>> where is the national public radio table? you guys are still here. that is good. that is good. i cannot remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend the white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and jimmy kimmel had lined the advent. coverage starts with red carpet rivals live at 6:30. watch the entire dinner live on c-span. highlights of pot -- past whcd.rs at c-span tha.org/

>> tonight, supreme court oral argument on the arizona immigration law. later, president obama signs a protective border from -- a protective order protecting people from immigration fraud. >> what happens? your pushback and what happens? what kind of operation occurs that plays to all federal advantages? a siege. >> this weekend, lectures in

history. lee and grant and the american way of war. saturday night, part of american history tv this week and on c- span 3. >> wednesday, the supreme court heard arguments on whether an air senate immigration law unconstitutionally interferes with federal enforcement of immigration law. >> we will hear arguments this morning. mr. clement? >> the state of arizona bears a disproportionate share of the cost of illegal immigration. in addressing that, paris and borrowed federal standards has

its own and attempted to enlist state resources in the enforcement of the uniform federal but immigration laws. united states to the the extraordinary step of seeking a preliminary injunction. the ninth circuit demanded harrison of point to specific authorization for its approach. the united states cannot do that. there are multiple provisions of the federal immigration law that go out the way to try to facilitate state and local efforts to communicate with federal immigration officials in order to ascertain the

immigration status of individuals. for example, a law requires federal officials shall respond to inquiries from state and local officials. >> turning to 2b, could you tell me what the states' view is, the government proposes one way, and i think this state is arguing there is another way to read it. under the state's position in this action, the only time the inquiry about the status of an

individual rises is after -- >> this happens -- that point if there is suspicion to try to identify immigration status, that can happen. >> can i stop you there. that is what i thought. presumably, i think your argument is that under any circumstance a police officer would have the discretion to make that call. it seems to me the issue is not about whether you make the call or not, although the government is argument it might be, but on how long you the taint the individual. meaning -- you detain the individual. what i understand is when individuals are arrested and

held, there is an immigration check that most states do without this law, and to the extent the government wants to remove that individual, they put in a warrant to detain them. this process is different. how is it different? >> in one important respect and i do not think the divide with the issue that divides the parties is how long to detain somebody. the government takes the position that even though these stops and inquiries are done in an ad hoc basis, they are pre- empted if they are done in a systematic basis. >> what i want to get to, assuming your position that doing it on a systematic -- there's nothing doing it as it has been done in the past whenever anyone is detained, a call could be made. when i see as critical is the issue of how long and when is

the officer going to exercise discretion to release the person. >> with respect, i do not think section 2b speaks to that. it does not say the systematic inquiry as to take any longer than the ad hoc inquirer. section 2 says it has to be implemented in a way that consistent with federal immigration and civil rights law all. >> this is the following call. the call to the federal -- yes, he is an illegal alien. we did not want to detain him. what does the arizona law say with respect to releasing that individual? >> i do not know its peaks in specific terms, but what i believe happens is at that point the officer would ask themselves whether there is any reason to continue to detain the person

for state law purposes. whatwe're talking about is happens for purposes of the federal immigration consequences. the answer is nothing. that can be illustrated by section 6. there is an arrest authority for somebody who has committed a public offense, but the person cannot be arrested for that event -- offense. in new arrest authority is given to the officer told that person if they are deportable for that offense. it is clear that an inquiry would be made that would say, do you want us to transfer this person to your custody or hold dispersant until you can take custody? if the answer is no, that individual is released because there is no independent basis in

that situation for the officer to contain the in the georgia -- the individual. >> i with the officer noted that the person is removable? that is a complex inquiry. >> there are two answers. sometimes it is a complex inquiry, done times straightforward. the practical answer to the question is by hypothesis there will be an inquiry made to the federal immigration authorities, either law enforcement support center or the 287-g officer. they can figure out whether or not this is a removable offense. >> it takes two weeks to make that t10 determination? >> in all these provisions you have the fourth amendment backing up the limits --

>> what would be the standard? they would hold them for two weeks whether they figured out this is a removable offense, and use it under the fourth amendment you can not hold for a week? >> yes, under the circumstances where we know is the immigration status inquiry is something that takes 10 minutes or allow the minister. -- or 11 minutes. >> i have the same question, but trying to think of examples. example one is the person is arrested. it's as any person arrested shaw have their immigration status determined before the person is released. if they arrest a citizen, hispanic looking, jogging, a backpack, and pedialite.

he is a citizen of new mexico. , w they put him in jail can you represent to us he will not stay in jail, in detention, for a significantly longer period of time that he would have stayed in the absence of section 2b? you want to represent that or not >? >> i do not want to represent that now. he is not going to be detained in the long grit than the fourth amendment allows. >> i do not know how long before the amendment allows. there's probably a range of things, but a person ordinarily, for this crime x, have been released after a day.

the fourth of the amendment would have allowed more, but what in practice would happen? from your representation, i think there will be a significant number of people, some of whom will not be arrested. it takes 11 minutes for some, for some citizens it might take two hours straight there will be people who will be detained at for a significantly longer period of time than in the absence of 2b? is that a fair conclusion? >> i do not think sit, and don't situations, they did not release them until they can nail down their identity and whether they are likely to come to a court hearing at a subsequent -- >> this is a problem. is the immigration law problem?

is the fourth amendment a problem? >> the federal government has a lot of immigration arrests subject to the fourth amendment. we are not making a fourth amendment claim. we want to be responsive and make the point that the factual premise that this is going to 2b will lead to the location of a lot of arrests -- >> i will make the following statement. interpret, imagine, we interpret we2b as not authorizing or requiring the detention of any individual under 2b for a significantly longer period of time and that person would have been detained in the absence of 2b.

can i make that decision in an opinion? you will say that is right? can i say that? >> i do not think you can say just that. you can say this is a facial challenge. we did not anticipate section 2b would be long gave a significant number of cases. you could say that and the reason is it is something that happens even without this law that when you arrest somebody, and there are some offenses that you could arrest and release under state law, but before you release the individual you want to ascertain that individual will show up at the hearing, and that distinguishes those cases where there is an arrest and release from those cases where there is an arrest and you book somebody. already, in a significant number of bookings facilities in arizona, you already have the

process that people are systematically run through immigration checks when the are booked. that is reflected in that record here in the maricopa county system. the federal government -- they are proud of their secured communities program, and that program makes clear everybody looked at facilities is eventually having their immigration status check. i do not think this immigration status check is likely to lead to a substantial emendation of the stops or detentions. >> i want to make sure i get a clear representation from you. if a call to the federal agency, the agency says we do not want to detain this atm, that alien will be released unless it is

under 6 or under 6, 3, or some other of arizona's immigration code. >> this is going somebody doing 60 in a 20-mile-per-hour schools on. for what purposes the state makes contact for the immigration officials, if they say we have no interest in removing this person under the federal criminal provision, that is the end of the federal process of the inquiry. >> the state has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the federal government has no interest in removing? >> no, i do not accept that -- >> call up the federal government, yes, he is a but that is okay

for us? >> all this discussion has been about 2b and 6. shall threet provides an authority under state law -- section 3 provides an authority under state law. if under that provision there would be a state provision, to take action with respect to -- >> i think the question was the broader one. this is a theoretical matter. do you take the position that a state must accept within its borders and a person who is illegally present under federal law? and that is by reason of their alien status? >> i think my answer is no.

>> before you move on to the registration requirement, i take it back to an example similar to the one that just a sports writer was referring to. someone isomeone -- stopped for speeding, 10 miles over the speed limit on an interstate. the officer for some reason thinks this person may be an illegal alien. how would that work out? if you do a records check you will not do anything you will not get anything back. >> if i can work back for a second, unusual circumstance where somebody produces and out of state driver's license and that does not spell reasonable specific -- suspicion.

>> why? >> that might be a situation where that is the case and it would not the spelt the reasonable suspicion. in the average case it would. they would make the inquiry to the official, and it because of the fact the individual is a citizen, what would happen is you would get to the end of a permissible stop and the individual would be released. that might not be the end of the matter because they have the ability to continue the check, taking down the information on the new mexico driver's license. the important thing is if this statute does not authorize them to detain the individual, and beyond the fourth amendment limits, and it does not authorize them to do anything the official could not do on an ad hoc basis without the statute

-- >> that may be the case. under the fourth amendment, presumably, if the officer can arrest a person simply on the ground the person is removable, which is what the officer -- office of legal counsel opined, then the officer could continue to detain that individual, but i mentioned -- that i mentioned until day reached a point the stock becomes an arrest. if they have probable cause to believe the person was removable, they could keep them until the status was verified. is that correct? >> i think that is correct. section 6, we do not think this is the full office of legal counsel to duration where you

have brought arrest authority for removable individuals. this is a narrow slice of an additional arrest authority. it is going to apply to criminal aliens. i do not take issue with what you are saying. it is important to know 2b does not give the officer and a party he did not otherwise have. it does one thing, which is the effect of overriding local policies that forbad and officers from making those communications, because that is the primary effect. it's just how difficult the pre- emption argument is. those policies are forbidden by federal statute, 1373-a. these state those localities not have those sanctuaries loss.

