us at #affordableenergy. it's something new, mr. speaker, as a way to continue communication with those that we represent back home, in an effort to answer very important questions about some of the things that we've read in the news recently today. today, the president, president obama launched his latest assault in the war on coal. those aren't my words, that's how president obama's own comment is out there, told the "new york times" just hours before his speech today. and let me quote him. the one thing the president really needs to do now is begin the process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. politically, the white house is hesitant to say they are having a war on coal.

on the other hand, the war on coal is exactly what is needed. war on coal? war on coal ultimately amounts o war on energy and war on american families. and the regulations that president obama announced today are unprecedented, executive actions aimed at punishing industry critical to energy production, particularly the coal industry. these regulations would not pass the united states congress, not the republican house and not even the democratic senate. president obama is trying to accomplish through executive regulations that which he cannot accomplish legislatively or electric toreally. he passed the buck on approving the keystone pipeline. this is a project that would create up to 20,000 jobs and increase domestic energy

production, but the project has been delayed on regulatory approval for four years. what strikes me the most about president obama's aggressive actions to say how out of touch he is with the american people. that's why we're here tonight. i remind my constituents all the time that i'm a mom. i'm a mom, my two kids, i'm putting gas in the car. i'm going to the grocery store. i see directly in my every day life how these inflammatory statements, just in your face remarks to the american people that are going to be directly affected by this president's policies. and so i see it as milk prices increase and gas prices go up,

domestic energy prices continue to skyrocket, this is just unacceptable. i'm joined by my colleagues tonight and the gentleman from colorado, i know he serves on the energy and commerce committee and can weigh in on these matters. i would like to remind our constituents that it's #affordableenergy and as we move through the leadership hour, we want to hear from you, our constituents back home, about the issues that are important to you when it comes to energy production in the united states of america. mr. gardner: i thank the gentlelady from alabama for her leadership tonight on this very important issue about the energy future of the united states. and mr. speaker, she is right. the conversation that we are having isn't something that is just occurring on the house floor. it's not a conversation that is just occurring inside the beltway of washington, d.c., but

a conversation about energy happening in california, virginia, my home state of colorado. it's about a strong future for this country and finding jobs and opportunity that we know our children deserve, a country that is growing stronger each and every day, better jobs and stronger growing workplace. and so tonight, i hope that people will send thoughts to # affordableenergy. they can participate and we can all see around the country what's happening with that conversation in their own homes, at their own dinner table tonight. #affordableenergy and what they are seeing, whether energy prices are rising and whether they have a job or perhaps trying to find work and energy presents an incredible opportunity for them to do just that. see thengton, d.c., you

fight break down between the house and senate or republicans and democrats unnecessarily so. we ought to be focused on what's right for this country, not what is right for a political party, this group or that group or favoring this special interest but what's good for the american people. the jobs that they're trying to hold on to, the college that they are trying to pay for for their kids, build a brighter future for their family. the conversation we know isn't just about left or right. that's not how energy is. energy is about how we can produce it here in the united states, what we can do in our own back yards to create a vibrant future. we have our own energy experience, whether as kids, make sure you turn the light off in your bedroom before you go to school or today trying to find out running a business and make sure we are using efficient

computers to lower the cost of our utility bill year after year. mrs. roby: i have reached out specifically earlier today, mr. speaker, to my constituents on facebook and i have a few examples of that. howard from dale county, alabama, pointed out he is struggling to make ends meet, especially with obamacare and increase in payroll taxes. susan from montgomery, alabama, said the president just doesn't get it. she watched the president's speech and doesn't understand why he wants to focus on improving the economy. she says the president doesn't have a clue how his policies actually affect the middle class. a young man from south alabama pointed out that this has a trickle-down effect that are felt by hard-working americans. these new regulations on energy sources that we sell.

