the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 248. the nays are 163. the bill is passed. without objection, a the motion

to reconsider to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to instruct h.r. 4348 offered by the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will redesignate the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348, offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to instruct. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this

vote the yeas are 260. the nays are 138. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 697, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 5973, making appropriations for agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 5972, making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of i quiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, mr. cantor, the gentleman from virginia. the majority leader. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday, the house will meet in pro forma session but no votes are expected. on tuesday the house will meet

at 12 noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business, votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house may consider two appropriations bills next week, h.r. 5972, the transportation, housing, and urban development appropriations act, and h.r. 5973, the agriculture, rural development, and food and drug administration act. members are advised that the house will begin consideration of one of these two bills after the :30 p.m. vote series on tuesday -- 6:30 p.m. vote series on tuesday, and should expect an additional late series of votes

on amendments. again, mr. speaker, that is on tuesday. the house is also scheduled to consider a privileged resolution finding eric h. holder jr., attorney general of the u.s. department of justice, in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena issued by the committee on oversight and government reform. finally, i expect the house to consider legislation dealing with both expiring authority for our nation's highway program as well as the pending increase in the federal subsidized student loan rate. before i yield back, mr. speaker, i want to assure members that we will accommodate both the congressional white house picnic on wednesday night, as well as the congressional baseball game on thursday evening. debate may continue on appropriations amendments after the picnic and during the baseball game, but during those events no votes will take place. i thank the gentleman. yield back. . mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. obviously the gentleman has

spoken to very important pieces of legislation. and i want to talk about those and then i want to talk about what i believe to be a diversion from the important business of this country. but i will get to, first, the highway conference. on friday there will be 100 days since the senate's passed a bipartisan bill, a bill which had 75 members of the united states senate for it. that conference has not yet reported out. i understand there is some activity on that. the house overwhelmingly voted for the walz m.t.i. that said the conferees ought to report out of conference tomorrow. i don't know if that's about to happen. today is tomorrow. but we will see whether or not

perhaps the gentleman can give us some information on that issue. i offered a motion to instruct to give the house an up or down vote on the senate bill. if we can't wait for a bill that comes out of conference. clearly if it doesn't come out of conference, it's going to cost us a lot of jobs. it will not protect the 1.9 million jobs the senate bill protects, and it will not create approximately a million more additional jobs. as the gentleman knows, it is our view, we've been considering a lot of legislation that does not impact positive growth in our economy. i think there is little dispute that the highway bill will in fact do that. and in addition, there's been a lot of talk about certainty. i think and i agree with the premise that we ought to give certainty to the economy, to

employers and employees and to states and subdivisions and private sector contractors. obviously if we don't extend the highway bill, that will not be the case. in fact, there will be a very uncertain world in which they will be operating. so can my friend tell me what the status of the conference is if he knows? i will tell you very frankly that democratic conferees do not know the status of the conference, and i'll yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would say to the gentleman the conferees continue to work in a bicameral nature. the discussions are proceeding between chairman mica, chairman boxer, and as the gentleman knows, i have said before we are desirous of seeing a bill done as the gentleman said to afford more certainty to the folks who are relying on the

funding of our nation's transportation program, and we would certainly think this would be a huge benefit to producing a bill prior to the expiration of the program next week, but knowing full well none of us, most of us don't want to see any kind of shutdown in the funding that we would be prepared in any way to make sure that does not happen. but the intention is to allow these conferees to continue to do their work and hopefully we'll have a bill to vote on next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i hope the gentleman's correct. my concern and the concern on this side continues to be the position, as mr. shuster, who is one of the ranking members and whose dad, of course, chaired the committee at one point in time, there was a story that shuster acknowledged that the g.o.p.'s inability to

pass the five-year term, $60 billion transportation bill, quote, weakens our hand in conference. this is what concerns me, mr. leader. but he added, quote, it's not an option to give away the house position, closed quote. now, he was referring to, of course, a bill which has not passed this house, has not even been brought to the floor of this house. and that article went on to say, house republicans say they are willing to walk away from the highway bill if they cannot get what they want. now, this was an interview -- i see mr. shuster on the floor. and mr. shuster is a friend of mine. i'll be glad to hear what he says on that matter and i yield to him. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman for yielding. we did send over a position on our extension and that was the streamlining that we wanted in our original bill but was in the extension. so that's what i was talking

about. that's the house position. and as far as i can tell things are moving in a positive direction. i guess we will be debating your motion to instruct a little later. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i certainly hope that we are moving in a positive direction. because we've been a long time getting to a resolution of this matter. next, i'd like to ask -- you indicated that student loans may be on the calendar as well. before i do that -- well, no. student loans will be on the floor as well. can the gentleman tell me what his expectation is on that if he knows? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman it's been our position all along that we do not want to see the expiration of the funding of the program to impact the students that right now are

struggling, and we have presented to both the white house as well as the gentleman's side of the aisle here in the capitol various ways of accomplishing that end in a responsible manner and a fiscally responsible manner so we are not digging the hole in the deeper, we are not incurring any additional debt to do that and thus far have not seen a willingness on the part of the white house. i am aware there are discussions ongoing on the other side of the capitol to see if there can be some resolution on this issue and that's all i can say to the gentleman as far as i know. i yield back. mr. hoyer: well, i'm hopeful we can resolve this in a way that's agreeable to at least the majority of both houses and to the president of the united states, because if we don't, as the gentleman knows, we are going to increase interest rates by doubling them from 3 tp 4% to -- 3.4% to 6.8%.

today's college students are leaving with an average of $26,000 in debt. this would add another $1,000 of debt to those students, and right now with students owing more than $1 trillion, placing more debt on their head, and i would urge us therefore to come to an agreement, come to an agreement that both sides could vote for. obviously as the gentleman knows the house bill that passed was a pay-for that democrats didn't vote for here, and i think it was well-known that the senate would not agree to that so i'm hopeful we do reach an agreement that will provide for its passage. now, let me ask the gentleman, we have, of course, made the representation we ought to be focused on jobs. we believe that's critically

important and we believe that ought to be the focus of this congress. it's the focus of the american people. we went through in years past distractions. you say with just some 30 full days left between now and the election that you're going to bring up a resolution that came out of committee, as i understand, yesterday without much time for consideration or deliberation, a very, very serious matter. attorney general holder of course has been involved in making sure that votes are not suppressed all over this country. he has in my view conducted himself in a way that brought credit to the justice department, to himself and to

this administration. i don't know -- well, let me ask the gentleman. how long do you expect to spend on this motion? i don't think any of us have seen the final bill that's going to come to the floor suggesting that mr. holder shall be held in contempt. i don't think anyone outside the committees have had an opportunity to consider this very weighty, important matter, very disruptive matter, i would say, very distracting matter. what procedure does the gentleman suggest is going to be pursued next week on this matter? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd respond to the gentleman, i think the gentleman does know this is a privileged resolution of which he speaks and it would be subject to a one-hour rule just as privileged resolutions

were under their majority, mr. speaker, and we will proceed -- expect to proceed accordingly. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. which means a matter of great weight is going to be brought to the floor within just a few days of being passed out of committee with a relatively short period of time for either debate or for consideration. there is, of course, precedent and the gentleman's correct, it is a privileged resolution and i understand the rules under privileged resolutions but i do understand that this is a matter that's going to require a very careful judicious, if i say, consideration. and to bring it up at a time when we ought to be focused on jobs, when you're trying to do two appropriation bills, when you're talking about the highway bill and we are talking

about the student loan bill and to treat it as what of a suspension bill provision with little time to really have it discussed with the seriousness that the subject matter requires, i would suggest to the gentleman that this is going to be a knowing distraction but unfortunate, taking our focus off creating jobs here in america. i yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, this is an issue of, you know, making sure that the american people are given an opportunity to have all the information surrounding the issues involved with the fast and furious program. this is an issue that we feel,

as has been indicated by the actions of chairman issa, that in acting with all reason, asking the administration, the attorney general to produce certain documents, the attorney general having agreed to produce certain documents and then refusing to do so, chairman issa leading up to vote in the committee the other day had said all along if the attorney general had produced the documents that there will be a postponement of the hearing and in the same fashion, mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, our democratic whip, if the attorney general would do what it is he committed to do and produce the documents, we'll postpone the votes. we have not seen any indication of that. he has not done that and that's why i announced the vote. i yield back. mr. hoyer: let me ask the gentleman, does the gentleman intend to go to the rules committee to get a rule or bring the privileged resolution to the floor? i yield to my friend.

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would say that some of that has gone into discussion but this resolution does have privilege. i yield back. mr. hoyer: with respect to another piece of legislation i would like to ask the gentleman about, the violence against women act, which again the senate passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion which we passed in a relatively partisan fashion over here where the parties were split, will the gentleman tell me whether or not he knows the status of the -- of that legislation and whether or not we expect to consider that any time soon? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i would just say to the gentleman he knows the senate has -- the so-called blue slip problem with its bill and that is about as far as i know as far as the senate. as the gentleman knows we passed the bill here in the house. did so recognizing the

suggestions, incorporating the suggestions that the g.a.o. had made how to streamline the grant programs under violence against women act to allow for dollars to reach victims in a more expeditious manner. we wholeheartedly support the passage of that. as the gentleman saw when it passed the house, would like to see resolution on this. yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. as the gentleman knows we believe that the bill that passed the house on violence against women frankly left out a lot of women. reduced scope that the senate passed with, again, a bipartisan vote, with frankly all the women on the republican side of the aisle in the united states senate voting for the senate bill. we think the house bill restricted the coverage of that bill. it seems to me we ought to be

against guns against all -- violence against all women and other persons that may be subject to domestic violence. we would hope that that matter could be resolved, frankly, along the lines of making sure that all people are protected from domestic violence. lastly, i ask the gentleman what he expects the schedule for the balance of july to be? again i would reiterate, as the gentleman knows, we have very, very few days left. less than 30 full days between now and the election following this week. there are another eight days that are :30 days, seven or eight, so we don't have much time to deal with some of the pressing problems, including dealing with middle class tax cuts to make sure that working people in this country who are

having a hard time making ends meet don't get an increase in their taxes on january 1. can the gentleman tell me what he expects the schedule to be in the month of july? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman and say to the gentleman, again, if he looks at the schedule we are scheduled and have been in accord with that schedule in session more days this year than we were in a similar year last session. so i would say to the gentleman the schedule is right on track. the predictibility, certainty of the schedule has allowed for the work to continue. and we will be here throughout july. our intention is to continue to focus on job creation. we will be looking, obviously, towards the support and what its actions may bring next week on the issue of obamacare. if we have to act in response to that to assure all americans that we want and care about

their health care, we have to act, we will do so. if the court does not strike down the bill in its entirety, the gentleman knows our conference is fully committed to repeal, total repeal of the obamacare bill. in july we continue to focus on that bill and its impact on employers. we also are very concerned about the overreach of the regulatory agencies in this town. and intend to bring forward a bill with a series of provisions which will address the red tape that has begun to strangle innovation and growth in this economy. and we will also be very focused on a measure to stop the tax hike that is facing the american people this year. if you look at the enormous and the enormity of the tax hike, it is something that's hanging over this economy, hanging over the mindset of small businesspeople,

working families, i doncht think anybody would advocate -- don't think anybody would advocate raising taxes especially in this economy. that would be the outline of our work with obviously some other measures that may be brought up in july. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. let me just add, mr. speaker, that clearly when you look at the congress to which he referred in terms of its productivity, the 2007-2008 years, we think the productivity was very much higher. i won't go through those figures, the litany of those figures, but i think if the majority leader would use them he'll see in terms of productivity of the congress, we moved america much further forward. having said that, i want to say that we hope that we will continue to focus on jobs. i know the gentleman, and i share the gentleman's view, i think all of us share, we want

to have reasonable regulations that help grow the economy, not impede its growth. we are for that. we may have a difference of opinion on what that does. we think deregulating the protection of our environment, we think deregulating the safety of our financial markets, which when we took the referee off the field had an extraordinarily negative impact on this country and every taxpayer in this country and every business in this country. was not useful, was not helpful. and so i think we have a difference of opinion on whether or not we want to make sure there is a level playing, a fair playing field for all the participants in our economy on both businesses and consumers. clearly there was an effort that's being made to undermine the ability of the cftc to fully oversee what was a market that went out of control. as a result dire consequences to

our country and its fiscal status. i'm hopeful that we don't pursue a regulatory agenda which is an agenda that is a net result of taking the referee off the field. i don't think the american public wants that. i don't think they think that's reasonable. but further i think they think we really need to be focused on things that immediately will grow this economy. the highway bill would have done that. unfortunately the highway bill has stayed in limbo for too long a time. i'm hopeful we can move it. unless the gentleman has something further to say, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. lele -- for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 2:00 p.m. on monday next. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i offer a motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348 offered by mr. hoyer of maryland. mr. hoyer of maryland moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 4348 be instructed to recede from disagreement to the amendment of the senate. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material

on my motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, tomorrow will mark as i said a little earlier 100 days since the united states senate approved its bipartisan compromise highway bill in the united states senate. 74 senators voted for that. half of the -- essentially half of the republican conference in the united states senate voted for that bill. there has been a bill in the house committee, that bill has languished in the house committee for many, many months. in fact, about four months after the speaker said he wanted to bring it to the floor. it has not come to the floor. apparently because the

republican party is divided on that bill and they don't have the votes for that bill. the measure that passed the senate, 74-22, and it would have been, by the way, 75-22 had frank lautenberger been there, he made that statement on the floor. that's 3/4 of the senate with the support of 22 senate republicans. americans are wishing that we would come together, reason together, and act together to give certainty to them, to the economy, and to their country. unfortunately the house bill that was passed was effectively a bill simply to go to conference. now, i know my friend, and he is my friend, mr. shuster from pennsylvania, will say that -- in the article that was written that it was simply that house bill to which he was referring. i take him at his word he was

referring to that. very frankly others have said that there were items in the bill in committee that were critically important to them that ought to be in the conference committee report. and obviously the senate would not agree to those. this bill to which i refer and which this motion to instruct refers is supported by the chamber of commerce in cities and counties across this nation. this is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation in the great tradition of transportation bills passed since the eisenhower era. the gentleman who is managing the time on the republican side, father was a great proponent of infrastructure investment, great leader in this congress on infrastructure, and in fact participated on every time that i think he brought a bill out or as ranking member he worked with was passed in a bipartisan fashion.