you cannot have local officers telling you not to make those inquiries. >> could section 6 permit an officer to arrest an individual who has overstayed a visa by a day? they are removable, correct? >> i do not think they would have committed a public offense under errors and not law. i do not think there would be our arrest authority in that circumstance as justice alito's question -- >> what is the definition of public offense? >> something that is a crime in another terrorist action and a crime in arizona. what makes this anomalous is normally a something is a crying in arizona there is arrest authority. what this captors is people who

have committed a crime are no longer arrest double -- arrestable for the crime. >> maybe it is time to talk about other sections, particularly section 5-seat. that expands beyond federal government's determination about the types of sanctions that should cover the employment relationship. you talk about supply and demand. it imposes sanctions with respect application for work. arizona is imposing significantly greater sanctions. >> different sanctions. it is hard to weigh the difference between removable of the -- remove ability. take the premise that 5-c takes

the premise there is no -- of the things makes 5c in the case is a target employment prohibited by federal law. you look at the government reducing the argument because of 1986 when congress pass a bill, it focused on the employer side of the question and did not impose restrictions on employees. they will drop a pre-emptive inference from that. >> will you agree -- would you accept as a working hypothesis that we can begin with the general principle that the language controls here and we are going to ask -- are primary function is to determine the circumstances in this case the law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress -- is

that an acceptable test from your standpoint? >> i think is an acceptable test. there have been subsequent cases that give additional shaped and colored to that test. i do not have a quarrel with that test. >> government on this section will say there may be -- this must be -- the enforcement of this statute will be the same as our approach? >> he should not take the federal government in its word for this. it is said the california statute it was pre-empted. the court did not say we have this language. they went be on that and they looked hard. but they did they establish an area where perception of pre- emergent applies.

have a situation where there is an express pre-emption provision and addresses the employer side of the ledger. it does not apply here. the only thing they have -- >> those four of us for whom legislative history has some importance, there seems to be a bit of legislative history that the idea of punishing employees was raised. the pre-emption language would be geared to what was decided to be punished. it seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employment sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees. >> there is a difference between congress decided not as a matter of federal law to address employees with an additional prohibition and saying that decision has

preempted in effect. that is a remarkable additional step. if he considered the legislative history, it supports this. here is what congress confronted. at that point here is the state of the world. it is already on lawful for the employee to have this on lawful work. if they seek this work they are subject to removal for doing it. in addition, congress was told most of the aliens who get this unlawful work are already here illegally, so they are subject to an independent criminal offense. the employer is scott freeh as a matter of federal wall. at that point, 1986, they address the employer side, have a provision that says nothing about pre-empting the employee

side of the ledger -- >> they do provide -- your position was the federal legislation regulates the supply side. that leaves the demand side open. there is a regulation, and the question is whether anything beyond that is inconsistent with the federal -- is not just the person is removable, but if they used false documents in seeking work, that is a federal crime. so we have what you call the supply side is regulated, but you want to regulate it more. >> two quick responses. if you look at what they regulate on the employee side, it is things that assist in regulating the employer side, because they are worried about a

fraudulent document used to trick the employer to employer somebody who is not employable. the more it is regulating the part of the employee side, the more persuasive is the expressed pre-emptive provision does not reach the employee side of the question. >> i would like the care what you have to say about section 3 before you sit down. >> i appreciate the opportunity to do that. section 3, the question, a provision that is parallel to the federal requirements and opposes the same punishments. it is not a fertile ground for pre-emption. there are cases that find pre- emption even in those circumstances, the cases that the government is forced to rely on -- >> would double prosecutions -- in prosecuted under federal law

for violating the terms of -- could the states prosecute them owls welle? >> igood. if the wallace a priority -- if that was a priority to youth, but this court has confronted that argument were you have the statute of california that prohibited someone operating without a license. you have to let the fence in force of law. this court rejected that argument you're a good -- that argument. >> congress enacted a complete registration scheme, which the

states cannot complement, so i do not see the alien registration as a question of pre-emption that when we want where registration scheme to be federal. >> that is part of why we exempted the characteristic of language, because while the court actually states what its holding is, it states in terms of obstacle preemption, and here is where there is a critical difference with what you have here. not surprisingly, they were not soothsayers in pennsylvania that

could predict the future, so there was a conflict between the pennsylvania registration law and the federal law, and this court struck it down on pre- emption. here it is quite simple. arizona look at the precise provisions in the statute. it adopted those standards on its own and imposed a parallel penalties, so i think the analysis is what this court laid out, which says in this kind of cases and what you look for is whether or not the states seem directly interferes with the operation of federal. >> we are told there are some important categories of aliens who cannot obtain federal registration, and yet they are people nobody would think should be removed. i think someone with a pending asylum classification would fall

into that. how would this apply? >> it would not apply. the first question you would ask is whether the individual would be subject to prosecution under 1300 for an end 1306, and as i understand there are certain people who cannot get a registration document, and as i understand, it is not a violation of 91304 or 13062 not get a registration document when you are somebody who cannot get one, and then you do not run afoul of 1306. >> if you are here illegally you cannot get registration. you cannot get prosecuted for lack of registration if you could not get registration.

>> if you are in the country unlawfully, you can try to register, so somebody who enters illegally, they are already guilty on one level, but if they say 30 days and do not try to register, that is independent violation, so i need to fix what i say and say if you did go to register and they say, you are fine, but we cannot give you a registration document. it would not be subject to prosecution under the state statute. >> thank you. good >> if it may please the court -- >> before you get to what the case is about, i would like to clear up what it is not about. no part of this has to do with racial profiling. this is not the case of ethnic

profiling. >> we are not making any allegations about racial or ethnic profiling. >> the first provision of the statutes declares arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement, and the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawful aliens out of the states. that is something arizona cannot do because the constitution and -- >> can you answer the earlier question to your adversary? he asked whether it would be the government's position that arizona does not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is here illegally. >> that is our position. it is our position because the

constitution grants exclusive authority with the national government. >> it gives authority over naturalization, which we have expanded to immigration, but that means the government can set forth our rules concerning who belongs in this country, but if in fact, somebody who does not belong to this country is in arizona, arizona has no power. what does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders? >> the framers invested in the national government authority over immigration because they understood the way this nation treats foreigners is up to the national government. >> a the spill of to the national government. arizona is -- is still up to the national government. arizona is not trying to kick out any one the government says it belongs there.

the commerce clause says no state shall lay duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws. the constitution recognizes there is such a thing as state borders and the state can police its borders, even to the point of events affecting incoming shipments to include diseased material. >> they cannot see what arizona is seeking to do, which is to elevate one consideration above all others. arizona is pursuing a policy so unlawful aliens can be jailed as criminals unless the federal government agrees to direct its resources to remove.

>> that is a question of priorities. but say the government had a different set of priorities and their objectives was to protect the borders, so anyone who is here illegally, they want to know about and do something about, different from the current policy. does that mean in that situation the arizona law would not be pre-empted? >> i think the mandatory characterization, especially when which imposes penalties of $5,000 a day for anyone not to theng section two maximum extent possible does create a conflict, but the point is to understand its relationship to the other provisions in the statute. section 2 is in the statute to identify the class of people

arizona committed to prosecute under section 3, and if they are employed also under section 5. >> what if the federal government change its priorities tomorrow, and they said the new policy was maximum enforcement. we want to know about every person stopped or a restaurant. and we want their immigration status and verified. would they be pre-empted? >> these decisions have to be made at the national level, because it is the national level, the whole country and not an individual states. >> you have any idea where enforcement discretion pre-empts states? >> it will help to a point.

>> we have said essentially the pre-emption of state law will come not by virtue of congress but because the executive does not want this enforced, but pre- empts the state from enforcing it rigorously. >> i think of preemption focuses on section three. the pre-emption focuses from judgments of congress from the registration congress set top, from the decision of congress to vest the secretary and the attorney general with the authority to make judgments. >> they do that with all criminal statutes, and acknowledges that states can enforce general criminal law, which is always entrusted to the attorney general. >> they can engage attention in support of federal law. it does not say they can

prosecute under federal law. that is a different matter. it really goes to the heart of what is wrong with section 3 of this act. trucks using the federal government has to have control over use -- >> you say the federal government has to have control over who to prosecute. all this does is notify the federal government. here is someone here illegally. the discretion to prosecute for federal offenses rests entirely with the attorney general. >> that is correct, but let me address something fundamental about section two. that is true, but i think it does not get to the heart of the problem. section one says the section 2 and section 3 and section 5 are supposed to work together to achieve this policy of attrition and enforcement, so

section to identify the population the state of arizona is going to prosecute. >> so apart from section 3 and section 5, you have no objection to section two democrats we do, but if i could make one more point, i think it is important to understand the dilemma this puts the federal government in. arizona has got this population, and they are committed to national enforcement, so the federal government has got to decide, are we going to take our resources and use some to deal with this population? >> the federal government has to decide where it is going to use its resources, and what the state is saying, your people in violation of federal law, you make the decision, and if your decision is you do not want to prosecute those people, that is

entirely up to you. i do not see the problem. >> here is the other half of the equation. they say if you are not going to remove them, we are going to prosecute them. i think this does get to the heart of why this needs to be an exclusive national power. what you're talking about is taking somebody whose only offense is being unlawfully present in a country and putting them in jail. >> let's say for notification, and what could possibly be wrong if arizona rest somebody for drunk driving and their policy is you are going to stay in jail overnight in a matter of what -- no matter what. what is wrong with saying, i am going to call the federal agency and find out if this person is here illegally? the federal agency has to answer my question.

