of the committee who sponsored and worked on these bills. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: i thank the gentleman for yielding me a couple minutes here. madam speaker, i rise in support of the jobs act. think about this. we literally started over a year ago putting together the pieces of legislation that move forward with us today. many of them were bipartisan. many of them had to go through

subcommittee and committee and back through more hearings and more testimony. a couple of these bills have actually been to this floor multiple times. it's been well vetted. and i hold a great appreciation, because i've only been here 15 months, and this is my first opportunity to actually have a piece of legislation with multiple bills i sponsored heading on their way to the president, hopefully after the votes today and tomorrow, and i owe a great thank you to chairman garrett and the committee chairman, spencer bachus, but i also want to share a bit of concern. mr. mchenry, congressman mchenry has a really neat portion of this bill. we call it crowdfunding. the senate has amended that in such a way that i believe does great damage to the goal of a much more gallatarian, using the internet way for people to invest, for being able to reach

out for capital for that very small company and i hope i can reach out to my friends here saying let's fix what the senate did. we still will vote for this bill. this is wonderful. this is progress. but we need to fix things for the future. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i would consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: i thank my friend, mr. schweikert, with whom i enjoyed working on this legislation and in the spirit of bipartisanship ultimately a bill that was designed to make it easier for small banks that congressman schweikert and i worked together. i want to thank congressman womb ak, -- womack. it is important and good legislation and i continue to support it and thrilled it's part of this. madam speaker, i would just

take issue with one thing that my good friend from arizona said. the crowdfunding provisions in this legislation should be subject to scrutiny and to careful regulatory oversight. when you combine the concept of the internet and retail investors into one piece of legislation, be careful. the senate amendment to the house crowdfunding provisions in fact adds more protection to small investors who might be subject to being fooled by an internet predator. and i would just say, we should be careful. when should be careful when we talk about retail investors. the classic widows and orfans out there that are not -- orphans out there that are not institutional investors and who have the capability to take care of themselves. retail investors who might be

subject to the temptation of a deal which is too good to be true offered on the internet ought to be a concern for this body and those who will write the rules around crowdfunding. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee on financial institutions, the gentlelady from west virginia, mrs. capito, who also worked very hard on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? how much time? mr. bachus: i'm sorry, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from west virginia is recognized for one minute. mrs. capito: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the chairman and i really want to thank the whole financial services committee for working on this bill, the jobs bill, jump-start our business startups. our unemployment in this bill is over 8%. we have to find -- our unemployment in this country is over 8%. we need to have those great ideas to be able to grow from

small businesses to large businesses. we want to make sure that our entrepreneurs are able to find the funding to be able to grow those seeds of a business that could then flourish and grow. i mean, when we talk about some of the things that started in this country as startups, most recently, we might look at something like a.o.l. or something like apple or even fedex when fred smith wrote that famous paper in business school that i think didn't get a very good grade that now resulted in our fedex. if he hadn't been able to -- if they hadn't been able to find the funding to begin many of them would say because of the regulatory structure, because of the inability to find funding, they wouldn't even be able to get started today and grow into the thousands of jobs they have. it's great potential. it's bipartisan. i support the jobs act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: continues to reserve. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: madam speaker, i'd like to inquire of the amount

of time remaining on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from connecticut has 14 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: i'd like to yield to an outstanding freshman on our committee, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher. the speaker pro tempore: for how much time? mr. bachus: everyone speaking on our side have spent a lot of time, as have our democratic colleague. three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. fincher: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the chairman for his leadership and patience and working with us freshmen the last year and a half. i am pleased to be the lead co-sponsor of h.r. 3606, the jump-start our business startups act. with congressman john carney from delaware. this bill has been a bipartisan effort from the beginning, and i want to thank the gentleman from delaware and his staff, sam, for working with us on this bill. i also want to thank the

financial services committee staff, kevin, jason, chris for their efforts on this legislation as well. small businesses and entrepreneurs are the backbone of our nation and our economy. this bill puts the focus on the private sector, capitalism and the free market providing the entrepreneurs to grow and create jobs. this is about certainty and removing government bureaucratic red tape. our nation has seen a decline in small business startups over the last few years which means less jobs created for american workers. the best thing our government can do right now to get our economy moving in the right direction is to help create an environment where new ideas and startup companies have a chance to grow and succeed. title 1 of this bill is legislation i introduced with congressman carney called the reopening american capital markets to emerging growth companies act. during the last 15 years, fewer and fewer startup companies

have pursued initial public offerings because of burdensome costs created by a series of one-size-fits-all laws and regulations. this bill will help more small and mid sized companies by creating a new category called emerging growth companies that have less than $1 billion in annual revenues when they register with the s.e.c. and less than $700 million in public flow after the i.p.o. emerminging growth companies will have as many as five years, depending on revenue size, to transition to full compliance with a variety of new regulations that are expensive and burdensome to new companies. this onramp status will allow smaw and mid-sized companies the opportunity to save on expensive compliance costs and create the cash needed to successfully grow their businesses and create american jobs. in addition, this bill would only require emerging growth companies to provide audited financial statements for the two years prior to registration