unfortunately we haven't gotten to that point at this point in time. instead of taking up that bill, the senate bill, and allowing us to have a vote on it here in the house, and in my opinion if the republican leadership let its members vote free of influence by the leadership, that bill would have the majority votes on this house floor. speaker boehner has said he wants this house to work its will. in my point of view, in my estimation, that bill has a majority support on the floor of this house. it would hav i think, every democratic vote, every democratic vote just as the export-import bank had every vote on our side of the aisle. and that's why it passed overwhelmingly, notwithstanding republican position. the caucus on the other side of the aisle in my opinion remains divided over how to proceed. house republicans have once

again turned an opportunity to invest in job creation into a partisan exercise in saying no to any legislation that might strengthen our recovery and lower our unemployment rate. now, i'm not unmindful, and i believe the gentleman from pennsylvania will observe, there apparently has been some progress made. the progress that has been made is unknown to the democratic side of this aisle. neither the ranking member knows what progress has been made nor the ranking member of the subcommittee knows what progress has been made. but we are going to be told apparently there is some progress that's been made. i hope that's the case. but very frankly if that progress is not made, we ought to pass the senate bill. when presented with a real chance to lead, frankly, republicans, in my view, too often have walked away. whether it was keeping government going on continuing

resolutions, whether it was on making sure that the most reliable creditworthy nation in the world did not default on its debt, whether it was on passing an export-import bapping to make sure we created jobs and were competitive in this country, too often our republican friends have decided not to go there. republicans have been unwilling to act on bills. in several cases played a dangerous game by holding bills hostage. as i said this includes the debt limit crisis last summer and debt over extending the middle class payroll tax last december. over and over again our republican colleagues have proven themselves to be the walk away caucus. this congress has been in session for only 60 days so far this year. between now and the election, we are scheduled to be in session for 38 days, but only 30 of those are full work days. between now and the election,

that's four months from now. 30 days between today, june 21, and the election in november. but one wasted opportunity after another they have earned the 112th place in history as truly another do-nothing congress. a phrase made famous by harry truman. mr. speaker, my motion is simple. . it is based on what's right for our economy. what does that bill mean? the senate bill leverages funding to protect 1.9 million jobs. why is that important? because we lost 28,000 construction jobs last month alone. why? because we failed to pass this bill. in addition to the 1.9 million jobs that this bill would

provide, it would provide another one million jobs as we expand transportation opportunities. in my home state of maryland, nearly 29,000 jobs are supported by federal transportation investment. those are jobs of families who are paying taxes, sending their kids to school, buying fwroseries, buying goods and services and supporting our economy. and speaker boehner's home state of ohio, over 55,000 jobs are supported by this job. in virginia, republican leader cantor's home state, 40,000 jobs are on the line. that highway funding expires july 1, just a few days from now. for the sake of all these workers, for the sake of all these families who rely on these jobs and for the sake of all those workers and families who will be advantaged by the passage of those bills and the jobs that it will create, not only save but create.

in maryland, in ohio, in virginia, my colleague, mr. ryan, is here and across our country, ladies and gentlemen of this house, let's pass a transportation bill. that isn't simply another short-term extension. such extensions provide no certainty to the businesses that rely on sound infrastructure to move goods to market. let's pass the long-term re-authorization we need that will help put our economy back in drive, not in neutral and not in r, not in reverse. don't take my word for it why this is so important and so urgent. listen to president ronald reagan who said in 1982, and i quote, and i'm sure the gentleman's dad would have supported these statements. quote, ronald reagan, it means a nationwide conservation effort in the best sense of the

word. america cannot afford to though away roads or disposable transit systems. ladies and gentlemen, it's not too late for this do-nothing congress to make a u-turn and get back to work. it's not too late to help heed president reagan's wise words. it's not too late to provide our businesses with the certainty they are asking for. i urge my republican friends to start working with democrats to make the investments we need to grow job and strengthen our competitiveness before it's too late. frankly, that's what the american people expect. let's for once not disappointment. let's pass this motion and work together to move this country forward and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> mr. speaker, i rise to claim time in opposition to the motion to instruct and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i thank the gentleman. a lot of what mr. hoyer said i

agree with when it comes to moving a transportation bill and i think it is important and our infrastructure is the backbone of our economy and many places in the country it's crumbling and we need to here in congress do our job. this motion to instruct the conferees to accept the senate bill in its entirety is contrary to the purpose of having a house and senate conference. i know my friend from maryland has been one of the great defenders of this institution, and to suggest that we should just up and take the senate bill is a bit surprising to me that the gentleman would do that. as i said, he's been a real champion to make sure that the house maintains its position and has always been a strong defender. so a little surprising. also, i'd just like to remind my democrat colleague, we have been debating this bill for the past several months, my colleagues sometimes need to be reminded when they controlled both the house and senate they weren't able to get a bill out

of full committee in any basis, partisan or bipartisan, so it has been a difficult road and, again, they saw the difficulties back when they were in the majority. but it's our responsibility to sit down with our senate colleagues and address areas where we have differences of opinion. and i might add, too, there is a statement that just went out from chairman boxer and chairman mica, joint statement that reads -- the conferees have moved forward toward a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on a highway re-authorization bill. both house and senate conferees will complete with a package. i urge the gentleman to retract his motion, not offer it because i think there is a point when the chair of the conference and the vice chair of the conference are saying there has been movement, it's very positive. the senate bill, though, if you want to continue the senate

bill that i have serious concerns with, and i believe many on the other side of the aisle that have serious concerns about it, when they get to study the senate bill, they'll find that it requires that all new passenger vehicles, all new passenger vehicles begin in 2015 be equipped with the vent data recorders. these recorders are similar to the black boxes that are required in aircraft. while the intent of this provision is to collect safety information, i believe many of us would see it as a slippery slope toward big government and big brother. again, if our colleagues on the other side, and we talked about different ways to collect data and those on the other side of the aisle have great concerns about allowing information to be collected by big brother. privacy is a big concern for many across america. there are also areas where the senate bill does not go far enough.

while they streamline the project delivery process, it does not go far enough. and i believe we are at a time in our history -- and the gentleman mentioned many people around here mentioned my father and the good work he did and he did great work, but times have changed in the sense that the last two highway bills that were passed, the economy was in good shape. the highway trust was flushed with cash and we had the ability as members of congress to direct money back to our state and our districts. it's been a difficult process, minus those three things. so, again, the streamlining projects, the senate does not set hard deadlines for federal agencies to approve projects so they can just go on and on and on to have and that's why it takes 14 to 15 years to build a major highway project in this country. i was just out in oklahoma city a month or so ago and they just opened up the oklahoma city crosstown express. $680 million, it took 15 years

to build. if we're able to do some of these streamlining projects, we believe we can cut that time in half. and so if you just look at that project in oklahoma city, $680 million on inflation alone, we could have saved $60 million to $80 million on that project alone. $60 million to $80 million would go a long way in fixing roads in pennsylvania and new jersey. that's just one, setting hard deadlines. does not allow states -- does not allow state environmental laws in place of federal environmental laws when a state has a more rigorous environmental process, like california, like other states, why do they need the federal government's approval when theirs go far beyond what we do here in washington? instead of going through a second environmental regulatory process, let's let the states use theirs if it goes beyond the e.p.a. standards. it does not have categorical

exclusions. if you're going to replace a bridge with another bridge in the same footprint, if you're going to expand a roadbed in the current right of way it would be an abriefiated, faster review process so we can get those bridges built faster. we can get those lanes added quicker. again, what it comes down to is saving money. time is money. i think we all know that. it also du not expedite projects that are being rebuilt due to disasters. and that's something i think all across this country, what we have seen in minnesota, the bridge collapse, 446 days we constructed a major bridge crossing that river in minnesota. also, program consolidation is another important reform that the house has been pushing. the senate has been pushing to add two new programs at the cost of $3 billion a year. at a time when the highway

trust fund is going broke, we should be focusing our limited transportation dollars on consolidating programs and eliminating wasteful programs, not creating new ones. funding flexibility for the states, another critical point that allows the states to fund the most economically significant highway and bridge projects in their states. the federal government should not mandate the states to plant flowers and beautification. even bike paths, which i have been a big supporter of bike paths. when bridges are crumbling, in good conscience we can't tell the state to spend that time of money. they can opt out. they can spend that money if they so desire. i don't think it's a time when the federal government should be telling states to spend moneys on project that aren't going to be the most beneficial to their constituentses. we need to focus -- constituencies.

we need to focus on those. this should be addressed in this conference. from the statement i read earlier, i believe we are moving in a direction to adopt some of what i just talked about. so i ask my colleagues to oppose this motion. i'd urge my friend from maryland to step back at a time when we're getting so close. as the gentleman knows, he's been in this institution long enough and negotiated many, many significant pieces of legislation. this is not a time for us to be out here talking about it but to hunker down, make sure the conferees, the two chairmen are able to move forward and to get a bill that's going to benefit america. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i want to say to the gentleman, the items he mentioned, some of which we agree on and some of which we may not agree on, frankly could have been included in the bill that the house could have reported out of committee, brought to the floor. that didn't happen.

what we did was with the inability to pass a bill out -- that came out of your committee on the floor of the house, we then repaired to what was essentially a shell of a bill to go to conference. the problem that i have with the gentleman's statement is i hope the statement that we may be getting there is correct. but if we may be getting there, we're getting there because we constantly done motions like this -- 30 more seconds -- constantly done motions like this to get us to issue. we're talking about some two-plus million jobs. that's why the chamber of commerce is involved. that's why counties, states, local municipalities are involved saying, come to an agreement. very frankly, the bill that we passed here had some things that didn't relate to transportation. what the gentleman mentioned is items that dealt with transportation. your bill, as you well know, had items in it which were clearly not acceptable to either the president of the united states or -- which were

not unrelated to transportation. the gentleman has -- 30 additional seconds. the gentleman hadn't mentioned any of those. i'm pleased he didn't mention those. i'm hoping the republicans will say that's the litmus test the way we create jobs and give certainty to contractors and to public entities. at this point in time i yield two minutes to my good friend from new jersey, mr. sires. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. sires: mr. speaker, i rise to speak in support of congressman-hour's motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348, the surface transportation bill. this will ask the conference committee to end their differences and support the senate-passed merger. senate 1813 or m.a.p. 21 was

passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority with a final vote of 74-22. tomorrow marks 100 days since the senate passed their bipartisan bill. we have just over one week before the extension expires. we cannot afford to pass yet mohr short-term extension. we immediate to create jobs here in america. national unemployment is 8.2, and construction unemployment has nearly doubled at 14.2. some have officially started and the construction season is short. we have 1.2 million unemployed construction workers. map-21, it's estimated to save 1.9 million jobs and create another one million jobs.

we have a legislative solution to create jobs. it is the senate bill. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to put their differences aside and pass a comprehensive re-authorization. map-21 was passed on a bipartisan majority in the senate. let us do the same here in the house and put america back to work. thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i yield myself 30 seconds. in spopes to my good friend from maryland. i'm glad he got some of these provisions and they are job creating provisions. the ramp act will unlock the harbor trust fund so we can invest in our ports which i know the gentleman has a major port in maryland. those dollars are going to rebuilding and dredging and doing the things we need to do to be competitive around the world. that's a jobs act that's in the transportation bill. i might add ports are certainly transportation. we have also reform in there on

the coal ash which is an element -- additional 0 seconds. -- 30 seconds. the coal ash which is an element that goes into making cement. building roads and bridges, it's about cement and concrete. so there is another provision we believe will help our industries to be able to continue make, production cement to build our roads. and the keystone pipeline, all of america, most of america knows, which is about 0%, believe it is a positive thing to bring oil and energy to america to help power this economy while creating 20,000 jobs and maybe as much as 100,000 jobs in indirect labor and jobs to this country. with that i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the science and technology committee, ms. johnson from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized.

ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the democratic whip hoyer's motion to instruct the conferees which directs the conferees to agree to the senate passed transportation billman 21. bill, map-21, it passed by a bipartisan vote 74-22. it is critical that the house pass this legislation. we have been waiting a very, very long time. i'm from the state of texas. there is no state in the union this bill is more important for. our season is now to get highway started and we have massive infrastructure needs just like the rest of the country. tomorrow does mark the 100th day since the senate passed this bill. and the current re-authorization will expire next week. and while i'm encouraged by the progress being made in the conference, negotiations, we

simply cannot afford to delay any longer for individual pleas for individual needs. we all have needs. this bill is not perfect, no bill we have is perfect. but this bill will provide certainly needed and planning and developed. we have to have time for states to look at what they have available and plan for it. we cannot do this like any other bill. this is a transportation bill, infrastructure planning bill. and we simply must do something now. in addition to saving $1.9 million -- 1.9 million jobs, it creates a million jobs. it's a jobs bill. we have been talking about passing a jobs bill for the last almost two years and nothing has passed yet. i am pleading that we all support this motion to instruct. i encourage my colleagues to support it and let's get this

bill done. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady veppingd for -- is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. to not support congressman hoyer's, whip hoyer's motion to the senate transportation bill for which many times has been said, 74 senators, including 22 republicans voted, i would suggest to engage in nothing less than economic sabotage. well into the construction season the unemployment rate in the construction industry is at least twice the national average , and another short-term extension will not bring enough certainty to an industry that is hurting as badly as this one is.

map-21 is the single largest jobs bill passed by either body in this congress. in my home state of illinois alone, map-21 will save or create nearly 70,000 jobs. nationwide the bill will save or create nearly two million jobs and spur one million additional jobs through the leveraging of transportation funds. it is hard to understand as we are ending the month of june and construction needs to be done all over this country, that we are still just delaying the passage of a bill that means so much to the workers across the country and to strengthening our economy. i think that we need to support this motion right now, to support map-21, and to send it to the president's desk immediately.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: thank you. i would say to our good friend from pennsylvania, it is hard to believe that chairman bud shuster would not be as troubled as we are by the state of the transportation bill. he would be saying as we are, just do it. you have suggested any number of things where we would reach agreement, i would say to my friend from pennsylvania. but this has been going on for almost three years. it was back in october of 2009 that we got a one-month extension. then we extended it for 48 days. then 7 days. then 16 days -- 72 days.

then 16 days. 9 1/2 months, then six months and 25 days. then six months and 91 days. and now another three-month extension. let's just do it. that's why this instruction to accept the senate bill. if we know what we need, then let's reach compromise and get it done because meanwhile people are unemployed. the american people are hurting. and the american public is disgusted with the congress. when we had a 13% approval rating i was wondering how we had so many family and friends. sure enough, now it's down to single digits. why? because they don't see us doing anything. they don't see us compromising. in the senate we have a senate transportation bill where people as conservative as the republican jim inhofe, the ranking member of the surface transportation, has approved this. it passed 3/4 of the senate approved. why can't we just accept it? get it done?

we are talking about almost three million jobs that would be saved or created. we are in desperate need of jobs . jobs in this country. they are going to have a lasting dividend once we improve our roads and our bridges and our public transit systems. we need to get this done. the american people have been waiting 2 1/2 years for this surface transportation bill. that's why they have a motion to i struck is so important, why i support mr. hoyer because this is what the american people want. the fact is that while it maintains current funding levels for highway and public transportation, consolidates highway programs, any number of things, we can agree it's not perfect. but it's the best we can do and the american people deserve it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i appreciate the passion from the gentleman from virginia. i believe he is a supporter of infrastructure as many a, and i

think you were referring to the former chairmanner. i just was emailing back and forth to him. he sees much agreement what we are trying to do in the house. he sees the need for reform and as i have been going through this process i certainly talk to him about some of the things he wished he would have been able to accomplish and what we are doing in this bill are things he's applauding. for any of you don't realize the chairman is still alive and well and still consult with his member of congress when i ask and when i don't ask, i might add. but again i have to remind my colleagues, respect to want to do this, but when you have the majority, six times you extended without passing a bill. you had a majority of the house and senate and white house and i might add that if you were to focus the stimulus bill on a infrastructure bill instead of spending it in all different ways that didn't have the kind of impact that you thought and in fact dew point have much impact at all, i think we see a

much different economy today if we were focused on this. i know there are jobs out there, millions of jobs in construction and construction related businesses that -- where we could help by passing a bill. again just to remind my colleagues, the house and the senate, chairman and vice chairman, have issued a statement. we are moving in the right direction towards a bipartisan, bicameral solution, not just a senate solution. and again i know that the two gentlemen, the whip and of course mr. moran from virginia, have been great defenders of the house. for us to just give in to the senate i don't think i have ever seen them when they were in the majority just handing it off to the senate. i feel positive. again i supported mr. walz' motion to instruct a few days ago because he said get in there, hammer this thing out, come up with a bipartisan, bicameral bill. that's why i supported that. i just can't find it to support

this. i have to go against it and urge my colleagues to vote no also. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i am a supporter of this institution. i am a supporter as mr. shuster pointed out of regular order. i do believe that the house has a right and duty and responsibility to maintain its positions when it can g to a position. let me reiterate so the american people understand, speaker boehner said that the highway bill was very important to him. he wanted to see it reported out. the committee acted on a bill and never brought it to the floor. i pause so the american people can understand the house has been unable to take a position. now, my friend will say, oh, no, we did pass a bill. that's correct. admittedly, however, from

everybody's perspective, it was not a full bill. it was a shell bill. it was a shell bill to go to conference. did it have some provisions in there? yes, it did. it had keystone in there which was clearly unacceptable to the president in the form it was offered and unacceptable to the senate in the form it was offered. very frankly my friend from pennsylvania talks about his dad, who i know is very much alive, and was a very good member of this body. and i will say that we did pass some extensions. all on a bipartisan fashion as you will know. all on a bipartisan fashion. this was not done in a bipartisan fashion. we could have forged a bill that would have had overwhelming support in this house in my opinion. the republican side of the aisle chose not to do that. i've got a hunch that my friend sitting in the chair, mr.