it seems like an odd thing to say that the federal agency has to answer the question but the state cannot ask it. but we are not saying they cannot ask it in any individual case. >> you think there are cases where the state can call the federal government and say, is this person here illegally? >> yes. >> dozen that the feet off a challenge to the act? >> the problem is that in every circumstance as a result of section 2 of the law backed by the penalties, the state official must pursue the priorities the state has set, in respect of of whether they are helpful to or in conflict with federal priority. track suppose every law enforcement agencies of the same way as the legislature, so they all took upon themselves to make these inquiries every time they stop somebody.

i would that be a violation of federal law? perhaps it would not, because they would be free to be responsive to federal authorities as the federal authorities said, we need to focus on games. we need to focus on this drug problem at the border. >> what it is said, we have our priorities, and our priority is maximum enforcement? >> it was all done on an individual basis. all the officers were individually doing it. that would be ok? >> if there is a state policy by regulation, and we have a problem. >> you seem to be saying what is wrong with the arizona law is that the arizona legislature is trying to control what its employees are doing, and they have to be free to disregard the desires of the arizona

legislature for whom they work and follow priorities of the federal government for whom they do not work. art to the extent that all they are doing is for digging into the federal government's attention, they are cooperating. >> that is all the legislature is doing. >> it is not cooperation if the officers must respond to the priorities are the state government. >> i am a little confused. i am terribly confused by your answer, and i do not know you are focusing on what i believe my colleagues are trying to get to. 2b has two components. everybody suspected was arrested for another crime.

the officer has to megaphone to call the agency to find out if it is an illegal alien -- house to pick up the phone to tell them if it is an illegal alien. he tells me unless there is a reason to arrest them, if the government says we do not want to detain the person, they have to be released for being simply an illegal alien. what is wrong with that, taking out the other provisions, taking out any independent state- created the basis of liability for being an illegal alien? >> there are three. we are not making an allegation of racial profiling.

there are already tens of thousands of stocks that results in inquiries in arizona -- of stops and resulting increase in arizona. they thought that was not sufficient and they needed more. given that you have 2 million latinos of whom only 400,000 are there unlawfully -- >> it sounds like racial profiling to me. >> and given the status. >> do we have the statistics of how many arrests and the percentage? >> there is some evidence. there is the joint appendix that indicates in fiscal year 2009 there were 80,000. >> what does this have to do

with federal immigration law? they have to do with racial harassment, but i thought you were not relying on that. good are you objecting to housing the people who -- are you objecting to harassing the people who do not belong here? you must be talking about other people who have nothing to do with our immigration laws. citizens and other people, right hama? this has nothing to do with the immigration law, which is what you're asserting creance all this activity. >> they identified as harassment as essential because of the concern that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is fundamental to our foreign relations. >> let me go back, because i am

trying to get smokers, -- to get focused, and think about the first sentence. if that means you're going to hold an individual longer than you would otherwise, i think of some arguments that it is a pre- emptive, but suppose we were to say that sentence as we understand it does not raise a constitutional problem as long as it is interpreted to mean that of policemen, in respect of of what answer he gets from ice cannot -- respective of what the answer he gets from i s cannot detain anyone longer. against any argument

that sentence i have just interpreted? >> it would ameliorate a problem, but there is still a structural problem in that this is an effort to enforce federal law, and it is the executive branch that is responsible for enforcing federal law. it is not an effort to enforce federal law. it is an effort to let you know. whether you enforce it is entirely up to you. when somebody calls to answer the question and do not even bother to write it down. i stop someone else. is it legal? is legal, thanks, goodbye. it is still your decision, and if you do not want to know who is in this country illegally,

you do not have to do. >> that is correct, but the process of cooperating starts earlier, and it starts with the process of making decisions about who to apprehend, who to check on, and the structural problem and we have is that arizona officials are not free. good >> the person is already stopped for some other person, for going 60 in a 20, so the decision to stop the individual has nothing to do with immigration law at all. it seems to me the federal government does not want to know who is here illegally and not. >> both of them explained

affectively by the obligation gets in a way of the mutual efforts to identify serious criminals. >> what is wrong with the states enforcing federal law? there is a federal law against robbing certain thankbanks. could it be a state law? the state is interfering with our scheme, because they are prosecuting all these thank robbers. would anyone listen to this argument? >> this argument is different, because we are talking about

federal registration requirement in an area of concern, exclusive federal concern, who can be in the country under what circumstances. >> are you talking about three? >> this is an argument about #2. >> how can a state officer who stops somebody or arrest somebody for a non-immigration of france and not tell whether that person falls within the federal removal priorities without making an inquiry to the federal government? i understand one of the priorities is people who have been previously removed, and that might be somebody you would want to arrest, but how can you determine that without making the inquiry in the first place? >> you would need to make the inquiry in the first place.

>> what if they stop somebody for a traffic violation, but they want to know if this is somebody who was previously removed and has come back or if it was just in the last few hours, somebody previously removed? how can you know that without making inquiries? >> you cannot, but there is a difference between the question of individual circumstances and a mandatory soakers that you have to make the inquiry in any case. if you ask one of your law clerks to bring in an exemption case and they say, they are in there, that makes it --

>> in the federal statute, 1373, and nobody can prohibit or restrict any government entity from making this inquiry of the federal government, and then it says the federal government has an obligation to respond. assuming the statute where limited so nothing happens to the individual, the person who was stopped, it would not have happened anyway -- all that happens is the person makes a phone call. if that were the situation, and we said it had to be the situation, what in the federal statutes would it conflict with, where we have provisions that say any policemen can call?

>> i understand your answer to that, and i think the answer is 1373 was enacted in 1996 along with 1357, and 1357 is the provision that set for the powers and authority of federal immigration authorities. it contains 1357 g, which says the attorney government can deputize officials as long as they are subject to control of the attorney general in carrying out new immigration functions. the last provision says nothing we have said so far should be read to preclude any formal cooperation in the apprehension and removal of unlawful persons. it is the presence of

cooperation, so i do not think you can read into 1373 the conclusion that congress was intending to shift from the federal government's to the states before you set priorities, because cooperation is the service of federal enforcement. >> i think i cut you off when you said there are three reasons. putting aside your argument that a systematic cooperation is wrong, you can see it is not selling very well, why don't you try to come up with something else, because it is not that it is forcing you to change your priorities. you do not have to take a person into custody, so what is left? >> let me summarize that with think this is a

more significant harassment problem. we think there is a structural accountability problem that they are not answerable to federal officials, and we think there are practical impediments, and the result of this is to deliver to the federal system of volume of inquiries that makes it harder to identify who the priority people aren't. >> you have been trying valiantly to get us to focus on section three. maybe we should let you do-now. >> i think the key thing about section 3 is that section 3 is to enforce a federal registration requirement. that is the relationship between the alien and the united states government that is exclusively a

federal relationship. the way in which those firms are in force at does have a very significant federal interest sat heart, and there is no federal interest and there is no state police power interest in that relationship. i think it is very important -- i think it is quite important to get clarity on that. if you have come into the country unlawfully but you have a pending application for asylum, if you have a valid claim for relief under the violence against women act, if you have a violent claim because you were a victim of human trafficking. if you are the victim of a crime

or a witness to a crime, all of those persons are in technical violation of 13 068. my friend is not correct in saying that those are people who are not in violation and therefore are not in violation of it. amended, then. i mean, we have statutes out there, that there a lot of take care of it. is that how we write our criminal laws? >> but it's a situation inwhich no reasonable person would think that the individual ought to be prosecuted, and yet, very often, the states aren't even going to know. in fact, about asylum status, they can't know because there are regulations that require that to be kept private to avoid retaliation against the person making the application. and so, this is -- so this is -- this is, i think, a very strong illustration of why the

enforcement discretion over section needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government. >> again, i ask you, do you have any other case in which the basis for preemption has been you are interfering with -- with the attorney general's enforcement discretion? >> well, this is -- >> i think that's an extraordinary basis for saying that the state is preempted. >> i think what's extraordinary about this, actually, justice scalia, is the state's decision to enact a statute purporting to criminalize the violation of a federal registration obligation. and i think that's the problem here. and they're doing it for a reason -- >> it's not criminalizing anything that isn't criminal under federal law. >> but -- but what -- >> it's the bank. it's the federal bank example -- >> well, no. >> -- a state law which criminalizes the same thing that the federal law does. >> i think it's quite different. what they're doing here is using [a] to get at the status of unlawful presence. the only people who can be prosecuted under section are people who are unlawfully present in the country. that's what the statute says. and they're using it to get at that category of people, to essentially use their state criminal law to perform an immigration function. and the immigration function is

to try to -- to prosecute these people. and, by the way, you can prosecute somebody, they can be put in jail for days here, but under federal law, a violation of [a] is a continuing offense. so the day they get out of jail for that days, they can be arrested again, and this can happen over and over again. and the point of this provision is to drive unlawfully present people out of the state of arizona. >> suppose --suppose -- well, assume these are two hypothetical -- two hypothetical instances. first, the federal government has said we simply don't have the money or the resources to enforce our immigration laws the way we wish. we wish we could do so, but we don't have the money or the resources. that's the first -- just hypothetical. >> you said that in your brief, didn't you? >> also hypothetical is that the state of arizona has -- has a massive emergency, with social disruption, economic disruption, residents leaving the state because of flood of immigrants. let's just assume those two things.