rather than three years, saving companies millions of dollars. it will also make it easier for potential investors to get access to research and company information in advance of an i.p.o. in order to marek informed decisions about investing. this is critical for small and medium sized companies trying to raise capital that have less visibility in the marketplace. i urge my colleagues to support this bill again, send it to the president to sign and give our small businesses and entrepreneurs the opportunity to create jobs for americans and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. himes: and thank my friend from tennessee for his hard work on this bill of which, as i said in my previous statement, i am very supportive. i do want to take the opportunity, having heard the gentleman from tennessee, phrases like one-size-fits-all regulation and bound up and red tape.

i do want to take this opportunity to remind the american people that those are phrases that sound scary. regulation, red tape, one-size-fits-all. but what we're talking about here is protection for the american people, and in my previous statement i made the point we have to get the balance right. but like everybody else in this chamber, i woke up a couple years ago to learn that 11 men were dead on a deep sea drilling platform in the guffleguffle and an ocean -- gulf of mexico and an ocean was poisoned, devastating the economy of the gulf. we all have seen what happens when you sell exploding mortgages to people who can't repay them, even though the people that sold those know that. i come from the district that has the poorest air quality in this country. why do i enumerate these things? because they are all a failure to regulate, to provide a safe

and good environment in which we can thrive. nobody wants to see 11 men die on a deepsea drilling platform or anybody should buy an interest-or the amor tiesed mortgage that nobody understands. i will say it again, balance is key, and i will oppose those who say that more regulation is always the right idea. but i will stand up as i always have, there is a balance. that balance does not come from opposing and labeling red tape and obstructionism and one size fits all. with that -- mr. bachus: if the gentleman will yield? mr. himes: i yield to the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: the gentleman from connecticut mentioned crowdfunding. i think that gave us more concern than anybody -- than anything else. people making an investment being subject to fraud. and that is a concern.

and the the gentleman addressed those concerns. i'd like to stress, what they amended was a very small part of this bill that dealt with crowdfunding. but it is also important to know that all the anti-fraud protection, we didn't take any of that away. but i think we're getting there. we deliberated with the white house, and we'll continue to look at crowdfunding. you know, we'll see how this goes. and with any investment, particularly a new company, new venture, there is a certain amount of risk. you can't take the risk out. you take the risk out, you take the reward, but what the gentleman says i fully appreciate and i think that's where our committee has come together and tried to get it right. for the good of americans and creating these new jobs, so i appreciate the opportunity. mr. himes: thank you, mr. chairman.

i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut reserves his time. the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: thank you. at this time i'd yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, again, this is a bill that several members worked very hard on. he's very knowledgeable of these bills. i yield him four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. hennie otto i thank the gentleman and i appreciate -- mr. mchenry: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate the crowdfunding of this bill. darrell issa sent a letter with questions to the securities and exchange commission and asking them to justify outdated securities laws that restrict capital formation and job growth. it was a letter that really challenged the commission's complacency and asked them about these 80-year-old regulations that were modern at the time, where the new invention was the telephone, and asked them if they would -- ways to update them.

one question specifically asked sharme schapiro, enabling everyday investors to invest with reasonable limitations and unregistered securities issued by startups. this is known as crowdfunding. at the time i was only familiar with crowdfunding, which is a hybrid of microfinance and crowd sourcing as a general method. sent around the world the billions of dollars of moneys raised. for example, a local brewery in my home state of north carolina was able to raise $44,000 on a platform called kick-start. that's done on the charitable side, but with crowdfunding, the success we see on the charitable side can be brought over on the investor side, on the equity side of capital raising. we recognize the consequences of dodd-frank, it limits the ability to get lending through traditional means and as a way to promote small business

capital formation. crowdfunding relieves part of that pressure. in september of last year, after countless meetings, conferences, congressional hearings and bipartisan negotiation, i introduced the access to capital act. it offered a means of exam formation that would forgo costly s.e.c. and state region strayed if issuers and investors operated within reasonable limitations. most importantly, the foundation of the legislation upheld investor protection by empowering regulators to prosecute those who participated in securities fraud or deceit. that is preserved. the entrepreneur access to capital act, our focus was on market innovation and investor protection that attracts both political parties and well-known market participants to the table. as a result of that bipartisan bill, we had -- over 400 members on this floor voted for that bill. the president said he would

sign that bill, and we sent it over to the senate with thousands of market participants saying it was good. this year that same language was included within a provision of this legislation, the jobs act. regretably, just before the house -- regrettably, just before the house passed jobs act received an up or down on the senate floor, a handful of senators misunderstood the promise of crowdfunding, resulting in minute changes to the bill. our essential framework is preserved for crowdfunding. rather than recognize that crowdfunding can create new markets and opportunities for small businesses and startups, these misguided senators simply saw crowdfunding as unregulated activity. this misperception designed them to design a