shuster, regrets that. he doesn't have to say anything about that, but i just have a hump he regrets that. i regret it. i regret it that we are not able to come together and reason together but take hardline positions and if you don't agree with me, it's my way or no highway. that's regrettable. the american people know it's regrettable. i want to tell my friend from pennsylvania, if it weren't 100 days ago, as of tomorrow, that a bipartisan overwhelmingly bipartisan bill was passed and if this house had been able to pass a real highway bill, we didn't have that opportunity. that bill was not brought to the floor. the gentleman knows that bill was not brought to the floor. it still languishes in his committee. or perhaps reported out and may be sitting someplace else. the fact of the matter is, this motion is designed to say to 1.9

million people who may lose their jobs if we don't pass a bill next friday, in a congress that has been mired in confrontation and unwilling to compromise, and another million people who will have job opportunities if that bill passes, it is to say let us act. and we have a vehicle on which to act. a vehicle that enjoyed the support of all democrats and half of the republican conference. in the united states senate. a bill that had the agreement between senator boxer from california, correctly i think described as a liberal democrat from the state of california, and jim inhofe correctly described, i believe, as a conservative republican from

oklahoma. they came together, they reached agreement. i think the gentleman from pennsylvania is probably absolutely correct. it's not a perfect bill. i don't know that i have ever voted for a perfect bill on the floor of this house, at least one i thought was perfect. . we come together and we compromise and everybody doesn't get what they want. because maybe their region or their people or their businesses or their consumers don't see it the same way mine do. we compromise. but the senate bill, while it may not be perfect, enjoyed broad bipartisan compromise and support. therefore i think it is our best opportunity, because we've shown in this house that we have for the last six months been unable

to come to an agreement and the republican majority in this house has been unable to agree among itself to bring a full bill to the floor. so, mr. speaker, that does not give much confidence not only to not my side of the aisle but to those contractors, those construction workers, those states, those counties, those municipalities who know that they have to address the transportation challenges of their areas. it doesn't give them much confidence. and i heard a lot about building confidence. i believe that if we passed the senate bill we would create those jobs, retain the 1.9 million jobs, and give confidence to our economy an grow jobs -- and grow jobs. i hope that's what the other side wants to do. they talk a lot about it.

if the economy improved, of course, the administration might be advantaged as well. i hope that's not in the consideration of anybody that considers these pieces of legislation. america expects us to come together and reach agreement. the senate's done that. on this side of the aisle, on this side of the cap top we have not -- capitol we have not. we ought to do it. i reserve the balance of my time. do you yield back? the gentleman yields back his time? shuste -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question on the motion to

instruct -- is on the motion to instruct. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee rise? mrs. black: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of my special order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. black: mr. speaker, i offer

a motion to instruct. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 4348 offered by mrs. black of tennessee. mrs. black of tennessee moves that the managers on the part of the house at the conversation on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill, h.r. 4348, be instructed to reject section 31108 of the senate amendment relating to distracted driving grants. other than the matter proposed to be inserted as section 411-g of title 23, united states code, relating to a distracted driving study. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 22, the gentlewoman from -- 7 of rule 22, the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, and the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr.

speaker. and we began the 112th general assembly of the congress by reading the u.s. constitution as a body. and we require that every bill cite the section of the constitution that allows congress to consider the legislation. my motion to instruct simply maintains this desire of the house by protecting states' rights under the 10th amendment. the 10th amendment reads, the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibtsed by it to the states -- prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. and i believe that the issue of laws related to distracted driving are best left to the states. that's why as a state senator in my home state of tennessee i voted three times for distracted driving law on the books today. as a mother and a grandmother and a nurse i strongly, strongly

support absolute safety on our roadways. i also believe that there's no one in this chamber who doesn't support safe driving laws. but this motion to instruct is not about safety. it's about the state's rights under -- states' rights under the constitution and stopping federal manipulation of state law through taxpayer-funded distracted driving grants. now, the senate passed the highway bill, senate bill 1813, that contains a provision that would grant the u.s. department of transportation secretary ray lahood $79 million to entice the states to enact and enforce federal distracted driving laws. currently something that 39 states already have on their books. 39 states have already enacted these laws. i believe the states are great laboratories for determining what works and what does not work.

and that is why my motion is to instruct. they want the study to be conducted on all forms of distracted driving. this helps government and also the public better understand and identify the most effective methods to ed cagse cate drivers -- educate drivers and enhance states' understanding of these issues so that they, they can enact and tailor laws best suited to the individual needs of their state. i'm offering a motion to instruct that simply strikes the distracted driving grant funding language contained in the senate-passed bill while calling for a study to be conducted on all forms of distracted driving. this helps government and the public better understand and identify the most effective methods to educate the drivers and enhance the states' understanding of these issues so they can enact and tailor laws best suited to the individual needs of their state. what is best for the state of massachusetts may not be best for the state of montana and as

the 10th amendment to our constitution was written, these laws are reserved for individual states. now, just as we must provide certainty to the job creators, we must provide certainty to states on the highway bill. the only way to accomplish this task is to allow for focused use of taxpayer dollars that is produced in a multiyear transportation bill that restricts the highway fund to its intended use. that is building and maintaining americans' roads and bridges. taxpayer dollars are so precious they should not be used on anything other than the intended purpose. i urge my colleagues to protect states' rights and support my motion to instruct. thank you, mr. speaker, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. altmire: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion. the motion offered by the

gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. black, seeks to eliminate a distracted driving grant program included in the senate surface transportation authorization bill. i oppose this motion because it ignores the significant safety hazard that distracted driving poses to drivers, commuters, passengers and pedestrians. distracted driving is any activity behind the wheel that takes a driver's attention away from the road. the rapid development and ewe big which to us use of technology -- and use of technology such as cell phones has made routine distraction an almost commonplace occurrence in every vehicle across america. according to the national highway traffic safety administration, in 2010 more than 3,000 americans were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver and approximately 416,000 additional americans were injured.

distractions from technology can include texting, talking on a phone or using a navigation system or other audio or visual equipment while in the vehicle. but because text messaging requires visual, manual and cognitive attention from the driver all at the same time, it is by far the most dangerous distraction. the wireless association reported that in june of 2011 more than 196 billion text messages were sent or received in the united states which is up nearly 50% from just two years ago over the same period. the national highway traffic safety administration also reported that more than 100,000 drivers are texting and more than 600,000 drivers are using cell phones at any given moment in time.

sending or receiving a text takes a driver's attention from the road for an average of 4.6 seconds which while it may not seem like a long time, it's the equivalent of drivinging -- driving the length of an entire football field, taking the drivinger's eyes off the road. it's -- driver's eyes off the road. it's not surprising that according to research done by virginia tech, a texting driver is 23 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a nondistracted driver. the proposed grant program in the senate bill is an opportunity to address the rapidly growing problem of distracted driving and to educate the driving public about the real and immediate dangers of distraction behind the wheel. and, mr. speaker, thousands of american lives are at stake. and these are not statistics. these are people like 21-year-old kasey feldon who was struck and killed by a

distracted driver as she crossed the street in ocean city, new jersey, in 2009. it's people like 56-year-old john sliding who was killed on his motorcycle when a teen driver talking on her cell phone missed a stop sign in june, 2007. it's people like 13-year-old marge who was killed on her school bus when a distracted driving rear ended that bus in september of 2008. and although some on the other side of the aisle are skeptical of seemingly every federal program, we must avoid the temptation to eliminate programs without considering the real impacts they have on the lives of our constituents and on communities aye all across america -- all across america. and to the point the gentlewoman, my friend from tennessee, mrs. black, raised in her opening remarks, the distracted driving grant program contained in the senate bill is merely an incentive program, not mandatory, it's an incentive for

states to have already passed laws and have them on the books. therefore there are no sanctions if states do not pass laws or participate. there are no penalties to not participate. so, mr. speaker, to put it simply, this motion represents a giant step backwards in highway safety for all of america. i urge my colleagues to reject this motion to instruct and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. and i'd like to yield five minutes to mr. bishop from utah. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentlelady from tennessee. i guess i as well as others are here today to plead the 10th amendment. you see, texting while driving is dangerous and it should be stopped. careless driving of any form is

dangerous and it should be stopped. and we should be grateful for every effort to educate our drivers as to the significance of this particular effort. but the question has to be, are the efforts only to be done in this particular body? a driver's license is a state certificate. driving is a state privilege. and even though congress has in the past overstepped our responsibility in involve -- in involving ourselves in these area, and that was wrong, that's certainly not justification for continuing that practice. the commerce clause does not necessarily expand to this area. the senators in their wisdom have included a provision in there dealing with this issue. it's a noble concept. it's a worthy goal. the approval or disapproval of texting while driving is not the issue. the issue is not should it happen. the issue is who, at which

level, should decide if it happens and what the consequences should be. the issue is, are we the only ones who have the opportunity of breathing the air of the potomac river, the only one smart enough to be involved in this issue, the only ones compassionate enough to be in this issue. i would contend to you that those who are in our states are equally competent to handle this issue. . 39 states already outlaw texting. 10 outlaw any hand-held communication. 3 states ban all sorts of these efforts with novice drivers. my state of utah has moved forward in this area. now there is $79 million to incentivize states to do what they are already doing. we tried to pass a balanced budget amendment on this floor, it failed. i felt sad about that. but i realized also we can't

accomplish the exact same goals if we respect federalism, which of course was reinforced in the 10th amendment. federalism simply would require the federal government to concentrate on the core constitutional responsibilities given to us in that document. and allow the states the flexibility to solve the other problems. states do not have the kind of restrictions established in the constitution that we have. states can be far more creative than a one-size-fits-all program from washington. states can be much more effective in the way they run their programs. states can actually apply justice to unique circumstances within their state borders. it can never be accomplished by washington. our only ability is to make sure that everything is uniform. the states, we can accomplish the same goal if we respect the authority of states. $79 million is a high price to

pay for the arrogance that only we here in washington can do things well. the states are doing it. not everything has to be ordained, funded, and controlled by those who sit on this floor. the states have every competence, every ability. we should support the 10th amendment and recognize the states should do this. they will do a better job than we. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. altmire: we have no further speakers. i would make the point to the -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. altmire: the previous speaker talks about states being the innovators. i certainly agree on that. this motion that we are talking about right now involves a state incentive program where states can qualify for federal money for an optional grant that they

may choose to participate in or not. if they do not choose to participate, they are free to pass any distracted driver laws they wish or not. there is nothing in what is contained in the senate bill that in any way inhibits or prohibits or disincentivizes states from passing their own distracted driving laws. they are still free to do whatever they want to do and go as far or not as they want to go. all the senate language says is if states choose to meet the higher federal standards, they may qualify for potential limited grant money that will be made available. no state is sanctioned for not participating. so with that i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'd like to yield five minutes of my time to my good friend and colleague from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes.

mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding time. also for bringing this amendment forward to instruct the conferees on the transportation bill. if you look at what the amendment with the motion to instruct is saying, it's first of all we recognize that 39 states have already put laws on the books to address problems with distracted drivers. it's a national problem, but every state, just as they have the right and responsibility to create their own laws on issuing drivers licenses, each state has their own age requirements, their own speed limit requirements, each state has to look at the unique problems that are posed by distracted drivers within that state. in our state of louisiana we have a ban op texting while driving. the legislature's gone back and forth on whether or not you can use a cell phone with a bluetooth or speaker in your car. so technology changes and the local states have the ability to be flexible enough to change

their laws accordingly how it best suits their state. ultimately by having a $79 million pot of money that would be up to the secretary of transportation to enforce, a federal distracted driving laws, i think it gets away from the whole concept of the fact that states are the ones that are in charge of doing this and the states know best what needs to happen in their states. driving laws in louisiana are a lot different than they are in california or new york or somewhere else. that's what the 10th amendment's all about. that's why you have elected officials at the state and local level to handle the problems that are unique to each area. the fact that you have a $79 million pot of money that would only be put into the discretion of the secretary of transportation just for this purpose, instead of using the $79 million to build roads throughout the country or to allow the states to do what they think is best to improve safety in other ways, there are many

things that need to be done in oach of our states to improve safety on the roads. if a state has done a good job of addressing their texting problems and distracted driving problems as it relates to cell phones and other things, somebody eating and sitting in the car, ultimately the states know best what to do. if they have more flexibility with the money, this snt washington's money. they are paying into it. every citizen back home when they buy gasoline is paying taxes. this is their money. it's not the federal government's money to say $79 million is only available for the things we think are most likely to improve safety. when the states know what's better. people on the frowned, people paying those taxes know what's better to increase safety, yet you are not allowing them to use that money that would improve safety more. by limiting the $79 million to a fund that the secretary himself in washington would give out. let's let the states have that money back. money they paid in already and let them do what they know is

best to increase safety. whether they think it's putting guardrails on roads where the guardrails are broken off and they don't have the money to put that back in place, or whether it's to put railroad crossings. we have so many deaths by people who cross railroad as where there is no crossing. yet it's very expensive to build those. states would like the ability to use the money to increase safety and stop the deaths that occur spending it there. yet this $79 million isn't allowed for that. let the states do what they know best because it's their money. it's the people's money. it's not washington's money. some washington bureaucrat who thinks he knows best how to handle a problem at a federal level that applies to all states when it works differently in every state. the challenges, safety challeppings that face our citizens are very different in each state, especially as it relates to driving on the road. again i want to thank the gentlelady for bringing this motion to instruct. i surely support the motion and also encourage everybody else in this chamber to support it

because ultimately if you got $79 million that can be much better used to increase safety in other ways, why would you want to cordon it off and only allow it to be used for one way when maybe 39 different states have 39 different ideas how to do it better. we can learn from them for once instead of this top-down approach where washington knows best. it can be handled much differently, better at the local level. at the end it's their money. urge approval of this motion to i struck and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. altmire: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i would again make the point that the program in question in no way sanctions, penalizes, disincentivizes, discourages, or prohibits states from in any way addressing driver safety. it in no way prohibits states from being innovative, creating new technologies, new programs,

doing things that are not recommended in the bill or this program. states are free to do whatever they want to do on this issue. so to continually pound away at the point that we are somehow taking away the ability of states to be flexible, is simply incorrect. it's not consistent with the program in question. it's not consistent with the language of the bill we are discussing. with that i would inquire to my friend, i have no more speakers on our side. is she pleeped to close -- prepared to close? mrs. black: i am. mr. altmire: i yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to oppose the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is a worthy goal. as i have already said i'm a nurse. i'm a grandmother. a mother. i want safety on our roads. i have served in the state legislative body where i have