does that give the state of arizona any powers or authority or legitimate concerns that any other state wouldn't have? >> of course, they have legitimate concerns in that situation. and, justice kennedy -- >> and can they go to their legislature and say, we're concerned about this, and ask the legislature to enact laws to correct this problem?>> they -- they certainly can enact laws of general application. they can enforce the laws of general application that are on the books. they already -- as a result of u.s.c. , it's clear that they are under no obligation to provide any state benefits to the population. but i think, most importantly, they can -- and -- not most importantly, but as importantly, they can engage in cooperative efforts with the federal government --excuse me. i see my -- >> no, keep going. >> they can -- they can engage in cooperative efforts with the federal government, of which there are many going on in arizona and around the country, in order to address these problems. >> general, didn't you say in

your brief -- i forget where it was -- i thought you said that the -- the justice department doesn't get nearly enough money to enforce our immigration laws? didn't you say that? >> of course, we have to set priorities. there are only -- >> exactly. okay. so the state says, well, that may be your priorities, but most of these people that you're not going after, or an inordinate percentage of them, are here in our state, and we don't like it. they're causing all sorts of problems. so we're going to help you enforce federal law. we're not going to do anything else. we're just enforcing federal law. >> well, what i think they're going to do in arizona is something quite extraordinary, that has significant real and practical foreign relations effects. and that's the problem, and it's the reason why this power needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government. what they're going to do is engage, effectively, in mass incarceration, because the obligation under section [h], of course, is not merely to enforce section to the fullest possible extent at the -- at the risk of

civil fine, but to enforce federal immigration law, which is what they claim they are doing in section and in section . and so -- so you're going to have a situation of mass incarceration of people who are unlawfully present. that is going to raise -- poses a very serious risk of raising significant foreign relations problems.and these problems are real. that is the problem of reciprocal treatment of united states citizens in other countries. >> so you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws? >> no. we have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be -- but these -- this court has said over and over again, has recognized that the -- the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the -- the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations.

it involves humanitarian concerns, and it also involves public order and public safety. >> general, when --when -- i know in your brief, you had -- you said that there are some illegal aliens who have a right to remain here. and i'm just realizing that i don't really know what happens when the arizona police call the federal agency. they give the federal agency a name, correct? >> i assume so, yes. >> you don't really haveknowledge of what -- >> well, they -- i mean, it can come in lots of different ways, but generally, they'll get a name and some other identifying information. >> all right. and what does the computer have? what information does your system have? >> yes. so the way this works is there's

a system for -- for incoming inquiries. and then there's a person at a computer terminal. and that person searches a number of different databases. there are eight or ten different databases. and that person will check the name against this one, check the name against that one, check the name against the other one, to see if there are any hits. >> well, how does that database tell you that someone is illegal as opposed to a citizen? today, if you use the name sonia sotomayor, they'd probably figure out i was a citizen. but let's assume it's john doe, who lives in grand rapids. so they're legal. is there a citizen database? >> the citizen problem is actually a significant problem. there isn't a citizen database. if you -- >> i'm sorry, there is or there isn't? >> there is not. if you have a passport, there's a database if you look "passports." so you could be discovered that way. but otherwise, there is no reliable way in the database to verify that you are a citizen unless you're in the passport database. so you have lots of circumstances in which people who are citizens are going to come up no match. there's no -- there's nothing suggesting in the databases that they have an immigration problem of any kind, but there's nothing to -- >> so if you run out of your house without your driver's license or identification and you walk into a park that's closed and you're arrested, you -- they make the call to this agency. you could sit there forever

while they -- >> yes, and i -- >> -- figure out if you're -- >> while i'm at it, there is a factual point i think i'd like to correct. mr. clement suggested that it takes minutes to process these calls. that's true, but you're in a queue for minutes before it takes the minutes to process the call. so the average time is minutes, not minutes. >> i had a little -- wasn't sure about your answer to justice kennedy. is the reason that the government is not focused on people who are here illegally as opposed to the other categories you were talking about because of prioritization or because of lack of resources? you suggested that if the -- every illegal alien that you identify is either removed or prosecuted, that that would cause tensions with other governments. so i -- i don't understand if it's because you don't have enough resources or because you don't want to prosecute the

people who are simply here illegally as opposed to something else. >> well, it's a little more complicated than that. i think the point is this, that with respect to persons who are unlawfully present, there are some who are going to fall in our priority categories, there are those who have committed serious offenses, there are those who have been removed and have come back, and there are other priority categories. because we have resource constraints andthere are only so many beds in the detention centers and only so many immigration judges, we want to focus on those priority categories. find them, remove them. there's a second category, and that is individuals who are here in violation, technically of [a], but who have a valid asylum application or application for temporary protected status or other -- and with respect to those persons that we think would -- it's affirmatively harmful to think that they ought to be prosecuted. and then there is an additional category of people who are not in the second category and not

priorities, and the form -- and we think there, the idea that an individual state will engage in a process of mass incarceration of that population, which we do think is what section [h] commits arizona to do under section , raises a significant foreign relations problem. >> well, can't you avoid that particular foreign relations problem by simply deporting these people? look, free them from the jails -- >> i really think -- >> and send them back to the countries that are -- that are objecting. >> this is a -- >> what's the problem withthat? >> well, a couple of things. first is, i don't think it's realistic to assume that the aggressive enforcement of sections and in arizona is going to lead to a mass migration back to countries of origin. it seems a far more likely outcome it's going to be migration to other states. and that's a significant problem. that's part of the reason why this problem needs to be managed on a national basis. beyond that, i do think, you know, the -- it's worth bearing

in mind here that the country of mexico is in a central role in this situation. between and percent of the people that we remove every year, we remove to mexico. and in addition, we have to have the cooperation of the mexicans. and i think as the court knows from other cases, the cooperation of the country to whom we are -- to which we are removing people who are unlawfully present is vital to be able to make removal work. in addition, we have very significant issues on the border with mexico. and in fact, they're the very issues that arizona's complaining about in that -- >> so we have to -- we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please mexico. is that what you're saying?>> no, your honor, but what it does -- no, your honor, i'm not saying that -- >> it sounded like what you were saying. >> no, but what i am saying is that this points up why the framers made this power an exclusive national power. it's because the entire country feels the effects of a decision -- conduct by an individual

state. and that's why the power needs to be exercised at the national level and not the state level. >> and your concern is the problems that would arise in bilateral relations if you remove all of these people, or a significant percentage or a greater percentage than you are now. nothing in the law requires you to do that. all it does is lets you know where -- that an illegal alien has been arrested, and you can decide, we are not going to initiate removal proceedings against that individual. it doesn't require you to remove one more person than you would like to remove under your priorities. >> right, but the problem i'm focused on -- we're focused on, mr. chief justice, is not our removal decisions, but arizona's decision to incarcerate, and the foreign relations problem that thatraises. that's why this power has got to be exercised at the national level. >> and that arises under and . >> correct. >> but not . >> well, identifies the population that's going to be prosecuted under and . i haven't -- i've been up here a long time. i haven't said anything about section yet.

and i don't want to tax the court's patience, but if i could spend a minute on section . >> section . >> the -- i do think the fundamental point about section here is that in , congress fundamentally changed the landscape. congress made a decision in to make the employment of aliens a central concern of national immigration policy. and this court has described the law as a comprehensive regime. now, what my friend, mr. clement, says, is that it may be a comprehensive regime for employers; it's not a comprehensive regime for employees. and therefore, it's -- there ought not be any inference here that the states are precluded from criminalizing effortsto seek or obtain employment in arizona. but i really think that's not right. the -- employment is one problem.

and congress tackled the problem of employment and made a decision, a comprehensive decision, about the sanctions it thought were appropriate to govern. and congress did, as justice ginsburg suggested, make judgments with respect to the circumstances under which employees could be held criminally liable, as well as the circumstances under which employers could be held liable. and i think it is useful in thinking about the judgments congress actually made -- >> you think field preemption; is that your argument with respect to -- >> it's both. i think we're making both a field and a conflict preemption argument here, justice scalia. and the -- i think it's worth examining the specific judgments congress made in . on the employer's side -- and, after all, this is a situation in which the concern here is that the employer is in a position of being the exploiter and the alien of being the exploited -- on the employer's side, congress said that states may not impose criminal sanctions, and even -- and the federal government will not impose criminal sanctions for the hiring ofemployees unless there's a pattern or practice.