kevin, from alabama, worked for the military and recently been furloughed due to the president's sequester and worries how rising energy costs will affect him as he is already having to deal with less take-home pay. i appreciate my constituents weighing in. mr. gardner: i represent a district that has been hit hard. >> people are struggling. i go home every weekend and i talk to real people every day who are struggling to get by. i talked to folks who lost their jobs, talked to folks who are trying to keep their companies afloat and a home builder the other day who is trying to keep enough work so he doesn't have to lay off his crews. mr. hudson: people are really hurting out there and there are

some signs that the economy is getting better, but mr. speaker, in my district, we aren't feeling it yet. i was in richmond county, north coorm yesterday and the folks there tell me that home for example -- flokeses have increased and where folks are struggling and just trying to stay afloat and keep their family with food on the table and paying the bills, the president comes out today, four years to the day when he introduced his cap and trade ideas and comes up with this new scheme that's going to add costs to our energy. it's going to destroy jobs in this country and just unconscionable and the people in my district are wondering what other peopler why doesn't the president understand what's going on here. and so, mr. speaker, i'm going to continue to fight for an energy policy that makes sense.

we have energy off the shore of north carolina. we have huge reserves of oil and natural gas and potential for fracking in north carolina. i want to get north carolina in the energy business. i want to create those jobs like we see in western pennsylvania and north dakota and other places and now's the time to get americans in the energy game and not taxing and regulating our energy industry out of business and not only destroying the jobs and increasing the cost of energy. when it goes up, everything goes up, food, cost of transportation of goods. it's hitting us really hard. mr. gardner: you bring up an excellent point about this issue of regulations, how the president has spent all of this me developing incrediblely onerous regulations that will increase the costs. it will increase the costs to

produce electricity that each and every one of us use every day. and yet it's takenees for him to develop this and concentrate on this. this development will hurt american jobs and impact negatively the middle class and the keystone xl pipeline, he could approve today after mountains of paperwork has been completed and environmental studies complete d, people could be put to work today on the keystone pipe lynn. instead of focusing on regulations that will hurt our ability to grow the economy and the president will be disarming our plans to grow energy, we could have the keystone xl pipe lynn putting people back to work. and people that i talk to in my district strongly support the keystone pipeline and people in colorado that don't support it. they say, it's go not going to

create jobs here in cole. we know thanks to research that has been the impact of oil sands on u.s. state economies done by a university that in colorado alone, the job increase thanks to the alberta oil sands development, that we would receive 11,000 200 jobs as a result of the alberta oil sands. 11,000 some jobs we could benefit from the construction of pipeline and further development of the alberta oil sands. my colleague from north carolina, 18,400 jobs could come from further development of the alberta oil sands and keystone pipeline being a critical part of that. the president announces a plan to increase the cost of col-powered generation. his top science adviser said we need a war on coal.

his administration is saying that. and yet we have the opportunity to say, yes to a pipeline to create jobs in this country. instead of putting people out of work, put people into work by approving the keystone pipeline. mrs. roby: i have a check list about this administration and president obama's energy record and you know, obviously, delaying the job-creating keystone pipeline, regulating oil and gas production on federal lands. investing in green energy failures. gop an learn about this at .gov/energy. we focus on this with all of our colleagues. a recent report from c.b.o. came out to find out how energy costs

are affecting the economy and the report said raising the cost of fossil fuels increases the cost of producing goods and services especially those in electricity and transportation. my friend from north carolina -- i was talking about being a mom and driving a car pool and buying milk, very evident what's going on based on these policies. higher production costs lead to higher costs in goods and services. areas in the country where electricity is produced from coal places like alabama and other states represented here would tend to experience larger experiences in electricity prices than other areas of the country would. and specific to alabama's, 36% of electricity is produced from coal. the largest of any fuel source. and as for jobs in alabama, it's the sixth nationally for total

electricity generation. all of us have stories here tonight that are just right along these lines. we have an opportunity here as members of the house of representatives to, whether it be through oversight on energy and commerce and other committees of jurisdiction to weigh in on this. that's our responsibility to our constituents. and that's what this conversation here tonight. mr. speaker, i just want want to tell you again #affordableenergy if you want to know more and make a comment about what we are doing tonight. #affordableenergy and any of my colleagues want to chime in, please do. mr. hudson: i would love to address this war on coal. i think it is outrageous the esident of the united states