voted three times on distracted driving. we did our studies. we found what the problems were in the state of tennessee. we were able to pass laws to make the roads safer. careless driving of any form must be stopped. and i applaud the piece in the bill that will create more study. so the states can have more information about just what they need to craft in their states that will be identified as distracted driving. obviously distracted driving does not just mean cell phones. it does not just mean texting. there are other forms of tiss tracted driving. a mother turning around to correct her small child that's sitting in the back seat. i personally have seen those kinds of accidents. someone reaching for a c.d. to put in their disk. i personally have seen the

devastation from that action. there are many forms of distracted driving. and this study, this study will help us and the states and public to understand what those forms are. in my motion that is left in place. again we have to be very cautious about our dollars and how it is that we hand our dollars out. and i talk about this almost as legislative candy. this $79 million. -- $79 million to incentivize or entice states to do something and 39 of them are already doing something related to distracted driving. as a matter of fact, if we take a look at this whole discussion on the transportation bill, we know how precious every dollar is. we are talking about infrastructure, creating jobs. this $79 million can be best used by its intended programs

and that is to build roads and bridges to make our roads safer so we can make sure our roads and infrastructure are in the best shape. states are already doing this job. we don't need to take $79 million and hand it out to states by using a candy to get them to do what we want them to do. absolutely safety is the major issue. but states can make that decision. states have enough noge to know -- knowledge to know what's best for their states. and so, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to protect states' rights and support my motion to i struck. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. all time for debate has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion to

i struck. so many as are in favor say aye. -- instruct. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. opinion pp, the ayes have it. -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. altmire: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yaped. -- the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20. further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: first energy which operates the nuclear power plant has consistently misrepresented to the public structural defects in the building that shields its

reactor. their latest fable is cracks in the circumference of the shield building were caused by a snowstorm that occurred in 1978. in 2002, first energy covered up information about a hole in the head of a reactor that jeopardized the safety of millions of people for which they were fined $28 million. first energy caused the blackout. in august of 2003 which put 50 million people in the dark because they were too cheap to hire people to trim trees. can they be believed when they claim a snowstorm 34 years ago created cracks that appear today? are buildings all over northern ohio falling apart today because of the blizzard of 1978? or is this just another in a series of desperate lies used to keep a plant going that should be either shut down or massively repaired. how long before first energy's

34-year snow job is fully exposed? the speaker pro tempore: are there further one minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bishop of new york for today, ms. clarke of new york for today and ms. jackson lee of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. kucinich: i ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the -- yes.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee for the minority leader. mr. kucinich: i thank the gentleman. i spoke here a minute ago on the floor of the house concerning my deep and abiding concern about a nuclear power plant in the state of ohio called the davis-bessy nuclear power plant. now, this power plant, when it was first licensed, has -- from the time it was first licensed

has experienced a series of shutdowns. so much so that it -- there was a period where the company that originally owned it, the companies that originally owned it, it massive losses -- had massive losses because the plant was not up and running. now, they have so many difficulties that it became an embarrassment to the nuclear industry itself. we are now at a point where this plant is trying to get a new license for its nuclear facility. now, there are over 104 nuclear power plants in america. some of them have achieved relicensing. others are in the process of 'plying. one -- applying. one of the things that we have to be concerned about, because we are talking about nuclear power plants, is the structural

stability of the plant which includes the reactor, that the structural stability of these plants is going to be ensured. in the case of first energy, they have a shield building which there have been questions raised about its structural stability. unfortunately first energy went out of its way to tell one story to the nuclear regulatory commission and another story to the public. they told the public that the cracks that were seen in the shield building were not really substantive. but they told the nuclear regulatory commission another story. and in understanding that we have a lack of candor on the part of a nuclear permit -- nuclear reactor permit holder

here. we have to be very concerned about the public statements, about their private disclosures and about the implications for relicensing. now, this -- these cracks in the shield building, which are in the sir come frens of the building -- sir come france of the building, they're trying to say now, they're telling the nuclear regular commission, the reason these cracks occurred is because there was this blizzard in 1978 where the wind direction was, if i'm correct, primarily out of the southwest, that this is responsible for the cracks. but the cracks are around the whole building. they're not able to explain that. nor do we know whether or not their sister reactors on the

other side of lake erie at the perry nuclear power plant have in fact been adequately inspected to see if the same winter storm adversely affected them. because if the winter storm did not adversely affect them, at the perry plant, then how is it that you had cracks only at davis-bessy and why were the cracks around the building instead of just in one area where the wind was driving the snow? this company, first energy, in 2002 covered up information about a hole they had in their reactor. i want to ask my friend from minnesota if he needs any of

this time right now. because i can conclude. i yield to the gentleman from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i want to thank the gentleman for claiming the time. i guess i was about four minutes behind and of course you got to be on your toes around here. i had come prepared to do a special order. mr. kucinich: i'm going to shortly yield. ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from minnesota would be able to have the balance of the time. mr. ellison: if the gentleman from ohio wants to, you know, you know, we can share the time if you'd like. mr. kucinich: what would be -- i'd ask the parliamentarian, would it be possible for me to have unanimous consent to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from minnesota?

the speaker pro tempore: unanimous consent is not required. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from minnesota will control the remainder of the hour. mr. kucinich: ok. i would just ask for a moment to conclude here. you know, why am i bringing this up about the davis-bessy nuclear power plant? shouldn't some people say, well, why shouldn't you give first energy the benefit of the doubt? this is a company that 10 years ago covered up information about the whole -- hole in the head of a nuclear reactor. they were this close to having the -- a breach, this close, fracture of an inch from having a breach of the reactor. they pulled -- they had files that were in a photo and federal investigators weren't given access to that.

it ended wrup this company gets fined $28 million because they weren't candid with the government. and could have put the people of ohio and michigan and indiana and canada and the water of lake erie in jeopardy. this is the same company, many people remember, particularly in cities in the east, that time in august of 2003, where all the lights went out in the east. remember some people were sitting on their doorsteps for the first time no city lights, looking up at the stars, but it wasn't particularly all that beautiful because what was not beautiful is the fact that there was this massive loss of power all over america's east coast that came about because of a series of technical glitches,

the root cause of which was that this company, first energy, wasn't properly trimming trees. because they didn't want to hire the people to do it. now, this is the same company that's telling us the reason why they have cracks in a shield building is because of a blizzard 34 years ago. hello. we have to be very careful before we let a company that operates so fast and loose with the truth be in a position to have a license to continue to operate this nuclear power plant and in the alternative they are going to have to make massive repairs. if they won't make the massive repairs then the n.r.c. ought to do the right thing for the american people and have this shut down. i do not want to see another fukushima in the united states of america. i do not want to see the people in my district at risk. i do not want to see the people

in ohio put at risk. because you've got a company like first energy operating in the shoddy way in which they operate, misrepresenting conditions to the public, telling the n.r.c. one thing, the people the other. i can promise you, mr. speaker, i intend to stay on top of this. i appreciate the opportunity here and i yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from minnesota, the co-chair of the progressive caucus of the congress, a person who has done a lot to take the message of the progressive caucus across this nation in a way that's been very dynamic, the honorable keith ellison. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: i thank the speaker. as i was listening to the gentleman from ohio recite the facts and the details of this energy situation, i couldn't help but think to myself that we need massive investment in

public infrastructure in this nation. it's not simply a jobs issue, though it is a jobs issue. it's also a public safety issue. you know, the gentleman talked about fukushima. that was a catastrophic event but if we don't take good care of our nation's infrastructure, catastrophe will occur and i can testify to that because i'm from minnesota and in my state only a few years ago we saw our bridge fall into the mississippi river, lost 13 minnesotans, lost their lives, 100 fell into the mississippi river, 65 feet, suffered severe back and spinal injuries. infrastructure, folks, is not simply a jobs issue. infrastructure is not simply an economic issue. infrastructure is also a public safety issue and we need to make a demand that our government

focus on infrastructure investment. at -- investment at this time. mr. speaker, i'm keith ellison, i'm the -- i'm the co-chair of the progressive caucus. i hope to be joined in this hour by other members of the progressive caucus. i think some members of the congressional -- the c.b.c. will be joining me as well to talk about the situation involving attorney general holder. about you today, mr. speaker, -- but today, mr. speaker, we are the progressive caucus. we come with the progressive message. the progressive message is basically very simple, mr. speaker. it's the idea of liberty and justice for all. mr. speaker, you know that every morning we in congress come down to the well and we're very honored to say the pledge of allegiance. and the progressive message of the progressive caucus is basically embodied in that pledge. we pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. we're indivisible.

yes, it's true we have different cultures, we come in different cultures and different religious backgrounds, but we're one nation and, yes, it's true that it's liberty and justice for all . no exceptions. every -- everyone. old, young, black, white larks tinow, asian -- white, la tinow, asian, people born in america, people who came here to immigrate, people with different religious backgrounds, people straight, gay, americans are americans are americans and they have the freedom to be who they are and have the liberty to pursue happiness as they define it and within the law and consistent with the rights of all others. but that's where it ends. it's the progressive caucus and i'm here to talk about the progressive message. and, mr. speaker, our email is right down here. it's cpc.grijalva.house.gov. we encourage people to stay in touch with us, mr. speaker, because we like to hear what the people say.

like to hear their insights, views, values, what they think is important so we encourage people to stay in touch. that's cpc.grijalva.house.gov. this is the progressive caucus website. now, mr. speaker, mr. speaker we've been here another week in congress, another week where we have serious problems going on, mr. speaker. within a short period of time, a short period of time, i believe today's date is june 21 , within nine days, mr. speaker, what we're going to see is student interest rates on student loans double. we're going to see an expiration of our transportation bill, and do you think, mr. speaker, we took up either one of those issues on the house floor today or yesterday or anytime since monday, mr. speaker? absolutely not. we urged the republican

majority to think about what's going on with the american middle class. student loan rates to double on july 1, this could affect thousands and thousands of students and yet we're not acting on these issues at all. the democrats have said, yes, absolutely. progressives have said, yes, absolutely, we cannot let student loan rates double at a time when we see colleges all over america experiencing double-digit increases in tuition, when students -- when the price of an education has gone sky high, outpaced inflation many fold and now on july -- when the congress tried to fix it, we're going to let it go back to the bad old days and let student interest -- student loan rates double, costing students perhaps as much as $1,000 per year. even though the republican majority agreed with the ryan budget which said we should

just let the students have to pay more, they then saw the light and came back and said, we don't want it to double. but they say, we want to take the money out of women's health. of course, we couldn't agree with that. we can't pit students versus women. we can't say, we want to help students but hurt women and take away cervical screenings. we can't do that. what if we ask the wealthiest members of our society, the wealthiest americans ask to do more and our republican friends, no, never can we ask rich people to do a little bit more. and so here we stand, mr. speaker, a few days, nine days before student interest rates are about to double and we saw no action on it on the floor this week. this is a horrible tragedy. this is a sad situation.

you know, we lost 8,000 construction jobs last month. congress still hasn't passed a highway bill. highway bill is could you to expire 10 days from now, nine days from now and our friends in the majority have not addressed this issue. this is a shame. it is a stain and it's a kiss grace and if you hold the majority in the house of representatives, you have to focus on the needs of the people and i hope the people are paying attention today, mr. speaker, because all this week those student loans are due to double. interest rates on student loan rates are due to double in 10 days, and the highway bill is due to expire in 10 days but we have not touched these issues, these key issues on the house floor, and i'm just asking my republican majority friends why won't they pursue a jobs agenda instead of the no jobs agenda

they seem to be pursuing. our president laid out a great jobs bill and yet we haven't seen any action on it. let's have a vote on it, mr. speaker, up or down what -- what are the republican majority afraid of? do they feel there are a few republicans who will join with all of the democrats and put america back to work? put it on the floor. i think that the american people want to vote on jobs. so let me just say, mr. speaker, because i think it's so important. we have to restate certain things. if you just tuned in, mr. speaker, student loan rates will double july 1 if congress does nothing. this week we did nothing so the clock is ticking and i am a little worried, mr. speaker. after losing 28,000 construction jobs last month, congress hasn't passed a highway bill and that bill is due to expire because the republican majority won't pass

a long-term transportation bill. this is a mistake. this is bad leadership, and the american people should know about it, mr. speaker. but, mr. speaker, i know you're thinking, well, what did we do? if we didn't take care of the issues that are so pressing what did the republican majority do this week? they must have done something because we were here. well, i tell you what they did. we authorized the killing of sea lions in the northwest. i don't think that's a key issue we need to focus on. we waived 39 environmental laws within 100 miles of the border. we waived -- we waived, said don't worry about complying any more 39 environmental laws within 100 miles of the border. if you're 100 miles within the border, i guess clean air and clean water just happened. but, of course, any 6-year-old kid knows that's not true. what else did we do?

this 100 -- this area within 100 miles of the border where we waived 39 environmental laws, this includes areas in minnesota where i'm from like the boundary -- these are beautiful, pristine national treasures and in my opinion it's a shame to say that environmental laws would not apply. thank goodness these bills haven't been taken up by the senate because the senate clearly knows this is bad policy but it didn't stop the republican majority from pushing it because the republican majority believes that all problems will be fixed if we don't regulate industry and if we cut taxes on the very well-to-do. they're mistaken about that but that's what they believe, and i give them credit for saying it all the time because it gives the american people a chance to know what choices they have in front of them. what else are we doing, mr. speaker? we require federal agencies to give oil companies 25% of all

public lands they nominate for drilling. i'm going to say that one again. the house majority, the house republican majority required federal agencies to give oil companies 25% of all public lands, that's our lands, my lands, your lands, mr. speaker, they nominate for drilling. they used to say drill, baby, drill. they're not kidding about that, even after the oil spill in the gulf, they still are on this thing about letting drilling happen whenever, however, whatever they want. i think that there ought to be some public lands that ought to be pristine and nice for the american people and yet the republican majority passed a provision that required federal agencies to give oil companies 25% of all public lands they nominate for drilling. now, if you think about that, mr. speaker, think about this. regardless of the natural

beauty, regardless of the environmental harm, regardless of the fishing or hunting damage, we would mandate that big oil gets 1/4 of whatever it wants. that's bad policy. but yet that was what was passed on the house floor this week. what else did the republican majority do this week just so the american people could know? we weakened the clean air act provision. we required the peaverplet, the environmental protection agency, -- e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, to regulate more. we have the all-of-the-above strategy. we want oil, we want wind, we want biomass, we want all this, all this. but if you look at what they actually put on the floor and voted through with the republican majority, they don't have an all-of-the-above

strategy. they have oil-above-all strategy. oil above all. this theme, this oil-above-all strategy was quite, quite unfortunate. this congress can do better. we should be taking action now, not delaying until it's too late. and i just want to say, mr. speaker, this week as we all are concerned about student loan interest rates doubling on july 1, and we're all concerned about the expiration of the highway bill, knowing that workers will be laid off if that happens, it's a shame we didn't address these critical issues facing the american people but instead spend our time deconstructing environmental and health protections for the american people. i'm disappointed about that. and -- but that is what we did. and i think the american people have a right to know about it. so, mr. speaker, i'm going to

tell them about it. but i'd like to talk a little bit about the -- about what we've been doing, not just this week as i just have, but talk a little bit more globally about what we've been doing this whole 112th congress because there is a theme undeniable that we have been pursuing. there's a theme that we've been working on, and again it is cut taxes for the wealthy, leave taxes for the middle class and cut regulation for industry. cut important environmental and health protections so that industry can keep more money so they don't spend it on making sure the water a clone and the air is clean. i'd like to talk about america's energy future because that's been a theme on the floor, we have been fighting up

and down. i mentioned about the whole 112th congress, because even though that's been a recurring republican theme, if you ask the american people what they want us to talk about, what you'll see on this chart, mr. speaker, is a question and the question is simple. it simply says, do you think the government should be doing more to help improve the financial situation of middle class americans? should it be doing less, or do you you think the government is doing the right amount to help improve the financial situation of middle class americans? so i just -- and just to put the question out there again, mr. speaker, because i kind of went by quickly and the type is kind of small. do you think the government should be doing more to help improve the financial situation of middle class americans, should it be doing less, or do you think the government is doing the right amount to help improve the financial situation of the middle class -- of

middle class americans? well, this poll pretty recent, right back in april, only a few weeks ago, and what americans have said, mr. speaker, 67% of them said do more. 2/3 said do more. so they don't think the government is doing enough to help improve the financial situation of the middle class. and you know what, mr. speaker, they're right because the american people know that if we were to pass a highway bill, that would help the middle class. if we would help college affordability, that would help the middle class. if we would do things like invest in our nation's infrastructure altogether, that would help the middle class. if we would stop selling off public land, that would help the middle class. if we would help make sure there were sane and sensible and reasonable environmental protections like there are but

the republicans want to get rid of, that would help the middle class. but the republican majority is -- their argument is that the government should do less. now, they say smaller government, smaller government. lower taxes, smaller government. they say it all the time. they say it so much that i can like repeat their mantras in my sleep. they are great at repetition, but the american people say the government should be doing more to help improve the financial situation of middle class americans. 2/3 of them think so. so as we can't pass the buffett rule, we can't get a -- we can't do anything about student interest rates, we're letting the highway bill expire, 2/3 of americans think we should not be doing that, we should be doing more, not less, so those people who talk about smaller government, all that stuff, they are not where the american people are.