it seems quite incongruous to think that congress, having made that judgment and imposed those restrictions on the employer's side, would have left states free to impose criminal liability on employees merely for seeking work, for doing what you i think would expect most otherwise law--abiding people to do, which is to find a job so they can feed their families. so i think that's a significant problem. in addition, congress made clear in the law that the i-- form could not be used for any other purpose than prosecutions for violation of the federal antifraud requirements. and if congress wanted to leave states free to impose criminal sanctions on employees for seeking work, they wouldn't have done that, it seems to me. so that i think there are strong indicators in the text that congress did make a judgment, and the judgment was this far and no farther. and it's reasonable that congress would have done so, for the same kinds of foreign relations concerns that i was discussing with respect to section . it would be an extraordinary

thing to put someone in jail merely for seeking work. and yet that's what arizona proposes to do under section of its law.now, of course, there is an express preemption provision, but the express preemption provision, as this court has said many times, does not operate to the exclusion of implied preemption, field or conflict. so we do think those principles apply here. we think there's a reason why the express preemption provision was limited to the employer's side, which is that after decanas laws had been enacted on the employer's side, and with -- congress was making clear that those were preemptive, there were no laws on the employee's side at the time. and therefore, no reason for preemption. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. clement, minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: i'd like to start briefly with the enforcement issues and then talk about the other provisions.the last thing i'll say about the enforcement provision, since i do think that the government's rather unusual theory that something that's okay when done ad hoc becomes preempted when it's systematic, i think that theory largely refutes itself. but i will say one thing, which is to just echo that there's no interference with enforcement priorities by simply giving the

federal government information on which to bring their enforcement priorities to bear. and this is really illustrated by a point this court made in its florence decision earlier this month, which is that sometimes you pull somebody over for the most innocuous of infractions, and they turn out to be the most serious of offenders. and so if you preclude officers, as happened in phoenix, from communicating with the federal government, the federal government will not be able to identify the worst of the worst. and if you want an example of this, look at the declaration of officer brett glidewell at joint appendix to . he pulled somebody over in a routine traffic stop and was shot by the individual. now, the individual it turns out was wanted for attempted murder in el salvador and was also guilty of illegal reentry into the united states. he wasstopped on three previous occasions, and his status was not verified. now, if it had been, he certainly would have been apprehended. in at least two of the stops, his immigration status wasn't checked because of a city

policy, city of phoenix. now, if the state, i submit, can do anything, it can at the state level override those kind of local policies and say, that's not what we want. community policing is all well and good, but we want to maximize communication with the federal authorities. so i think the enforcement policy and priorities argument simply doesn't work. as to section , two points about that. one is, i respectfully disagree with the solicitor general as to whether the various things that he led off -- read off -- the litany of situations where somebody is -- technically doesn't have registration would be a violation of [a]. and the reason i take that position is that provision says "a willful failure to register." now, maybe the prosecutors take the view that there's willfulness in those circumstances, but i don't think many judges would. i think they would say that if you've been told by the federal government that you're perfectly fine here and you don't need to register, thatthat would be good enough to defeat a finding of willfulness.

so i don't think [a] covers this case. >> but you're inviting -- you're inviting the very sort of conflict that he's talking about. because what's going to happen now is that if there's no statement by the federal agency of legality, the person is arrested, and now we're going to have federal resources spent on trying to figure out whether they have an asylum application, whether they have this, whether they have that, whether they are exempted under this reason, whether the failure to carry was accidental or not -- i mean, you are involving the federal government in your prosecution. >> well -- >> now, you may say we're not, because all we're going to show is -- what? that we got a federal call -- we got a federal answer that the person wasn't registered? >> no, we're going to say that we communicated with the federal immigration officials, and they told us this is somebody who's perfectly fine and doesn't have to register. >> no -- no confrontation -- no confrontation clause problem withthat? with relying on a call to a federal agency and the police officer says, you're

arrested, you're charged, it's not an illegal alien -- or it is an illegal alien. >> my supposition, >>, is that they would use that call to not bring the prosecution, so the issue wouldn't even arise. but i do want to be clear about -- >> no, no, no. how about -- how about they get a response, yes, it's an illegal alien? >> and they bring a prosecution under section -- >> so how -- where do they get the records that show that this person is an illegal alien that's not authorized to be here? >> i -- >> who do they get it from? >> i think they would get it from the federal authorities. i think it would be admitted. there might be a challenge in that case. i mean, you know, this is a facial challenge. i'm not going to try to address that potential sixth amendment issue. what i would like to say is two things. one, if there's some sloppiness in the way the federal government keeps its records so that there's lots of people that really should be registered but aren't, i can't imagine that sloppiness has a preemptive effect.

the second thing i would say is that i do think, in thinking about section in particular, the analogy is not the fraud on the fda claim in buckman, it's really the state tort law that says that it's a violation of state tort law to not even seek the approval that's needed under the fda for a device. now, states impose tort law for people that market a device without getting the necessary approval, and nobody thinks that's preempted, because it serves the federal interest. it doesn't have a deluge of information. it forces people to get fda approval. and in the same way, this state law will force people to register, which is what the federal government's supposed to want in the first place, so there's no preemption there. there's no conflict. as to the employment provision, i do think it's important to recognize that -- >> finish your sentence. >> -- before , the government was not agnostic about unlawful employment by aliens. the employees were already covered, and they weresubject to deportation. so the government said, we're

going to cover the employers for the first time. i can't imagine why that would have preemptive effect. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, mr. clement, general verrilli. well argued on both sides. thank you. the case is submitted. >> next, a house to go on extending interest rates for federal student loans for one year. then president obama at fort stewart. later another opportunity to hear the supreme court oral argument. >> where is the national public radio table? you guys are still here? that is good. i could not remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend, the 98th annual white house correspondents'

dinner. president obama and jimmy kimmel headline the event. coverage starts with a red carpet arrivals. watched the entire dinner on c- span. you can sync up your experience on line at the dinner hub. find the celebrity guest list, blog and social media posts at c-span.org/whcd. live saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> born in a north korea work camp, it was the on the world he had ever known. it was also the -- he was the only one who had escaped from camp 14. >> his first memory was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot.

public executions and enter the camp were held every few weeks. they were a way of punishing people who violated rules and of terrorizing the 20,000 to 40,000 people who live in the camp to obey the rules from there on. >> sunday, blaine harden on his journey out of north korea am learning about society. may 6, look for our interview with robert car. it coincides with "the passage of power." >> today the house voted to extend a low interest rates on student loans for another year. without the extension the rates would go up from 3.4264 a on july 1. the lower rate was passed in

2007. both republicans and democrats support extending the measure but disagree on how to pay for it. the republican bill today would offset costs by eliminating part of the 2010 health care law. because of the offset the white house has issued a veto threat. the bill still awaits action in the senate. nois is recognized for four minutes. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, when i talk to students and families, it's clear today's economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it once did. our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are moving back home after college only to find washington's tax and spend policies have made it even harder to find a job. in fact, according to a recent associated press report, at least half of recent graduates are unemployed or underemployed. that's unacceptable. under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only gets worse as interest rates on subsidized stafford student loans are set to spike from 3.4% to 6.8% on july 1 of

this year. that's why i've introduced h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act, a bill that would avert this interest rate increase because the last thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it much -- that much harder to afford a high-quality education. unfortunately, that's exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in a bipartisan way to pay for this critical instant rate fix. under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the president earlier this year. just three months ago, members on both sides of the aisle came together and the president signed a bill that extended unemployment benefits in the payroll tax cut. the legislation i offer today would use as an offset the

exact same source that we all agreed to use just three months ago. the bill would eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called prevention and public health fund, which in truth is nothing more than an open-ended fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. at best this fund serves only to sir cuck vent congress' annual appropriations responsibilities by granting in perpetuity the secretary of health and human services' unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the loose label of prevention programs. i should note that the president himself acknowledged the prevention fund is -- when he requested a $4 billion cut to the program in his f.y. 2013 budget. by reclaiming a portion of the administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of this blank check program, the legislation would extend lower rates for college loans, granting relief to our young people without raising taxes on their potential

employees -- employers. it's a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. i ask my colleagues to step forward today and show the american people that we can solve this problem immediately without the drama of a last-minute ondeadline fix. it's my hope that our colleagues in the senate as well will work with us to send it to the president immediately. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the instant rate -- interest rate reduction act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. tierney: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's nice to have our republican friends finally agree the interest rates will be a problem if they rise and doubled. since 2007 when the rates were first reduced when the democrats were in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the republican side. resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009,

2010, 2011 and this has been raised to a degree where students and families started to really get involved and engaged that our friends on the other side of the aisle decided, well, they don't want the rates to go up either. but cynically, some might say, the only way they can find a pay-for is to attack women's health and children's health. women don't want this bill that way. children -- students don't want the bill this way. public health groups don't want the bill this way. the senate said they won't accept the bill this way. it's dead on arrival. and the white house sees it this way. if we want to set aside partisanship, let's pick a pay-for that the american people can get behind and we can all agree on. let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games and do the right thing. let's make sure the interest rates stay at 3.4%. let's make sure that 177,000 students in massachusetts and seven million nationwide have affordable access to college

and be able to pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. let's start doing the right thing. last week our republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge fund managers in a tax cut, to give to donald trump. his trump tower leasing company. to give to other people that already had millions of dollars and didn't pay for it. this week they finally get around to the issue trying to help students and come up with a cynical aspect of paying for it by once again attacking women's health, adding children on. immunization, screenings for breast cancer and birth defects. this is ridiculous. we should move forward and do the right thing. the fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little bit in the last two times, as the speaker mentioned on that, but left largely intact. this one would wipe out the entire fund. twice the amount necessary in order to fund what they're

purporting to do because they are ideologically going after the health care bill. we need to make sure that women's health care and children's health care is protected. we need to make sure the interest rates stay low. we are certain we can do that. it won't be done by doing it this way. and members of the senate will have to work in conference to make sure we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense. 250 tax expenditures in the tax code. $1.3 trillion. we can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction here and do it in a way that all of america can get behind and both parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this direction. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 43, providing for a condition adjournment or recess of the senate and adjournment of the

house of representatives in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the gentleman from new jersey that we also for prevention, but we have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of what we do and not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person who is not -- when there is no oversight by congress. and with that i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan for two minutes. and a member of our education and work force committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, just a bit of history lesson. we hear a lot of demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land

about the unwillingness for republicans to help our students, our college students receive the education that they need by having the loans that they deserve. going back to 2006, as part of the democrats' six in 2006 campaign agenda, the democrats promised to cut student loans interest in half. when they took the majority and i sat on the house education and labor committee at the time, they gained control of congress, all of a sudden they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do so they put in place, against our opposition, saying that the private sector still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it fluctuate and flow at a variable rate with the market, ultimately reducing the overall cost of interest over the course of time for our students. they chose not to do that. they put in a place the plan that we have right now, a democrat plan that said in fact we will go to 6.8% in july of