15% said do less. that must be the koch brothers or something like that. and 14% say do the right amount. so about 29% say do less or do nothing more. and 3% said they didn't know. 2/3 said the government should be doing more. and they're right. they're right. the government should be doing more. so that's why i want that point to be in front as i discuss this issue of america's energy future. we talked about energy today and i want to discuss that a little bit more. we need an energy plan, mr. speaker, that puts the interests of the american people ahead of the interests of big oil. republicans say they want all-of-the-above approach to energy them. say that all the time. -- to energy. they say that all the time. great discipline on their part. but the only thing they presented as an oil above -- is an oil-above-all approach. oil above all else.

oil above wind. oil above biomass. oil above solar. oil above anything. and they've prove be that -- proven that that is their belief by the bills that we were dealing with this week. we should never mistake the interests of big oil and the polluters for the interests of the american people. we should always understand that oil is one way to power our country and for the time being it's going to be a part of our energy portfolio. but we should not be giving them massive subsidies, we should not be giving them massive suns diswhen they're -- subsidies when they're making record profits. we should not relieve them of basic health and safety protections to make sure that our natural wonders don't get destroyed, our wildlife doesn't get destroyed, our recreational industries don't get destrid --

destroyed. the oil spill in the gulf is still fresh in my mind. and i'm outraged, mr. speaker, that b.p. was able to write off the cost of the cleanup. i don't think enough americans know that b.p. was allowed to write off the cost of the cleanup of the gulf. in other words, they simply forced that cost on to the american people, which i think is terribly unfortunate. so this week the republicans brought an energy bill to the floor that simply checks off from big oil's wish list. to me it felt like if big oil was to have a big wish list, the republicans just played santa claus. and i don't think that's right. i think what we should do is recognize the fact that petroleum will be a part of our energy portfolio, but we should minimize it, we should promote other sources, green sources of energy, wind, solar, biomass,

conservation. we should be investing in innovative approaches, not just subsidizing the fossil fuel industry as we do to the tune of about 110, -- $110 billion every 10 years. so as i said, mr. speaker this week republicans brought an energy bill to the floor that simply checks off from big oil's wish list. it weakens public health prottions, it forces arbitrary giveaways of public land, as i already mentioned. it puts energy drilling ahead of all other uses of federal land. the oil, gas and coal industries are already getting billions in corporate welfare. they will receive at least 110 -- $110 billion in subsidies over the next 10 years. these subsidies have been won by decades of lobbying. lobbying. these subsidies have not been won because what they're asking congress to do is such a great

idea. they've had high-paid lobbyists come down here and work over members of congress to give them what they wanted and it has accumulated to the tune of about $110 billion a year. so they have a lot of power around here. but i think that we would not be serving the public properly if we just turned over public lands so they can drill in them and spill in them and make all these mistakes that we ultimately have to pay for because they have won themselves tax breaks which allow them to write off the cost of these spills. in 2011 the oil, gas and coal industry spent $167 million lobbying the federal government. $167 million paid to lobbyists by the oil, gas and coal industry. now, why if they're right do they have to spend so much money trying to convince congress that they're so right? i mean, if you've got a good idea, we would be able to review

the bill and vote your way. if you've got something in the interests of the american people. but if you have something that's for the special interests, well, yeah, you know, you got to pull out the guys in the monday grammed shirts and the -- monogrammed shirts and the $1,500 suits to tell them why we got to give them this loophole which they by the way, mr. speaker, always promise will bring jobs, but rarely does anything but bring them a lot more profit. but you know what, mr. speaker? the renewable energy industry also needs investment, not just the oil industry, which doesn't need it. clean energy is the fastest growing jobs sector in the world. america should be leading, not getting left behind. as the world is investing in new energy production methods, america is investing in putting subsidies on fossil fuels.

now, one -- from a scientifics point of view, mr. speaker, we call the oil, coal and gas industries fossil fuels. why? because these fuels are basically derived from just hundreds of millions of years worth of time going by and organic matter, trees from a million years ago and so forth, this is what is -- this is what fossil fuel is made from. but i think there's another good reason to call oil, gas and coal fossil fuels. it's because they're the old way of doing stuff. we need some new ways of doing zuff. we need to invest in clean energy. if we want to stay the strongest economy in the world, we need to invest in industries growing the fastest. experts say that investing in clean energy gets more bang for the buck, mr. speaker, in creating jobs in the fossil fuel industry. charter has surpassed the united

states in clean -- china has surpassed the united states in clean energy investment. china has surpassed the united states in clean energy investment. spending almost twice as much as we do and the u.k. and spain are not far behind. analysts believe that the developing nuclear energy techniques like wind and solar could support 20 million jobs by 2030 and trillions of dollars in revenue. and yet this week, on this energy bill we were dealing with, that was not what we were talking about. on the land bill we dealt with, that's not what we were talking about. we were giving more and more to those who already had too much, in the old industry, where we need to, yes, recognize that oil is going to be part of our energy portfolio, but it shouldn't dominate it. we need to invest in new energy where the job growth centers are. investing in clean energy creates three times as many jobs and more opportunities of every pay grade than traditional energy jobs. yet these are subsidizing --

we're subsidizing the fossil fuel industry six times the rate of supporting the renewable energy industry. i offer a simple amendment -- i offered last week, mr. speaker, i went to the rules committee, i had my amendment, and i offered a simple amendment to the republican energy bill. it was a commonsense piece that was ruled out of order and when i saw some of the things that were ruled in order, i was shocked. all my amendment said that was ruled out of order, we weren't allowed to debate on the floor, is it is the sense of the congress that the fossil fuel subsidies should be reduced to help control the budget deficit. now, my friends in the republican majority are famous for harping on the deficit and the debt. they always talk about our children, our grandchildren. i don't know where they came up with that praise but it's remarkalbe to me that you can get all them politicians to say

exactly the same thing all the time. not saying that there was some study group or poll, i'm just saying it's a remarkable coincidence. my point is, though, you would think if i said, hey, let's have the $110 billion we give every 10 years to the fossil fuel industry, let's let that be part of deficit reduction, you'd think that my deficit-hawk friendses would be all over that. but unfortunately we weren't even allowed to debate that because of course that might -- that might put some people on the hot seat. we all want to reduce america's deficit and the progressive caucus included, but we want to do it in a way that promotes green jobs, reduces our dependency on fossil fuels and hydrocarbon fuels and increases conservation and green energy. but by maintaining these subsidies, it increases the deficit by $110 billion every 10 years. i hope my colleagues on the

other side of the aisle, especially the fiscal conservatives, agree that $110 billion in fossil fuel subsidies is -- to profitable companies doesn't make any sense. we need a true all-of-the-above strategy as president obama has said that invests in clean, renewable energy, not this oil above all bill that we saw this week. very sad and unfortunate. mr. speaker, i'd now like to turn our attention to another issue which i think is really important and really we need to focus some attention on. and that is the issue of attorney general holder. today republicans on the house oversight and government reform committee voted to hold attorney general holder in contempt of congress. this was a sad occasion because attorney general holder is a great american and deserves better treatment than he got from the republican majority

house oversight and government reform committee. along with all americans, i certainly mourn the loss of the customs and border protection agent, brian tery. mr. terry was a public servant who deserved to be -- to live his life. and it is a horrible shame that he was killed in a gun fight in arizona, december, 2010. we all agree that the gun walking policy which was a policy started in the bush administration and that allowed thousands of guns to be bought by weapons traffickers should be investigated. this program has no signs of merit that i can see and it's too bad. but here's the thing. this is why it's unfair to hold attorney general holder in contempt. as soon as he learned of the tactic, this gun walking thing, attorney general holder condemned the tactic and order the inspector general to investigate. and since then he's testified

before congress seven times and provided more than 6,000 pages of documentation as asked for. at this point the government reform and oversight committee was demanding a document and the executive, as is the tradition in every expect -- and every executive said, documents that are basically conversations between a client and a lawyer, and basically are deliberative documents, are not the proper stuff for disclosure and the president asserted executive privilege and what happens then is the attorney general gets hit with a contempt of congress. instead of working in good faith to investigate what went wrong, it appears that republicans on the committee an maybe next week on house floor have used this strategy for political gain. even after attorney general holder provided 6,000 pages of

documents to congress, house republicans subpoenaed highly sensitive documents including photographs of crime scenes and reports on a confidential informant in order to score partisan political points. this is a misuse of the gavel. and last week they will tell -- they with held funding for our nation's law enforcement operations in retaliation. we should not withhold funding from our nation's law enforcement operations simply to score political points. this is a mistake, it is wrong and i just hope, mr. speaker, that there's no one in need of law enforcement resources that doesn't get them because of this spat that the chair of the oversight committee has going on with attorney general holder. it's letting -- there's an african proverb, mr. speaker, that i think you might appreciate and it says, when the elephants fight, only the grass gets trampled. and so when the chair of the

oversight committee wants to fight with the attorney general, only regular people who need law enforcement resources suffer. and so i'm sad that that happened and i hope today that we can abandon this time of witch hunts. last time -- i mean, the republicans went after president clinton a few years ago. it didn't help them. they impeached him but couldn't con v.i.n. vict him. took up a -- convict him. took up a lot of time. clearly were not able to focus on the needs of the country and i hope that they learned a lesson and refocus on things like interest rates on student loans, that's getting ready to go up, and the transportation bill. these are things we need to focus on. not this political stuff they're trying to use to position themselves for the election. that's all i want to say about that for now, mr. speaker. you know, i want to talk a little bit also, to change the subject, mr. speaker, about

money and politics. the progressive caucus passed a resolution to support something called resolution week and this is when municipalities, city councils all across america passed resolutions asking congress to initiate a process to overturn citizens united versus the federal elections commission. now, the citizens united versus the federal elections commission basically came to the conclusion that money was speech and corporations were people. corporations are not people, they don't -- i've never seen a corporation put on a uniform and go to war. they've been contractors, but they're not people who go risk their lives. they don't have children. they don't raise families. corporations have limited liability. they are designed to do one

thing and one thing only, make money for its owners. and yet the supreme court said that corporations is a person and persons have the right to freedom of speech and so any money they want to put on any campaign they can. and what this has done is really turned our elections into auctions. and the highest bidder wins. this is a shame. we need to overturn citizens united. but the progressive caucus was honored to be part of resolutions week when we saw officials passing resolutions across american cities asking congress to overturn citizens united. if we're going to get a constitutional amendment overturning citizens united we need an awesome public display, awesome amount of community rising up and demanding that this happen and this week -- last week we saw cities do it. very honored that minneapolis

passed a resolution calling for the overturn of citizens united. also honored that the city of st. paul passed a resolution overturning citizens united. duluth several months ago. also, new york, los angeles, chicago is considering a bill, and there are many, many, many more. over 1,600 elected public officials, both local, state and federal have joined together and said this is bad legislation. and i was very honored that the progressive caucus was a part of it. by organizing from the ground up we can restore drauks to the people, for the -- democracy to the people, for the people and by the people. and several members of congress have introduced constitutional amendments to overturn citizens united. mr. speaker, as you may know, the traditional method to get a constitutional amendment, and, again, there are now 7 constitutional amendments, we need one more to overturn

citizens united, congress will pass something and then they'll send it the to the states and then 2/3 of the states need to pass it and then the president sign it and then it's changed. the process, however, needs to be well supported by the public, and so we have tried to start this grassroots movement joining with other leaders like move to amend and others to see citizens united overturned. we have 12 members of congress that introduced bills to have an overturning of the citizens united and i am very excited we are partnering with city officials who is very honored to represent 12 cities in my district, all great public servants there and hope we can work together to say that money should not overwhelm the political process.

mr. speaker, one city official said, look, you know, people may think this is some big national issue but think about this. if a wealthy individual wants to have a development in a particular part of town where the city council says, you know what, this is zoned pour parks or residential or whatever, it's not appropriate to go here, a wealthy individual could simply dump as much money they want to in a city race to the opponent and give money to the opponent of the people opposing this project and then basically buy out the city council. so this is something that local officials are correctly concerned about. the bottom line is we have to move forward and i'm proud that the progressive caulks is part of this effort -- caucus is part of this effort.

the work we did last week i thought was great. the progressive caucus has come up with an important declaration. since we have all these constitutional amendments, i think 12 of them, we had to come in unity, some kind of way. what we decided to do was this, all join on a declaration and the declaration says this, mr. speaker. we declare our support for amending the constitution of the united states to restore the rights of the american people undermined by citizens united and related cases to protect the integrity of our nation. and so that's what the declaration says. over 1,600 elected officials, two state legislatures, more than 150 cities and towns all calling for repeal and overturning of citizens united. and if i could make just an

example, we've seen outside spending on campaigns up 1,600% since citizens united came in. up 1,600% since citizens united. and quite frankly it's really something. it's gone crazy and we have to do something about it. but i think it's important and you might be thinking, mr. speaker, well, what do we do between now and when we pass the constitutional amendment? when thing we could do today is pass the disclose act. this is a piece of legislation by representative chris van hollen, very die madamic leader, a gentleman from maryland, and it requires -- has where you have a situation where some billionaire takes their personal money, dumps it in the superpac and the superpac spends the money and

we don't know who is spending the money. under the disclose act we find out the identity of some of those people. by the way, some of the money we are creeping into american elections very well could be money from foreign sources. senator mccain very correctly pointed out that there's one wealthy individual who has been putting a lot of money into election campaigns and is a billionaire and owns a casino in china and is getting -- he's using his wealth to influence american elections. so that's foreign money if that's the way it is. the thing is we do not want people outside the united states trying to shape the elections in our country. and so this is the thing we are moving forward. overturn citizens united. amend and disclose. amend the constitution and disclose secret donors. and i close on this, mr. speaker -- i close this section on this point. corporations are not people and

in america democracy should never ever be for sale. mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 11 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: with these last 11 minutes, i would like to take just a few minutes to talk about this college loan issue. i talked a little bit already. i'd like to elaborate. college loan rates will double if congress act by july 11. i made that point. i make it again. this week president obama called on congress to act. remarkably, as i said several times tonight, republicans in congress are threatening to just allow the doubling of student loan interest rates. americans owe more tuition debt, more student loan debt than there's crad debt and student loan bore -- credit card debt and student loan borrowing is more common than a decade ago. this is because states are

sending less money to public universities so public universities have to make up their money by increasing tuition and that means students having to borrow more money. at a time when the average student loan debt is about $25,000 and tuition prices continue to rise, students are borrowing more than ever to complete their degrees. seven million undergreat wits would be affected. that's -- undergraduates would be affected. that's seven million by doubling of student loan interest rates, raising the cost by about $1,000 per person. our nation student loan debt burden is massive and now exceeds $1 trillion. after initially blocking any solutions, the republicans are finally hearing calls. as i said before, they did start -- they did make a counteroffer. i think i credited them for that. they said, we don't want to double student interest rates so we'll do something. but when they came up -- their

pay-for, the way they want to pay for it was to say they want to cut health care services for children and breast cancer screenings. so we aren't going to hurt kids and women in order to help students. so we couldn't go with that deal. we proposed that we asked the most well-to-do individuals and corporations to help. and so i guess what i'm saying is, if i went to a billionaire or a billionaire corporation and i said, look, we're about to see seven million students' tuition -- cost of education go up, can you help since you make so much? and if seemed like what they're saying through their representatives is, no. in is outrageous. i think the -- this is outrageous. i think that america, a nation that's made it possible for b.p. and exxonmobil and g.e. and all these big corporations to do so well should do well by

america. i don't think that's asking too much. it's not right to protect the richest people in america and let everybody else get by the best they can. this nation has made it possible for them to earn all that money, and i don't have any problem with people making good money. i just think if you make good money and you have used our police force, our military has protected you, our roads and bridges and our transit system allowed you to move your goods and service around, our e.m.s. system has made sure if you get sick we'll come help you. our public schools have educated your work force, then i don't think it's asking too much to say, put in the pot and help some kids have an affordable education. i just don't think that's asking too much. now somebody said to me, i paid my way through school. in your day, school didn't cost

$28,000 a year. when -- i'm 48 years old. when i went to law school, i graduated, i had $12,000 student loan debt. that's nothing compared to what students are dealing with today. graduating with twice that on average. and so i just want to say as i close out tonight, mr. speaker, the republican majority elected by the people of their districts are here just like the democrats are to discharge the duties associated with their office. and that is to promote the general welfare and to look out for the american people. i think making sure that student interest loan rates don't double is part of that. i think that making sure we have a decent highway bill that will help pay for the construction and maintenance of our roads and bridges and transit systems is part of that. and note this week we haven't done anything to do that.

the standard conservative line on the economy right now is that the government has done too much, but yet as i have already proven, the american people do not agree. 2/3 say the government needs to do more than it's doing. so now i think the government has a duty to step up and, no, i don't think the government has a solution to every problem and i know my conservative friends like to mischaracterize what progressives say about that. we don't believe government is a solution to every problem, but we do believe government is part of the solution to many problems. and if you cut it back and you scale it down and you make it too small and too weak to do anything to help people, then, of course, it won't be able to help people and that's a shame. the american people have a different set of expectations. i just want to say as we wind down and i begin to yield back,

it's time in america where we recognize that there is an important balance between the private sector and the public sector and the market fundamentalists who occupy this house on the republican side of the aisle must begin to recognize that government has an important if we don't step up to the plate and make sure that tuition, interest rates are decent and reasonable and we are making sure we have a decent highway system, americans will suffer. and we cannot allow that to happen in the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i thank you for the time. and i appreciate you giving me a moment to set up. i got to tell you, mr. speaker, i love coming to the floor after my good friend from minnesota. i enjoy it every single time it works out in that way because he is an able representative of the progressive caucus. which i would argue sitsway over on -- sits way over on the left side of the political continuum. i hope i will be an able representative for the conservative caucus. which sets over on the right-hand side of the political continuum. and we absolutely disagree about

what this federal government ought to look like. and i want to talk primarily about the president's health care bill today and the supreme court decision that's coming down next week. but i want to start where the gentleman from minnesota ended, mr. speaker. and that is to say that conservatives believe that government is not the solution to every problem. that's certainly true. absolutely true. but more importantly there are different levels of government in this country. and we seem to forget that. something happens and my colleagues know this you know, mr. speaker, you and i, we're part of the largest freshmen class in modern times and 99 came of us came to this institution and said it's not about how it has been run but how it can be run and we can do better. but something happens to people when they drive across the beltway, that's our interstate that goes around washington, d.c., when they come inside the beltway something happens to them and they suddenly think they're the smartest person in the room. they suddenly think that if only

all americans would live their life the way they want other americans to live their life, then everyone would be happier. and that's just true. i don't care how well meaning anyone in this institution is, mr. speaker, there is not a man or a woman here that knows more about how my family should pursue happiness than my family does. there is no member here from outside the state of georgia who knows better about how georgians should pursue happiness than those of us in georgia do. and i would say as my friend from minnesota finished talking about the student loan program, you may not know, mr. speaker, i know you all have a proud tradition of education in your home state and some very fine institutions of higher learning there. in georgia we have what's called the hope scholarship. and for years and years it allowed every single college student, college-bound student from the great state of georgia,

college grass, b averages and above, every single one to go to state schools in georgia for free. you know how much federal money we used for that program, mr. speaker? zero. zero. time and time again my colleagues come to the floor of this house and they talk about what we need to do in washington to help college students across america. let me tell you something. you all came from your own state back home that has the power today to do those things. it dup does not have to happen in washington. it can happen back home. it can happen at the city level. it can happen at the county commission level, it can happen at the state legislature level. it can happen at the family level. all of these decisions we talk about in washington, d.c. and that takes us right into the health care bill, mr. speaker. because here's the secret. and i don't know if everybody in the house, mr. speaker, knows the secret, and that is that as patently unconstitutional as the president's health care bill is, had the state of georgia passed

it for georgians, it would have been perfectly fine. hear that. there are different powers that the united states constitution allow state governments to exercise than allow the federal government to exercise. the states have the power to mandate behavior. we see it regularly, we see requirements for what must be included in insurance policies, for who has insurance policies, that regulation of the individual market, but not the federal government. so i want my friends on the progressive caucus to hear me clearly. i'm not anti-government. i want each rule the government plays, i want it to play it as well as it possibly can. i want every government dollar to be spent as efficiently as it possibly can i want every government mandate -- can. i want every government mandate to be as limited as it can possibly be. with that, mr. speaker, i take

you back to president bill clinton, august 21, 1996. why is that important, mr. speaker? you and i weren't even thinking about being in congress in is the 96. why in the world is that important? it's important because it was august 21, 1996 when president bill clinton signed into law federal health care reform that passed this united states house, led by speaker newt gingrich, republican from the great state of georgia. 1996. folks talk like health care reform hasn't ever come down the pipe in this country, mr. speaker. 1996 the house and the senate and the president, republicans and democrats all came together to pass health care reform. let me tell what you they passed in 1996. here we go. from president clinton's signing statement. this act will ensure the portability of health benefits when workers change or lose their jobs and it will protect workers against discrimination by health plans based on their

health status. mr. speaker, does that sound familiar? does it sound like the very same words that would have come from one of president obama's speeches when he was pushing his health care bill? why is that? why is president clinton speaking these same words 15 years ago and yet there are still health care solutions that americans are searching for? i'll tell you why. because in 1996, with republican speaker newt gingrich was democrat -- with democratic president bill clinton, folks came together and they solved health care problems for every single health care plan that the federal government had the right to regulate. hear that. every single plan that the federal government had the right to regulate. in the state of georgia we have an office, it's a constitutional office, it's in the georgia constitution, it's called -- called commissioner of insurance. we all vote on it. it's a statewide elected office.

we vote on it every four years. that individual, that individual has the right to control state originated insurance policies. primarily the individual market. some of the small business market. every single state can solve that problem. then there are those problems regulated, those policies regulated by the federal government that only the federal government can solve that problem. that's what we did. here are the words of president bill clinton. this legislation will set into motion several key reforms. first, it will eliminate the possibility that individuals can be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing medical condition. did you know that? do you hear that, mr. speaker? because i read it in newspapers all the time, as if this is the first time we've ever talked about pre-existing conditions. no, august 21, 1996, president

bill clinton signing into law. it would eliminate the possibility that individuals can be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing medical condition. that's true. it's the law of the land today. it was the law of the land yesterday. it was the law of the land 10 years ago for every single insurance policy legitimately regulated by the federal government. bill clinton goes on. second, it will require insurance companies to sell coverage to small employer groups and to individuals who lose group coverage without regard to their health risk status. again, mr. speaker, we talk about that as if no one has ever considered this idea. not only has it been considered, it is the law of the land. it was the law of the land yesterday. it was the law of the land 10 years ago, it was the law of the land when president clinton signed it into law august 21, 1996. and finally bill clinton says, finally it will require insurers to renew policies they sell to groups and individuals. th is from the president's

signing statement, 1996. in 1996, mr. speaker, we understood as a nation there are two kinds of insurance policies in this country. those that the federal government regulates and those that the state regulates. and why is that important? it's important because we solved the problems that americans asked congress to solve in 1996. regulating the most federally regulated plans. and the problems that remain that americans are crying out for solutions to are problems that can be solved any day of the week. by any state legislature in the country. for every single individual who lives in that state. mr. speaker, that's what separates the conservative caucus from the progressive caucus. my friends on the progressive caucus asked sincerely, can we

come up with a solution here in washington, d.c., that will apply to everyone in the country and put everyone under the same set of rules? and my friends on the conservative caucus say, no. the constitution recognizes there are 50 different states. and each of those states is allowed to construct its own set of rules. why is that important? it's important because when when it comes to the federal law of the land as it pertains to university students today, we're arguing about whether they should have a 3.4% subsidized interest rate on their loans or a 6.8% subsidized interest rate on their loans. that's the federal government's solution. do you want to burden people with debt at 3.4% or do you want to burden them with debt at 6.8%? that's washington's answer. but, mr. speaker, georgia's answer, is let's let everybody go for free. let's find the money elsewhere. let's make sure everybody who wants to go to college has a pathway to college.

mr. speaker, when the congress nationalizes any section of the law, they kill the innovative spirit of every single state out there. that's why in 1996 we didn't reregulate the entire market, the constitution did not give us that authority. we reregulated the federal side of the market and allowed states to continue to innovate and find their own solutions in their areas. unless you think i'm making this up, mr. speaker, i brought a little bit of the constitution down here with me today. here we go. article one, section eight, clause three of the united states constitution. the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes. you know that phrase, mr. speaker. it's thrown around all the time. it's the commerce clause. the congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the

indian tribes. absolutely. unquestionably. what's more, the 10th amendment of the united states constitution, powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. mr. speaker, this is important. i would encourage my colleagues to go back and look at the history books because the only reason the constitution was ratified in this country was because of the promise that the bill of rights would be ratified right behind it. know that. and if you dispute that, mr. speaker, you've got my email address, it's woodall @mail.house.gov. my web address is wood y'all.house.gov. let me know where you think i've gone wrong.

the united states constitution would not have been ratified by the states without the addition, the commitment that the bill of rights would be ratified right behind it. that's where the 10th amendment comes from. that's where the 10th amendment comes from. no one was worried about state governments getting out of control in 1787. they were worried about a tyrannical federal government in 1787. and i would say rightly so, that was their experience in europe and that's becoming our experience today. i want to talk a little bit about that. 10th amendment to the constitution. powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibbletted by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. that brings us, mr. speaker, right into this health care case. right into this health care case. i want to take you, mr. speaker, back to the origins of this legal decision. it came out of florida, it's called the vincent decision

because judge vincent was the lead judge, the chief judge down in the florida case that led to this case coming to the supreme court. but there was a dissenting opinion of the it was a 2-1 decision there in florida. and the dissenting opinion came from judge stanley marcus. and this is what he said. because the 10th amendment reserves only those powers not already delegated to the federal government, the 10th amendment has been violated only if the federal law at issue goes beyond the limits of congress' power under the commerce clause. now, we just looked at the commerce clause. congress has the ability to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. the dissenting judge says that the key issue is, does the president's health care bill go beyond the limits of congress' power under the commerce clause? and he goes on. this is from judge vincent, the chief judge on that case, writing for the majority.

he says this, the existing problems of our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. there's widespread sentiment for positive improvements. this is obviously a very difficult task. regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, congress must operate within the bounds established by the constitution. again, this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise, it is about the constitutional role of the federal government. that's exactly what my colleague from minnesota was talking about earlier. golf bally, there are a lot of leavers of power that i found out as a freshman when i showed up here, mr. speaker, you know what i'm talking about. lots of leavers of power that we can pull here and the question is, who do you want in a united states representative? do you want someone who's thrilled about pulling every single one of those levers of

power? or do you want someone who is reluctant to pull those levers of power? that's the thing about legislation, it rarely attracts people who want to -- about legislatures, it rarely attracts people who want to send power away. they want to attract power and use those leaves of power for what they call the power of good. that's not what our founding fathers intended. going back to the case, judge vincent says this, in close, i will simply observe, once again that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the commerce clause law as it exists pursuant to the supreme court's current interpretation and definition. only the supreme court or a constitutional amendment can expand that. that's actually where we begin to disagree. i would tell you the supreme court doesn't have any business expanding the commerce clause. the folks who put together our

constitution didn't do it lightly. they did it deliberately. and the commerce clause was drafted narrowly, deliberately. and the 10th amendment was drafted broadly, deliberately. and the danger that we face as a nation is that there are well-meaning men and women in this chamber who absolutely believe they have the answer to every problem that plagues every single american. and the temptation is to use their power as a member of congress to solve it. that's the temptation. i tell folks when i'm back home at town hall meetings, don't ask me to go to washington and legislate with my heart. ask me to go legislate with my head. ask me to give out of my wallet with my heart. when i give out of the washington, d.c., wallet, i'm not giving out of my wallet, i'm giving out of everybody

else's wallet, i'm giving out of the wallet of every single american in this country. that's not what our framers intended the federal government to do. but we're at risk. i take you back to the dissenting opinion written by judge stanley marcus. in the process -- what he's talking about here is how he disagrees with judge vincent's conclusion that the president's health care bill is unconstitutional. in disagree, he says this. in the process of striking down the mandate, the majority has ignored many years of commerce clause doctrine developed by the supreme court. not by congress. by the supreme court. it has ignored the undeniable fact that congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries, and is now generally accepted as having afforded congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy. it has ignored the the supreme

court's expansive reading of the commerce clause that has provided the very foundation on which congress already extensively regulates health insurance and health care services -- both health insurance and health care services. what does that mean? united states judge, appellate court judge new york florida. he's a thoughtful guy. by all estimate -- estimateations, his opinions, thoughtful opinions. when he looks at the current state of the law in america today, he sees that over the past two centuries, congress and the supreme court have so expanded what that one line in the constitution says about regulating commerce amongst the states, they have expanded that definition to allow congress to regulate virtually any aspect