2012. after dropping it back because they knew they couldn't afford it. they did it at a short-term process and ultimately it comes to fruition now that we are at a cost problem. and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. it is their plan that we're dealing with. it is their mess that we're asked to fix at this point in time. the college cost reduction access act incrementally reduced to 3.4% that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place of what we're looking at. as the expiration date crept closer, democrats did nothing in the 111th congress, despite knowing this would take place, and now we have a problem. mr. speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation garb and on one of the top of the motor boards it says, hire me. that's the issue we're talking

about, an economy that doesn't offer jobs. and so what we ought to be looking at here is growing economy, not on obamacare fix that will cost reasonable programs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. biggert: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. walberg: we ought to be looking for ways for growing an economy that gives the opportunity for students to get jobs, pay off loans at whatever rate it will be and there is a much better way to do it than the way it's been done. we ought to be growing a economy for job providers as opposed to what the senate sent over to us, their solution to whack at more job providers, make it more difficult to find stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply the opportunity to be hired. i thank the speaker and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield -- reminding the gentleman in 2007 the bill was paid for. in fact it was paid for with 77

members of the republican party agreeing to it and now it's time to pay for it in an intelligent and correct manner. i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the fix that the republicans are in and after a week ago you almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4% interest rate to students and in adopting the ryan republican budget agreeing to let it go out to 6.8%. in fact, they used that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy that they anticipate in their budget, so they took students' money and the families and the savings they were made out of this, almost $16 billion over the last four years, and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8%. president obama went on the road for three days and all of a sudden the republicans have decided that they're for

keeping the interest rates at 3.4%. you can say all of this is cynical. i believe it is on their part because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. they see their position in being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer. to attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects. to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. so now on the cover of being for student health -- i mean, for student loans, they are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion. you know, every now and then in this place where it's terribly partisan, it can be very cynical as we see with this action today, with this bill, a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and

understanding, and we see today that we have statements by almost all of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4% but we do not want kept it at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parent's health, our mother's health, our sister's health, our friend's health. i ask for one minute. so we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a time-out and say, find another way to pay for this but don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants, don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease, don't it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer where the difference can mean life or death for those women. don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the

backs of our students. don't do it in our name. in our name, don't do this legislation. vote no against this. we'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. that's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, charlie bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for two minutes. mr. bass: i thank the speaker and i thank my colleague from illinois for recognizing me. there's a little disagreement between republicans and democrats over the need to extend the subsidized interest rates for student loans for at least another year. student loan debt now in america exceeds $1 trillion which i believe is more than the entire nation's credit card debt. it's a very serious national priority that needs to be addressed and should be resolved into a bipartisan fashion.

as you can tell from the tenor of the debate this morning, it is the issue how we are going to come up with the money to pay for this. first of all i think it's a miracle we are debating that. prior administration in this congress wouldn't even have brought the subject up how to pay for it. at least the democrats now want to pay for it by raising prices on gasoline through higher taxes on oil companies, and i believe that taxation of oil companies should be on the table in tax reform not an education bill. we have a proposal that would reduce the funding in the prevention to public health fund account, and of course our friends on the other side of the aisle are right on message on their national message of tying everything that republicans want to do to be some sort of a battle against women. let me just point out that i believe there is already about $119 million in f.y. 2011 for the c.d.c.'s earlry breast and cervical cancer and early

detection program. i know my friend from illinois will probably enumerate on this further. i would point out that the program or the funds that the democrats are trying to protect actually is providing money for early detection, but it's for free spaying and neutering for dogs and cats around the country. this money comes out of communities work campaign and that's receiving money from health and human services secretary slush fund. i would also point out to my friends that this fund has already been reduced in order to pay for the payroll tax deduction. it's not setting a precedent. i would suggest that a fund that's funded at $17.75 -- can i get 30 seconds? i would suggest a fund that's funded at $17.75 billion for the first 10 years and then automatically advance appropriated for $2 billion a year, i never heard of that in

the congress. that means that we are turning over our authority to raise and appropriate money to the tune of $2 billion a year to the health and human services secretary with no oversight from congress at all. i want student loans to remain at their lower rate and i want to do it in a fiscally responsible fashion. that's what this bill does. i yield back to my friend from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: address the fact that the elimination of the need is on an annual basis, $326,000 fewer women will be screened for breast cancer. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. terny -- tierney. you want to first of all recognize your leadership and george miller's leadership back in 2007 when we passed the college cost reduction act which reduced an interest rate of 67.8% -- 6.8% which was set as a result of a republican congress in 2002 which passed a budget

reconciliation act locking in that higher rate. it has saved 15 million students in this country higher debt levels because we cut that rate from 3.4%. sadly the speaker of the house, john boehner, voted against that measure. sadly my good friend from men mb, the chairman of the house education and work force committee, voted against that measure in 2007. it was well understood it had a five-year sunset, like a lot of programs in tax policies in this congress. people were complaining about the clip we created. how about the bush tax cuts? that's got a $4 trillion cliff on december 31 because the majority party when they enacted the tax cuts sunset that measure. here we are today, 64 days away, and we are now suddenly seeing the majority party nudging on this subject. as mr. miller pointed out, the ryan budget, which the

republicans lined up as a party to pass two or three weeks ago. they locked in the higher rate, built into the ryan budget. in addition in doubled down on higher education affordability by cutting the pell grant award from $6,000 to $5,000. that is the republican higher education platform. thankfully we have a president who stood on the platform on january 24 and challenged this congress to protect that lower rate and because we did not get a healing, we didn't get a will, we didn't get a markup, we got no flicker of action by the leadership of this chamber, he went on the road and talked to the people of this country like presidents before him, like harry truman and others, because that was the only way you are going to turn this body around was with external pressure to make sure that middle class families knew what the heck was going on. which was nothing. i started this countdown clock at 110 days when we were waiting

for this debt level to go up. and there was a reason for that, because 130,000 petition signatures were dropped off at the speaker's office at day 110. we heard nothing from that date when again overwhelming college campus signatures arrived at this congress and now today we are down to day 64. they are feeling the political heat. good for you, mr. president, for raising this issue and forcing this body to address one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. and they come up with a pay for that is a disgraceful, grotesque pay for that goes after women and children in the name of protecting student loans. as mr. miller said thank goodness the student leaders who have been leading fight to protect this lower rate have stood up and said, no way. 30 seconds more? i would just--mr. tierney: another 15 seconds. mr. courtney: i would just say that the president responded to

that call a few minutes ago by indicating that this measure is dead. it will be vetoed. it's not going anywhere. let's get back to work and come up with a real fix and solve this crisis for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to remind the gentleman from connecticut that he was one of 157 -- 47 members on that side of the aisle voting for taking money out of this -- out of the protection of -- for health care. i would now yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, our esteemed chairman of the education. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding the time and for

introducing this legislation. i rise in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. we seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we've got an economy in shambles. we've got unemployment rate above 8% now for over three years. we got college graduates who graduate from college and can't get a job. after of them can't get a job or get the right job. they are underemployed or unemployed. and we've got by law the interest rate on subsidized stafford student loans going from 3.4% to 6.8%, by law. a law drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. it was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this was going to happen. we were going to get to the point where interest rates were

going to double. nevertheless, it's the law. and so what do we do about it? it seems to me, and i think we get some agreement on this, we ought to have a long-term fix so we are not doing this again next year and the next year, and the next year. make it a decision, we need a long-term fix. so today we are trying to stop up -- step up and address the immediate concerns of our students, our graduates that go into this shaky economy. so we are moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4% for one more year. and i look at this as the opportunity for them -- us to get together and make a long-term fix. a fix that is much more driven by the market rather than the politics of the day or the year.

by election year, we need a long-term fix. this will give us the opportunity to do that. our students deserve -- another 30 seconds if i could. mrs. biggert cloverpb another 30 seconds. -- mrs. biggert: another 30 seconds. mr. kline: we have got proposals from the other side of the aisle from friends in the senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very time when our economy is in touch trouble. and there are other proposals that says let's tax all companies. let's drive up the price of gas. we can talk about cynicism. what we are talking about is using a slush fund that is provided to the secretary to spend as she sees fit. that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. what a surprise in this election year. another 30 seconds, please. there are multiple, multiple

sources of funding, of programs that can address women's needs. i think it is cynical to suggest that we are somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly give. the president himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the slush fund. this is the way to go. let's address the immediate needs of our students and work together on a long-term solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: the republicans' long-term fix was voted on a couple weeks in their budget which allowed the rates to go up to 6.8% an took away the in-school subsidy for interest rates, driving students' costs further up. that's why we are here today. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: a college student sits in the financial aid office worried about her interest rate

doubling on july 1. a woman sits in the waiting room of a health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. and a corporate executive sits in the boardroom of an oil company waiting to get his tax break from the federal government. everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid the loan increase. the bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the interest rate increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic and deny her the cancer screening. we say the way to do it is to go to the corporate executive and the oil company boardroom and deny him his tax give away from the federal treasury. the way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down health for the women of this country. the way to pay for it is to shut down the give away of taxpayer dollars for the oil industry of this country. that's the way to fix the problem and that's the way we