of the united states economy. mr. speaker, that's frightening to me. not because i don't enjoy the company of the good men and women who serve in this chamber but because as i said when i began, these folks know nothing about happiness for my family. they know nothing about my pursuit as a georgian of happiness, of success. and every time we pass a one size fits all solution in this congress, it kills everything else. and here's the difference. again, georgia went -- embarked on a massive project to fund free college education for all of its graduating students. it was a huge project. it cost billions upon billions upon billions of dollars and it could have failed. and had it failed, the only people who would have been punished by its failure are the nine million of us who live in

georgia. and then we could have looked to the other 49 states for a better solution. but mr. speaker, when the united states of america's congress fails, when it passes a one size fits all solution for everybody, 315 million merps pay the price for that. and there's no place to look, then, for the next innovation. when i was growing up, there was a saying, when something was really hard to do, people would say, that's going to take an act of congress to get that done. i don't know if that was a saying in your part of the world. but that's what they'd say, if something was really hard, they would say, that's going to take an act of congress. that was an expression because getting an act of congress passed is hard. this dissenting opinion from this very thoughtful judge suggests that congress' power,

now, is plenary, unlimited, to control every single aspect of economic life in this country. i challenge you, mr. speaker, what aspect of your life isn't economic? what aspect of your life isn't economic? and i don't mean that doesn't have money involved because as you know, the president's health care bill, there is no money involved. it says, i don't care if you don't have a health care insurance policy today, you must go out and buy one. i'd say there's no economic involvement there. i wasn't going to go out and buy one. it forces me to do something i would not have done. that's the expanded version of the commerce clause as seen by supporters of the president's health care bill. going on again from this dissenting opinion, both the supreme court than circuit have said new york determining whether the necessary and proper clause grants the

legislative authority to congress to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power. that's a lot of legal-ese there, mr. speaker, but what it means is this, it says the commerce clause allows congress to regulate anything that has to do with money and economic activity in america. and now they're saying the necessary and proper clause of the constitution gives congress the power to pass legislation to implement anything that is then related to any of those things. so i asked you a second ago, what in your life doesn't have to do with must be? i don't think you were able to come up with many things that didn't have some sort of economic relationship at all. now my question is, as posed by the dissenting opinion here, what in your lufe has nothing to do with economic activity or

money and is in no way related to anything that has something to do with economic activity or money? because the necessary and proper clause, as they say in the dissenting opinion, gives congress the power to legislate that. i don't want that authority here in this congress, mr. speaker. i don't want that authority here. these are good men and women in this poddy who legislate in a thoughtful way but they do not know what is best for 315 americans. the constitution gives us limited responsibilities. for which we must speak for a nation. war, for example. treaties, for example. but i want you to read the constitution thoroughly, mr. speaker. i know you have, over and over and over again. you know as well as i do, there's in the one word in there about mandating that every american citizen pay a fine if they refuse to purchase a health insurance policy.

i want to talk about those laws of unintended consequence a little further, mr. speaker. as i said, i'm not anti-government. government has a role. in fact, that's where we are in america, every single day, we're on that continuum between liberty and security. liberty and security. you can't have both at the same time. we're always moving up and down that continuum. if you go out here on the interstate you can't drive 150 miles per hour. well, you can, but you'll be punished. why can't you do that? it's a free country. i hear people say that all the time, dadgummit, rob, it's a free country. it is. but we've decided to trade away, through government, our liberty of driving 150 miles per hour for the security of knowing that our children and grandchildren aren't going to die every time they get on the road. that's where we are. every single decision of

government bridges that continuum between complete liberty and complete security. kentucky in 1993 began to try to provide for its citizens security in the health care field. again, i told you in 1996 the president signed into law that bill that regulates all federal policies but it left to the states those policies that are state regulated. kentucky tried to take some steps. they passed a health care law in 1994 that aimed to lower health care costs for all folks in kentucky. and to encourage uninsured individuals to purchase health insurance. some mandatory issue provisions, some rate regulation provisions, well, this is what happened. they did the very best they could in the great state of kentucky. but they have 43 insurance carriers in 1993 and after passing this law, they ran 41

of those out of the state. they had 43 choices that their citizens could choose from, then they all got together and said we want to help make it better for our citizens and 41 of those companies said, we're not going to put up with it. this is no way to run a business. we're leaving. from 43 insurance companies to two. this kentucky health care law destroyed. what do you think happened? all those voters who said they wanted changes to the health care law, they weren't all excited about the one that cost them 41 different choices. and so kentucky repealed that law, started over from scratch and they're now growing the number of insurance companies back in that system. that's awful for the men and women in kentucky who had to struggle through that, but it didn't burden the other 49 states at the same time and the men and women of kentucky could look to reforms in the other 49

state tots see how to improve on their health care model. it's the law of unintended goe insurance is in this country. think i policies you have in your life. which one are you really excited about utilizing? homeowners' insurance and collect on the full value of your policy. no. insurance is for things you hope don't happen but you want to be ready for them in case they do. not so with health insurance. how many friends or neighbors do you have who have said you know what, i'm going to put that procedure off until i get my health insurance. that's not insurance. that's discount health care. that's prepaid health care. that's any number of things but it's not insurance. insurance is for things you don't know are going to happen. well, going back to the president's health care bill that man tated that all children get the policy that they apply for, guess what, some children are already sick.

and so they go to apply for a policy, they're not applying for insurance, they're applying for free health care. insurance companies aren't charitable organizations. my church is a charitable organization, the united way is a charitable organizations, insurance companies are not charitable organizations. they are in the business of providing a service for a fee. when the president's health care bill went into effect, a bill i'm as certain as i stand here today the president intended to be a boon for children that he intended to be helpful for children that he intended to provide more services for children, it down every single insurance company in georgia that offered child-only policies. when you went to buy an insurance policy after the president's health care bill went into effect, the health

care bill that guaranteed that insurance companies had to issue you a policy, you found that not a single policy remained because every single insurer in that marketplace had left. mr. speaker, that's not surprising. those laws of unintended consequences. they're undeniable. and the president's health care bill is taking us down that road , not just in child policies, not just in terms of guaranteed issue, not just in terms of federal mandate, but on issue after issue after issue. supreme court is going to make their decision next week. well, they've made their decision. they're going to share it with the rest of us. but just to be clear, i hear what you might be saying. well, you know, congressman woodall, you're one of those hardcore conservatives from the great state of georgia. you just don't care about

people. because i hear that charge, not against me personally but against conservatives in general. drives me crazey. i will concede that there may be members on the other side of the aisle who care about people as much as i do. but there is not one man or woman in this chamber who cares about people more. not one. all i'm saying is the federal government shouldn't screw it up for those people. because i have here, mr. speaker, a chart of what every state in the union was doing in 1996. this chamber hadn't gone mad in 1996. when it decided under a republican speaker and a democratic president to sign health care law. it hadn't gone crazy. it chose to only regulate federal plans because state plans were already being regulated at the state level. take a look. what kind of things are you interested in? are you guaranteed in -- are you interested in guaranteed issue?

if somebody's sick, you have to take them anyway. that's not great insurance practice but it's a heartfelt belief. it's called guaranteed issue. let's see. alaska's got it. arizona's got it. arkansas, california, colorado, connecticut, delaware, florida, idaho, illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, on and on and on. this isn't something that requires a federal solution. are there people in this chamber who want a federal solution because it consolidates power in washington, d.c.? absolutely there are. are there men and women in this chamber who want a federal solution because they believe in their heart they care more about people than anybody else and so they want it to be their solution that people utilize? absolutely there are. but hear this, mr. speaker, and share this with your constituents back home. there is not one health care problem that the president aims to solve in his health care bill

that your state legislature cannot solve itself at home today. today. mr. speaker, how many times have you heard somebody say, but i know this family and they can't get insurance and my heart aches for them? i hear that. i hear that regularly. and your state legislature can solve that for you today. you don't need washington, d.c.'s permission. something's happened in this country, mr. speaker. it's not healthy. folks call washington, d.c., for solutions. i got a call the other day from a homeowner's association. they said, i can't get a building permit. put through the city council. and i want to you fix it for me. that's what folks believe. i get it. that is not what america is. the place to solve your city council issues is with your city council. and the place to solve your county commission issues is with your county commission. and the place to solve your

state insurance regulation issues is with your state. the president's health care bill was a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. guaranteed issue is available today. this chart goes on to talk about the portability issue. can you move from one insurance policy to the other without penalties? it talks about pre-existing conditions, how to deal with if you're already sick and you've gone to apply for a policy today, when will they cover that illness? every single issue that the president's health care bill purports to solve states have already been at work on. and in many cases have those solutions already. the president's health care bill erases them all. in favor of a one-size-fits-all solution. i just want to go back for a moment, mr. speaker. to kentucky's experience.

thoughtful men and women, people who care about their neighbors and their communities, did the very best that they could to address their health care crisis. and in doing so they ran from 43 insurance companies helping people in the state down to two because the rest of them went out of business and went home. left the state altogether. that's not what they intended to happen, but that's what happened . when we talk about the supreme court striking down the president's health care law next week,s and i feel certain that it will because as i look at my constitution it is so patently unconstitutional, to mandate that americans engage in some activity they might not otherwise, and that's the principle on which the entire house of cards is stacked, the entire bill must be struck down. the question is what next? and what i want the american people to hear, mr. speaker, is that what next is happening in your state legislature today. it was happening a year ago.

it was happening 10 years ago. you do not have to have an act of congress to have your problem solved. you can do it right there at home and states are. but, if you call your congressman and you ask your congressman to solve your problem for you, i promise you your congress is going to go to work to do it. but when they do it they are likely to craft something that destroys the system it was meant to save. and then where will we be as 315 million americans? well, i'll give you a little insight into just what i'm thinking, mr. speaker. i'm not trying to associate my thoughts with the whole of the freshmen class or the whole of the congress. but there was a study out the other day that went to the fortune 100 companies, mr. speaker, and they said, what are you going to do if the supreme court upholds the president's health care bill and all of these mandate goes into effect? only 71 answered that survey.

and every single one of those 71 fortune 100 companies said, we'll do better to cancel every insurance policy we have in our company and pay the fine than we will to continue to provide insurance to our employees. you remember the promise, mr. speaker, that the president made . if you like your insurance policy, you can keep it. well, insurance policy i had didn't comport with the president's bill so they canceled it altogether. i did not get to keep my insurance policy. and what 71 of the largest companies in america have said is the bill gives them every incentive to cancel every policy and dump all of their employees out into the exchange. now, this was reported in the news as if it were some miraculous discovery. i will tell you this. this is the secret i was going to share, mr. speaker. i don't think it's miraculous news. i don't think it's a surprise to

anyone who crafted this bill. this bill was never about solving these problems that the states are already solving. this bill was never about solving problems that the states already had the ability to solve. this bill was about moving us one step closer to having the federal government pay for every single health care bill in this country. a single payer system. that's what the president said during the campaign he wanted, that's what he said his entire career he wanted and this bill that does in fact destroy the free market health care system that we have takes us one step further in that direction. you need look no further than that fortune 100 survey to see that. mr. speaker, when the supreme court strikes down the president's health care bill next week i want to encourage a deliberative process in this body. a deliberative process in this body. there is no rush to judgment in

this body. it was a rush to judgment that got us here. have to read the bill to know what's in it, we've all been down that road. 2,000 pages that nobody had time to read. taxes and mandates that folks are still finding out about. let's talk about that a little bit. because i hope, mr. speaker, that i've laid out a fairly persuasive case that while the health care system in this country is in crisis, it is in crisis because of federal government intervention, not in spite of it. because of it. and the states have the ability to solve each and every one of these solutions, these problems, and states are in fact providing those solutions. so, what are we getting in the president's health care bill? is it worth it? because i got to be honest with you, mr. speaker, and i hope you were surprised by this as i was when you got here. there's a real reluctance in this town to do cost-benefit analysis. there's a real reluctance to weigh the cost and the benefits

and see which side it's on. why? because if i'm the brilliant guy who came up with the brilliant bill, it's brilliant. and so if it costs a whole lot more than it's worth, that's going to hurt my feelings so i don't want to you release that data. i don't want you to do that research. let's just implement my brilliant idea and see where it takes us. nobody wants to do the cost-benefit analysis. well, again, the president's health care bill, which solves absolutely nothing that states can't do on their own, and there's not going to be a single person on the president's administration who kiss agrees with me about, that they would prefer a federal solution but they know the state can do those things on their own, this is what is what it's going to cost us. $15 billion in taxes last year. $30 billion this year. $45 billion next year. all the way up to $320 billion in new taxes in this health care

bill. when the supreme court strikes it down next week it's going to be a $320 billion tax cut for american families because it's american families that are on the hook for these taxes in the president's health care bill. i'll go on. the president said this bill was going to take premiums down. for the american families. now, mr. speaker, i did not graduate with an economics degree. but i have ordered a lot of sand witches at subway -- sand wishesed a sbsh switches at subway and what i found is when i want to add guacamole on my san witch, they're going to raise the price on me. you cannot give the american people more benefits without there being a price somewhere. so, yes, the president promised that this would bring down health care premiums. here he is, his quote from june

9, 2008. we'll bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family. that's this blue line, mr. speaker, that i have. the president's rhetoric, we're going to bring down health care costs, $2,500 per family. red line here is the reality, mr. speaker. the reality is health care costs are going up. premium costs are going up. why? because we've mandated that insurance companies do all these new things. are you following universities, mr. speaker? there's all this heartbreak down here talking about how to deal with student loan issues. student loans are important. but what about student health care, mr. speaker? across the country universities are looking at canceling policies that they can no longer afford. they could afford them before the president's health care bill, but they cannot afford them after. why? because the president's health care bill, with mandate after

mandate after mandate, does not take insurance costs down. it takes insurance costs up. and the american people pay that price. it's all right here on this chart, mr. speaker. i mean, and it's -- at its core, when i talk to folks back home, folks care about access. i need access to insurance, i don't have access. and they care about cost. i need access to health care services but health care services are too expensive. that's what the whole health care debate was about. what can you do to help us with access? what can you do to help us with costs? mr. speaker, every state in the union can provide you with access and many of them have. and all of them will if their electorate demands it. that's the funny thing about this health care bill, of course. the majority of the american

people have always opposed it. there was never a time when the american people said, this is what we want. a majority of the people have always opposed it, it was washington, d.c., that said, well, you might not want it today, but once we implement it and force it upon you, you're going to be thrilled, you just don't know it yet. you're going to be happy. folks aren't happy. we see that access is within the legislative per view of every state in the -- purview of every state in the union and we see that costs have been driven up and not down. it's not a partisan issue, mr. speaker. i'm from georgia, so maybe i'm a little biased, but i think newt gingrich has a reputation in this country. i know the democrats do a lot of fundraising by send his name out as if he's a strident partisan. maybe he is in other parts of

the country, but not in georgia. it was newt gingrich and bill clinton who came together to regulate the entire federal health care marketplace, doing away with pre-existing conditions in an economically feasible way, requiring portability in an effective and economically feasible way. ensuring availability using tools that make insurance more affordable instead of less. costs and access, we came together on in 1996, long before my time. what's left are those areas of state control. mr. speaker, i'm going to go back to the 10th amendment. we don't spend enough time on the 10th amendment around here.

i think it's worth waiting for. power is not -- powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. that is at the heart of our public. -- of our republic. the constitution lays out tasks that the federal government and the federal government alone must handle and everything else, not some things else, everything else, it's not confusing, the power is not dell the powers not delegated nor prohibited are reserved to the states or to the people. and as we see in that dissenting opinion in the vincent case, the courts have gradually acceded, year after

year after year, to congress' demand for more power. and as congress has continued to legislate, courts have continued to endorse it and congress legislates more and courts endorse it more and congress legislates more and you turn around and the 10th amendment means nothing. what is that? going back to that dissenting opinion, mr. speaker, the dissenting judge said, congress has so expanded the commerce clause, courts have so ruled on the commerce clause that there's no aspect of economic life that congress cannot regular late. -- regulate. then he went on to cite the necessary and proper clause and said, if there's no part that congress cannot regulate, congress can do anything that is reasonably associated, reasonable and proper, to implementing that bill. folks, i don't think that's the america that you and i know. no one loses their freedom overnight you lose your freedom one fiber at a time and you

wake up one day and say, where did it go? it doesn't happen all at once. this has been time after time after time over decades. it's not a republican problem, it's not a democratic problem, it is an american problem. and next week, it's happening right across the street, mr. speaker, right across the street. nine million women, next week, are going to reset the clock to what our founding fathers intended set -- nine men and women, next week, are going to reset the clock to what our founding fathers intended, set it back to what our founding fathers intended you can do in your life that inspires me. i'm not afraid. i'm inspired by that opportunity. that opportunity to be master of my own destiny but i say to folks who fear that, if any of my colleagues on the left who fear the diminution of federal

power, there's a seat for you in your state legislature. if you have the urge, deep in your heart, to control every aspect of an individual's life, i suggest you go back home and run for your state legislature. because state powers are plennary. -- are plenary, federal powers are limited. every single power not delegated in the constitution of the united states nor prohibited to the states themselves are reserved to the states and the people. mr. speaker, that has always been the key to the success of this republic. it has always been true that the finest innovations, the most creativity, is happening

at the local level and working its way up, not happening in washington, d.c. and working its way down. when the supreme court strikes down the president's health care bill next week, mr. speaker, americans are not going to be without health insurance. americans are not going to be without choices. americans are not going to be thrown into a lawless environment. they are going to have the benefit of lower prices in the absence of the president's health care bill, of more certainty in the absence of the president's health care bill, and the authority to solve every single problem that ails them vested in that institution closest to home, closest to the people, state legislatures across this country. if there's one thing i'm certain of, mr. speaker, i've had those occasions where i've

doubted the wisdom of this congress but i have never had an occasion where i have doubted the wisdom of the american people. not one. the american people have the authority to make these choices today. they do not need a federal mandate to solve these problems, they do not need a federal mandate to address these issues. they have that authority today. our founding fathers made certain of it. in the 10th amendment. and after that court case comes down next week, mr. speaker, folks will go to work across this country as they always have to address the issues and concerns of the american voter. and they'll do that in all 50 of the great and independent states of this nation. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, madam speaker. as always, i'm privileged and honored to be able to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and having heard some of the dialogue from the gentleman from georgia just preceding me, it transitions in a way that i think is fitting that his focus on the 109 amendment and the limitations of the constitution that don't seem to be felt by many members

of the congress that serve on this side as a rule. and the debacle that's been brought upon us, and now we've called upon the supreme court to unravel and anticipate a decision as early as next week, no longer this week, madam speaker, as i watch this administration unfold, we're into the 3 1/2 years or a little bit more of the presidency of barack obama, i'm extremely trouble did the constitutional aspects of this administration. i would frame this with the understand that -- understanding that the president of the united states is a former adjunct law professor at harr regard va law school who taught constitutional law he taught constitutional law to students that were to learn about this dumont i carry with me in my jacket pocket every day. this constitution that, essential components, article 1, article 2, and article 3 of the constitution. article 1 sets up the

legislateture. that's us here in the house of representatives and down the hall to the other end of the capitol the united states senate. and it invests in us all legislative authority, that's article 1, sets up the legislature and gives us our authority. i'll talk about that a little more in a moment. article 2 sets up this eexecutive branch of government. itest tablies there shall be a president who is commander in chief of all our armed forces and a vice president. beyond that, there's not a requirement that that this congress establish any other parts of the executive branch of government, it says we may, but not that we shall. that's in the enumerated powers this congress has. the third brampling of government is the judicial branch of government. it wasn't originalliest tablied for the purposes of determining the intent of the letter of the constitution. it did emerge and for more than two centuries, landmark precedent case of marbury vs.

madison has been -- has not been successfully challenged though occasionally it's been argued. so i concede to the marbury decision and i look over to the supreme court and look to the united states supreme court to be the branch of government that determines what the laws mean, that identifies and defines the laws we pass here. but my disagreement, though i've had some with the supreme court in the past, madam speaker, is not with the judicial branch of government. i'm looking for them to grant us a decision next week on perhaps two large cases, that have come before the court, the obamacare case and also arizona's sb-1070 immigration case. i'm hopeful they'll read this constitution and understand it as i do and as most of us that take an oath to this constitution do, but i'm very concerned about the president of the united states the former adjunct law professor who taught constitutional law at

the university of chicago and when i had a speaker this wednesday morning at a breakfast that i host, each week on wednesdays, what goes on in that room is members only but it's a conservative opportunities society, and when the speaker that i introduced announced he received his law degree from the university of chicago school of law, it was a bit on after apology for the president's interpretations and i'm hopeful that very fine and excellent university of chicago school of law doesn't have now a bad reputation it has to peel off that comes -- comes from the interpreting as of the constitution that the president is making these days. who taught law there. of course i would remind you. so i'm troubled by the actions of the president of the united states that in the most recent action that i'm troubled by, let me say, the amnesty memorandum that he has directed janet napolitano to issue. the amnesty memorandum

establishes several classes of people, one of those classes, they're defined as this, if they were brought into the united states or came into the united states, if they arrived in the united states illegally before they were 16 years old and if they are still under 30 years old and if they continuously resided in the united states for five years and if they received a high school degree, g.e.d., or were honorably discharged from the military, there are a couple of other criteria there, then the president has directed janet napolitano, the secretary of homeland security who directed her subordinates that being the acting director of custom border protection and the director, that's david aguilar, and the director of i.c.e., john morgan and also the uscis, to recognize this mem ran

couple dumb and act as if the president issued an edict that is actually a law. as mr. woodall from georgia spoke about the constitution and what's happened to our 10th amendment, i would suggest that the president seems to be usurping nearly all of article 1, section 8 of our constitution, the enumerated powers. i came here to speak of these enumerated powers in this way. the president can manufacture law out of thin air. not whole cloth, madam speaker, but out of thin air. we get things like, the immigration law that the united states congress has established, it's defined categories of people, established numerous visas, allows for the most generous legal immigration of any country in the world and some say more legal immigrants coming into the united states every year than are allowed in all other countries in the world put together. i haven't seen that data to my satisfaction, it gets repeted here in this congress fairly often. i am confident that the united states is the most generous

nation on earth when it comes to legal immigration, a number between one and 1.2 million illegal immigrants come into the united states and that number of people happens to be something that would establish -- establish workers for every job that's been created for more than a decade here in the united states. i have tracked the u.s. department of labor's website and evaluated that and i'll see that anywhere between 1 million and 137b92 million jobs have been created by this economy and they're all used, all taken up, at least in theory, by new legal immigrants, then we have 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants, seven out of 12 of which are out working and the other five are presumably not working, in the home, perhaps, and those jobs are maybe not recorded by the department of labor because they aren't legitimate jobs from their statistical

standpoint. imagine a country that would open its doors to over a million immigrants a year, watch the economy create these jobs and watch those jobs being used by legal immigrants and then turn a blind eye towards the illegal immigrants that are coming into the united states. the people on the other side of the aisle see illegal immigrants as undocumented democrats. it is a political equation for them. it's not an equation of what's good for america's economy. what's good for america's culture. what's good for america's society. it's what gives them political power. so they cynically turn a blind eye and encourages that laws not be enforced, erode the rule of law and in the process of expanding their political base, they're eroding the core of america and creating a greater and greater disrespect for the rule of law. that's chizzling away at one of those beautiful pillars of american exceptionalism. and the president leads the charge, madam speaker.

this lawless memorandum that was issued by secretary napolitano at the direction of president obama has no basis in constitutional authority. the president of the united states does not have the authority to create law. he has no authority to pull it out of thin air. he cannot simply announce that he's going to require us to follow some directive, some executive edict, and expect us to follow it. it is an unconstitutional overreach and a violation of the separation of powers. now, i have some experience with this. the president's move on this, this amnesty memorandum, it's a clear violation of the executive powers of the president of the united states, it is one of the innumerated power that is give tonight united states congress in article one, section eight. if the president can manufacture immigration law, here's what he has done. i'll put this poster up. madam speaker, this is the

result of the president's action and that is, first he created the categories that i mentioned. three or four categories of people that are classes of people. he has prosecutorial discretion to decide where they're going to emphasize the utilization of their resources. he can determine that they're going to put more people on violent criminals, more people on serious drug smugglers, i'm not sure they are, but he can determine that they are. i haven't raised an issue with his constitutional authority to do. that i did bring an amendment -- do that. i did bring an amendment a couple of weeks ago that blocked the morton memos which said we're not going to enforce laws against individuals who have found themselves in the united states and haven't violated other laws. and the president has argued before the supreme court that there's this counterbalance, the theory that congress has directed the executive branch to

create and maintain a careful balance of various immigration laws so that the executive branch interests in the state department, in the department of homeland security, in the department of commerce, those departments find that balance so we don't overenforce and offend our neighbors. congress did not direct the president of the executive branch to create or maintain a careful balance. that careful balance is a completely manufactured theory. congress passed laws of all kinds, under the authority granted to it in article 1, section 8, and in those directives to the executive branch are keep your oath of office, mr. speaker. executive branch eric holder, keep your oath of office. and that oath for the president of the united states is, i do solemnly swear to the best of my ability to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, so help me god. those were the words of barack obama, january 20, 2009.

right out here on the west port could he of the capitol. preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states, so help me god. and intrin sick with that oath of office, a little bit later in article 2, the constitution says, of the president he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that means enforce the laws. the president must enforce the laws, he must appoint people whose job it is to enforce the laws. he must direct that they do so. they take an oath to uphold the constitution. eric holder has an obligation to enforce the law. janet napolitano has an obligation to enforce the law. and their oath is tied to the constitution in the same way. they understand that when they put their hand on the bible and raise their right hand and say, i do solemnly swear, that includes take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

that's the obligation of the executive branch of government. the obligation of the legislative branch of government is to pass laws that be necessary and proper. in fact, madam speaker, among article 1, section 8 of the innumerated powers is the necessary and proper clause which says to congress, the legislative branch, to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. that's the full list of powers that come before it in article 1, section 8, and all other powers vested by this congress -- constitution in the government of the united states or any department or officer thereof. necessary and proper clause includes exclusive authority to pass laws as vested in the legislative branch and government. if it's exclusive, that means the president of the united states and nobody outside this

legislation -- legislature can pass a law. the president believes he can do that. he believes he can create legislation out of thin air and he did so by the effect of his memorandum that was released by janet napolitano last friday and supported in a rose garden speech by the president of the united states about 2:40 p.m. last friday. and here's what we have. as a result of that is amnesty for whole classes of people. between 800,000 and 1.4 million people, granted a legal stat us in this country that as of the morning, last friday morning, when they woke up, they were subject to being put back in the condition they were in before they broke the law. that is back to their home country where they rightfully belong and legally could reside. the president changed that with an unconstitutional overreach that's a violation of the separation of powers and i'm

going to ask the court to resolve this disagreement. it will take some time, it will take some money, it will take some effort and some litigation brains. they are, i believe, ready to go on this, madam speaker. but here's what the result of the president's memo, and it's this, created those classes of people, granted them executive amnesty by memo from janet napolitano, director of homeland security, and directed the director of uscis, united states citizenship immigration services, to create a permit that would allow those formerly illegal individuals to work in the united states for the duration of this permit that he would grant. now, i just looked at a couple of these things. these are created by laws, acts of congress. this is an employment authorization card. it's just a model or a sample of one. it doesn't actually identify a

real individual. and this is the size of a credit card. and it says, u.s. department of homeland security, u.s. citizenship immigration services, uscis. this is what the president has corrected that uscis create to hand to these one or so million people that get their new amnesty by executive fiat. here is your employment authorization card, this is what will be produced. not by the direction of the united states congress, not under the authority of the article 1 of the constitution that establishes this legislature, but under the arrogant assumed power of the president of the united states, to issue a memo that he thinks he has the authority to issue and by the way, power in this world has historically been what you're able to assert and retain. if anyone steps up and assumes power to do something, there's no one there to challenge them and they can get away with it, they have that power and they'll

hold that power and there will be a precedent for that power until someone can challenge it and take it away from them, madam speaker. and so the president has assumed this unconstitutional power to create entire classes of people, grouped into hundreds of thousands, grant to them a -- an employment authorization card and grant to them a resident card, excuse me. now the resident card that the president has ordered, uscis to produce, in an unlawful, unconstitutional fashion, will likely look something like this. this is a copy of what we know is a green card. it's a lawful permit of resident card, l.p.r. status is what we call it. permanent resident card and this is again just a token individual, a model for the card. but, madam speaker, they'll probably strike out permanent

resident and they'll say, might say temporary resident, it might have some kind of indication that later on they're -- he's going to make them a permanent resident. the president can manufacture authority to do this when it doesn't exist, if he can grant amnesty to people that fit the age categories that he says, that haven't committed violent or serious felonies or too many strings of misdemeanors, if he can do that, then why can't he also grant amnesty to those that are over 16 when they came here? those that are over 30 today, those that have been in the united states for less than five years, those that may have committed flebs -- felonies and he just wants to give them a pass. we already have amnesty in this country for the president of the united states' aunt who had been adjudicated for deportation. and we already have amnesty from the administration for his drunken uncle omar who nearly ran over a police officer and had a 1.4 blood alcohol content and then after he was brought to court, his punishment was to

suspend his driver's license and then the state of massachusetts issued him a 45-day driver's license. these laws don't apply to the relatives of the president of the united states. apparently they don't apply to the president's preferred manufactured classes of people. by the way, the constitution according to his view doesn't apply either. to the president of the united states. this is what he has created out of whole cloth. these cards that you see here. this is the result of a deliberative act of the united states congress. the u.s. house of representatives, the united states senate have concurred that we want to give people who are in this country legally an employment authorization card when they qualify, we want to give them a permanent resident card, a lawful permanent status card, when they qualify. and this green card by the way is a path to citizenship. carrying this green card around for five years, being present in the united states, obeying our

laws, that's -- that opens the door to the united states citizenship and after that five-year period of time the green card can be converted and often is into united states citizenship. what prevents the president from just granting citizenship to all the people that he thinks might vote for him? if the president has the authority to manufacture out of thin air this permit and this permit, madam speaker, under the same assumed arrogant authority, the president would be able to grant amnesty to 12 million or 20 million people, instantly make them citizens and march them off to the polls. he's engaged in blocking the state of florida and five other states from cleaning up their voting rolls, has sent his attorney general, eric holder, to block florida from cleaning illegals off of the voting rolls in florida. and that's not the only state. there's a database called the save database that's in the control of janet napolitano, department of homeland security, the secretary of state of the

state of iowa, matt schultz, who is doing an excellent job of making sure that those of us who have a legitimate vote in the state don't see our vote deluded or offset by the vote of someone who is unlawfully in the united states or not a citizen or perhaps a felon or deceased. we need voter registration lists that are free of duplicates and that certifies that they are citizens and require a picture i.d. and the holder justice office working with the assent if not the encouragement of the