eventually will. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. buerkle, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: good morning, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan initiative that will save our country's future leaders billions of dollars. economists have resoundingly predicted that a student loan crisis may soon end america's fragile, and i stress fragile, factor into shambles if it is not soon addressed. the new york federal reserve has reported that student loans are the leading cause of this debt. with $870 billion last month alone. this tops even credit card debt. my friend in illinois has

proposed a commonsense solution to halt an increase in federal loan rates that everyone agrees is needless. but, mr. speaker, i must say to you, i was stunned to hear that leaders on the other side of the aisle, our good friends on the other side, were attempting to take this issue hostage. our sons and daughters' pursuits have been hydrogened -- hijacked for political gamesmanship. let me be clear, mr. speaker, the fund which is offsetting this looming rate hike is nothing more than a slush fund. the h.h.s. secretary has authority to use it without congressional discretion. . it was giving to an unelected bureaucrat that used things for bike paths, lobbying efforts. i am a woman who has worked for years as a woman's health care

practitioners and on behalf of women's health care patients. i will tell you for the other side, mr. speaker, to manipulate this issue does nothing to advance women's interests but in fact demeans the accomplishments made in women's health over the past decade. mr. speaker, i implore my colleagues who are playing games with this critical issue to grow up. this is not kindergarten. this is the reality of crushing debt college costs. this bill will help our future by making colleges more affordable by leaving them with a country that is not unindated in debt. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: thank you. before i yield any further i am going to take 15 seconds and yield to myself, mr. speaker. this supposed slush fund that people are talk about is a fund giving the appropriations committee the authority to designate where it will be spent. that authority was advocated by

our friends on the other side. and the secretary specified every year where it will be spent. 326,000 screenings for breast cancer, 284,000 cervical cancer screenings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tierney: and so on down the line. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority -- minority leader of the house from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in july and to pay for that by cutting subsidies to big oil instead, as the republicans do, making it -- continuing their all-out assault on women's health. so much of the time we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to america's working families that are struggling to

make ends meet. imagine them around their kitchen table as we talk about this, that and the other things seems disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. what we're talking about today directly relates to what keeps people up at night -- their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families. the list goes on. some of those -- some of those are addressed in this legislation. i think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children. imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family as we are and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college we're not going to be able to immunize your little

brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventive care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, the list goes on and on, for your mom or any other preventive care for men and women in our family. it just would be wrong. who are we as a nation than to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family? it's just not right. especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over again. will you tell me put it in context. in 2007 the democratic majority in the house, working in a bipartisan fashion with our republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rates to 3.4%. we were very proud of that legislation, passing with 77 members of the republican vote -- voting with the democratic

party. the bill was signed by then president george w bush and we all celebrated -- george w. bush and we all celebrated that legislation. if no action is taken, those interest rates at 3.4% will go back to the level of 6.8%. we had been making that argument over and over again that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way that enables them to acquire higher education, should they desire and be qualified to do so. that's in their family and their family's priorities. the republicans have grown impatient, they said, with hearing about student loans. don't look at us. until the president went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, that in the republican budget, the ryan republican tea party budget, there was -- it enabled the doubling of the interest rates.

and our house budget, house democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4%. a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table. and you have a college-age child. it's about the children and the debt they incur and the families and the debt they incur. because the president took the issue to the american people, he made the issue too hot to handle, so the republicans this week are doing an about face for what they did last week which was to vote overwhelmingly for their budget which will allow the student loans, the stafford loans to double. an about face. what do they do? they say, ok, we won't allow it to double, but we're going to take the money from women's health. should be no surprise to anyone

because they have an ongoing assault on women's health, and this is in their budget and this is just a continuation of that. but i think it's important to note the following -- that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the from rate at 3.4%, they say while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. let's eliminate the entire fund for prevention, for the immunization, for the screening and the rest, for the c.d.c. to do its public health work. let's eliminate it. that should tell you something about where their priorities are that they're saying, we stand here once again handmaidens of the oil industry, protecting subsidies for big oil, and instead we want mom and the children to pay the price with their

health. that's just not right. it's just not right. the president made it clear to the public the difference in our approach on the student loan issue. now he has made it clear that ell veto this bill -- that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for. unfortunately, rather than finding common ground and a way to pay for this critical policy, the statement of administration policy says, this bill includes an attempt to repeal the prevention in public health fund created to help prevent disease detected early and manage conditions before they become severe. women in particular will benefit from this prevention fund which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer. this is already happening. this would have to stop under this bill. so let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated population in our

country so people can reach their self-fulfillment, whatever they decide it is, so we can be competitive in world markets, so we can have an informed electorate. in the spirit of the g.i. bill, which educated the -- our soldiers when they came home, created a middle class in our country which is the backbone of our democracy, and in a global economy even more necessary for us to be able to have the skills and trained work force in order to compete. let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people, whether it's early childhood, k-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning, nothing brings more money to the treasury. so it will be a false economy to deter people from seeking more education and it's adding insult to injury to say now that we finally had to fold on the issue and agree with the

democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4% instead of doubling at 6.8%, we will put women and children first as those who will pay for that. that's just not right. i congratulate the president for his message to the american people, for the message of his administration and statement of administration policy that a veto would be recommended. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: three minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. i apologize. mr. woodall: i rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. we got caught up in politician

today. i am so angry i could spit. i am trying to bring my blood pressure around. i am the key note speaker tonight for the georgia college republicans statewide convention, and i'm going to go down there and proudly tell them i voted no on this bill today that is pandering on their interest, not because i don't love people in education, it's because i love young people in education. we are paying for a piece of legislation, every oil industry tax you want to raise, every millionaire tax you want to raise, you know, that could be paying down the deficit that we're borrowing from these young people that you purport to -- that you support here today. every new piece of obamacare that we want to abolish and should be aabolished, we could put that money toward the $1 trillion we're borrowing from our children and asking them to pay back. i am not embarrassed what we do to serve our young people. congratulations on our

subsidies for our young people. we've now driven our student loan debt higher than the credit card debt in this country. congratulations. congratulations that we now have a 3.4% so one out of two people who come out of college and can't find a job can default on those loans at a lower rate instead of a higher rate. congratulations. what about focusing on the jobs? what about focusing on our children's future? what about focusing on the better tomorrow that we owe to these young people? there's a choice of two futures here. a choice of two futures. and the committee, as everyone in this house knows, is working on a fermnant solution, a permanent solution. we -- permanent solution. a permanent solution. we subsidize institute loans today. 6.8%. that's below market interest rates. we subsidize student loans today with an above-the-line deduction on the 1040. everybody can take that today. already today.

and here we are in the midst of the largest economic crisis in our nation's history saying once again let's spend the money instead of putting the money towards these children's future. there is no free lunch in this town. every single penny that we spend we're spending from them. you're not subsidizing these people. you are asking them to pay more with interest in their future. one out of two kids can't find a job graduating from college. student loans higher than credit card loans for the first time in american history. are we headed in the right direction? are we headed in the wrong direction? i say, focus on what this committee on labor and education is doing. look at what they are doing for a permanent fix to provide certainty. this is another short-term fix. and i know my colleagues on the left and on the right are trying their best to do what

they believe in their heart that's going to serve our young people, but short-term fixes aren't the answer. there's a better answer and it's coming from the committee later on this year. i hope my colleagues will oppose this bill today and support that bill going forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. just before i yield i want to correct the gentleman. there is somebody that would get the free lunch and that is the oil companies that made $80 billion in profits last year. i recognize the gentleman from illinois for unanimous consent. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to robbing health and education to pay for oil. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tierney: with that, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the majority's faulty attempt to extend current student loan interest rates. the ryan budget, which most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for, allow those interest rates to expire.

it was only when they started getting criticized by the press they decide to offer an alternative to our proposal. even then it took yet another shot at the health care law while keeping big oil subsidies intact. mr. speaker, this year a mammogram has saved my wife's life. they have chosen the wrong priority. at the end of the day, the american people cannot afford to see their interest rates double on their student loans. . i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in offering a legitimate source of funding that doesn't put anyone's health in jeopardy. this congress needs to find an equitable solution to this problem before july 1. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr.

speaker. at this time i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. banks offer car loans at 3.99% interest rate. banks also offer 30-year fixed mortgages on homes with an interest rate of 3.8%. student loans are currently at 3.4%, but if we don't do something it's going to jump to 6.8%. it seems to mekong can handle this and do something about it -- it seems to me that congress can handle this and do something about it. recent graduates from college are unemployed or underemployed. i received an email from a high school student today encouraging to do a commonsense thing to put the student loan rate at 3.4%. why don't we do that? student loan debt has reached $1 trillion. why would you want to strap students going into college with

more debt by increasing the student loan rate in this current economic climate? you can get a car or home loan rate very low. in fact you can get some car loans with zero%, but not so with students. why is that? we should maintain low interest rates for student loans. cars and homes are important, but students going to college on investment in our future. education is important tool for our young people to be able to contribute to america's competitiveness worldwide. also the bill is paid for and some of the money that's coming out of this unconstitutional health care mandate will go to deficit reduction. we need to support our students and encourage young people to go to college. not discourage them by increasing their student loan rate because of politics. this is a commonsense idea, extend the student loan low interest rate, we should do it today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yields back his time. the gentleman from

massachusetts. mr. tierney: i note, mr. speaker, it was common sense about two weeks ago along with the entire republican party to let the rate go to 6.8%. it's nice to see they have found reality here. this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. following up on my friend from texas, i served on the labor health committee for 23 years. bill from kentucky used to say this, if you take care of the health of your people and invest in the education of your young people, you'll continue to be the strongest and best nation on the face of the earth. i agreed with the gentleman from kentucky then and i agree with him now. everybody says on this floor, although everybody didn't vote that way, mr. boehner voted against this reduction in interest rates, mr. cantor voted against this reduction in interest rates, and mr. kleine voted in 2007 against this reduction in interest rates. what we are saying is we need to invest, we talk about subsidies, this isn't a subsidy, this is an

investment in a wetter -- better, stronger, more growing america. that's what this is. but what do we say? natcher said remember if we take care of the health of our people this undermines the health of our people. it takes away preventive assistance so that women, families, children can get preventive care which so many republicans have said is a more efficient and effective cost saving way to address the health of our country. bill natcher was right. bill natcher was right. conservative democrat from kentucky who said, if you take care of the health of your people and educate your young people, you will be the strongest nation on earth. this bill goes in the wrong direction trying to do the right thing. let us reject this bill and if in fact you are for investing in our young people and bringing these interest rates down, which is so absolutely essential, then

bring back a bill you know will pass because you know this bill will not pass. the president has issued a statement of administration policy that says he will veto this bill because they do not want to undermine the health of women, family, and children while at the same time they want to invest in the college education for our country, young people, and our future. reject this bill. bring back a new bill, the courtney bill, which does in fact invest in our children and take care of the health of our people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you. mr. speaker, as we have noted before, in february congress took action to stop a payroll tax increase on working families and ensure the tax increase did not add to the deficit.

the legislation cut $5 billion from the prevention fund. and the bill received the support of 149 house democrats, including democrat leaders such as ms. pelosi and mr. kildee, and mr. courtney. i guess that the democrats were in favor of raiding the slush fund before they were against it. with that i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: thank you so much. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. i have a prepared speech but in sitting here listening to the debate i really want to focus in on one specific issue. american students should not be fearful to attend college due to

the crushing weight of student loans weighing them down after their graduation, but as is suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this preventive care finds reduction would deny access to individuals for these health care screenings, and i had the privilege, mr. speaker, just yesterday, to have a conversation with the secretary see we'llous -- sebelius directly as it relates to this fund. i asked her very specifically, madam secretary, will the reduction in the preventive fund cause a child to be denied access to a health screening? and by her own admission she said, and i quote, absolutely not. so as i am listening to this debate and hear the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle i'm dismayed to hear some of the things being said that quite frankly by the secretary's own admission just quite are not true. and so i stand today in support

of this bill and i want to also point out that by the secretary's own admission as well she acknowledged that in fact the president of the united states himself in his own budget put reductions to this fund. the interest rate reduction act will repeal the slush fund, the $5.9 billion will be used to offset the cost of maintaining the one-year extension as we move towards a meaningful response to our young people. congress must put washington politics aside and take action. it is time to stop piecing together temporary solutions to the problems that exist in our student aid programs. i fully support the interest rate reduction act and i encourage my colleagues to join me. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. madam speaker, i note i was at that education meeting and heard the secretary say quite clearly that no child would get immunization under this program will get immunization under this

program if the fund is eliminated. mr. speaker, of course taking a little bit of the money and taking that and equating it to wiping out the entire fund. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the cynicism of the debate today is why congress is held in such low repute. we hear republicans saying that a public health fund is a slush fund. this is a fund set up to keep us healthy, prevent diseases as long as possible, immunize our kids, provide mammography and pap smears to women in need, find wirt defects early on, help stop smoking, they call this a slush fund. they are not trying to reduce this fund, their proposal is to eliminate it. and the argument from the other side of the aisle is, well, we'll still get those services.

i don't know whether we'll get those services if the fund is eliminated and appropriations are being squeezed down. so they call this a slush fund, but they are using it as a slush fund because they took the elimination of this fund to pay for this extension of student loan interest rates, and they eliminated this fund so they could use it for their reconciliation to the budget in order to make sure defense is adequately funded, to make sure the tax cuts are kept in place. they are using it as a slush fund and they are using the student loan issue to drive their agenda. i find that very cynical. i find that, in fact, quite repulsive. and i hope we will reject this bill. we are all for, according to the debate, making sure that we maintain the current interest rates for the 7.4 million students depending on these loans, but i don't find much

sincerity when we see a proposal coming from the republican majority to pay for that by cutting out preventive services. there's got to be a better way to do it. they are not looking for a better way, they are just looking for a way to cover their rear ends. i urge people to vote against this bill. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. stearns: i thank my distinguished colleague. let me just say to the gentleman from california who just getting ready to leave the floor, when he mentioned that republicans are going to prevent tobacco prevention of our youth today, he and i both know there's a separate program in c.d.c. just for tobacco prevention.

and in fact in this so-called pphf which all of us have called the slush fund which is the prevention of public health fund, there is right now $191.685 million for this spending for tobacco prevention. and after this amendment passed there would be $109 million still remaining in this for that smoking and health component of cdc. i say to the gentleman from massachusetts and mr. hoyer from maryland, i mean you're yelling fire and there's no fire. i could go through all these things to show you that your arguments are wrong. the fact that see we'llous -- sebelius, the head of the health and human services said publicly, she in fact pointed out that this so-called slush fund is not going to impact what

mr. hoyer says dealing with women and families and children. and they bring up mr. hatcher. mr. hatcher says is very noble, very good. and you constantly hues that. i'm going to take you through these different areas where you say that it's going to be unable to provide supports for the family and women and children. cancer prevention and control which includes breast and cervical cancer screening, it's funded at $205 million in f.y. 2005 budget and f.y. 2013 budget goes up to $261 million. it goes up almost 60 million. no prevention funds are being used for free cancer screening. and will not be affected. let's take birth defects and developmental disabilities. in f.y. 12 the program was $138 million. it's now going to be $125 million.

again, these funds would continue to receive discretionary funding, nutrition, physical, activity, obesity activity again will continue to receive funding. viral hepatitis screening. c.d.c. health care statistics and surveillance, and prevention research center. all of these things, i say to the folks on this side, are going to continue to receive base discretionary funding. and i challenge you, the gentleman from massachusetts, to point out where and each one of the ones i talked about, all these programs are going to remain in exist ens. how in the world can you -- existence. how in the world can you come to the floor and constantly say -- i'm almost ready -- the point is that you folks are not actively portraying what this bill does, so i support h.r. 4628 and i agree with secretary sebelius, the slush fund will not affect women, family, and children. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair not to others in the second person. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i would have addressed my remarks to the chair and taken the challenge anything other than an empty challenge they would have noted secretary see bell us and administration clearly those funds would have been diminished in the screenings for wrest cancer and cervical cancer would have been passed by hundreds of thousands in the administration's own analysis. i ask the chair for the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from illinois has 514r3/4 minutes remaining. mr. tierney: with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. . mr. holt: think of the great moments of american public policy, creation of land grant colleges, the g.i. bill, providing student loans, all directed toward increasing access to higher education. four years ago we, the

democrats, lowered interest rates for students to 3.4%, saving today's typical student borrower a couple thousand dollars. so two days ago the speaker, cornered by student outrage, said the majority always intended to keep these rates low. if the republicans were interested in keeping the student interest rates low, why did their budget double it? they voted twice to let rates double and collect $166 billion more from students so they could preserve tax giveaways for big oil. now they come and propros canceling preventive health care funding, not preventing cervical cancer, not preventing tobacco-related diseases, eviscerating the centers for disease control to preserve tax giveaways for big oil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me thank congressman tierney for yielding and for your tireless leadership on this important issue. it's clear to me the republicans are not serious about addressing the student a lot interest rate hikes with their so-called interest rate reduction act. their bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing and would permanently end the prevention in public health fund established by the affordable care act. this is the first mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving public health. it is extremely important in our fight to prevent chronic diseases, h.i.v. and aids and women's health. this is such a sad and sinister ploy. instead of pitting student loan relief against critical critical preventive health for middle and low-income families, we should be working toward real solutions. instead of paying for subsidies

to big oil, we should invest in our students who are our future. this bill jeopardizes, mind you, jeopardizes the health of our nation. it uses our students as pawns, and it is morally wrong. i hope we defeat this insincere proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: the republican majority in this house is involved in the political shell game on this issue. they have voted to eliminate the prevention and public health fund. they voted two days ago to end it. today they want to tell you they are going to take money from it to pay for student loans. you can't end the fund and then

talk about taking money to use it. in addition to that, the gentleman from california a moment ago talked about money in the appropriations bills for these health care programs. what he doesn't tell you that the majority in the committee are voting to cut the money for the centers for disease control , for the screening for breast and cervical cancer, for all these efforts. they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. this majority passed a budget that has asked families to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, slash pell grants for nearly 10 million college students, allow interest rates on student loans to double in july. and after there was an outpouring of concern about the doubling of interest rates, they switched course. this apparent moment of conscience was too good to be true. instead of ending oil

subsidies, closing corporate tax loopholes, what they now have done, they eliminate, eliminate the prevention in public health fund what that fund does is -- i'll be brief in this -- it is about providing screening for breast and cervical cancer. women die every year from kembcal cancer. isn't it worth trying to prevent cervical cancer and not eliminate it? it works to prevent coronary heart disease, the leading killer of women in america. it has the potential of mitigate othio pour owe cis, arthritis, mental illness. this would disproportionately protect the women. there is a level of hypocrisy on this floor that is staggering. instead of taking the money from health care for education, a false choice, vote against this bill. th