says we need to have a war on coal. we need to have a war on joblessness. these are the things we should be concerned about, angry about and concerned about. you look at the fact the united states has more coal than any country in the world and we have technology to use that in a clean way. clean coal technology, liquified coal, plenty of ways we could use that energy, mr. speaker. putting americans to work to reduce our energy costs and that's what we ought to be focusing on. let's get americans to work and bring american energy costs down and let's stop the war on jobs, which is what we are seeing from this administration. . >> i would ask the gentleman if doesn't agree with me, we

focused on technology instead of just a war on coal. it's interesting the president has take then action to have a war on coal when his department of nrnl has been investing in some clean coal technology, not as much as some of us would like but some clean coal technology which appears to be on the cusp of yielding benefits. they're working right now in to test out lant a chemical looping formula that would produce coal ash and pure carbon die yocks side. no carbon capture, it's there. there's no nox, no sox, no mercury, while it's more expensive than conventional plans if the technology works that the administration has already invested in, we could have both clean coal affordable energy, jobs, and still protect the environment. mr. griffith: one of the

problems that i have, mr. speaker, is that so often people say, well you can't have one and have the other. i believe the united states should be the leader in making sure that we develop and have available not only for companies in the united states but the entire world a clean coal technology because if we don't look at this as a tpwhrobal problem, if we continue to say, we're going to shut coal down in the united states, we send our jobs to places like india and china and russia and other places, they don't have the regulations we even had in 2000 in the war on coal. all that stuff go into the atmosphere. according to nasa it takes 10 days to get from the middle of he gobi desert to my beloved shore in virginia. we need to make sure we make america's coal affordable,

clean, and usable. and we can do it. i yield to my good friend mitigating circumstance cousin i sometimes like to say, sense i'm representative griffith, i yield to representative griffin. mr. griffin: i'd be proud to call you cousin. when i lock at this, the president's talk about jobs sounds good but he doesn't like this sort of job. or that sort of job. for example, he talks about wanting to create jobs but he doesn't want the keystone pipeline kind of jobs, he doesn't want the kind of jobs that come from coal, he doesn't want the kind of jobs that come from fracking, this technology that we have developed in the united states that is helping us lead the world, so he wants to talk about jobs, he has this

idea that there's somehow these jobs out there, but not the ones that are right under his nose. i am holding in my hand a "washington post" article from earlier this year and the headline is, european industry flocks to u.s. to take advantage of cheaper gas. wait a minute. i've heard the president talk a lot about jobs. i've heard him talk a lot about wanting more manufacturing jobs. natural gas that is being developed here in this country, cheap natural gas, clean-burning natural gas, a-- abundant natural gas, that is what is helping this economy, despite all the regulatory obstacles that this president

has put in front of this economy. despite record debt. despite all the problems that we in this body want to address. the economy is still doing some incredible things because the rivate sector is leading and natural gas is a big part of that. i've got another article here from "the wall street journal" from october of last year, the headline is, cheap u.s. gas is europe's loss. manufacturing in europe moving to the united states buzz of innovation in the area of natural gas. now, the interesting thing is, i know the president is in a political bind because workers want jobs and environmentalists

want to kill a lot of these projects, so he's torn between the two. how about you just go with the jobs? working americans need jobs, mr. president. and it seems to me those are the folks that you ought to put first. and i would note that, there's a lot of talk by environmentalists about killing coal and having a war on coal. do they not realize that if you kill coal use in a country, that regulates it very closely and that has developed clean coal, that coal is still going to be used? but who is it going to be used by? it is going to be used by china, where they don't have the clean air rules that we do, and so they're going to make even more pollution instead of turning to clean coal and the

coal technologies that we have here. he's sending it everseas. mrs. roby: i want to chime in for a second. i think it cannot be said enough in this chameler tonight that his war on coal is -- chamber tonight is his war on coal is a war on american energy and american jobs. what you will see, if this unilateral decision happens, you're going to see an outsourcing of manufacturing to places like chi that that are unregulated when all any of us in this room here every time we travel to our districts are, how come we can't bring manufacturing jobs become to the united states of america? it's these types of threats, coming from this administration, that are chasing jobs offshore left and right. this is not what our economy can withstand right now. mr. griffin: this is another reason folks may want to go elsewhere to create jobs. we've got the gift of abaun

daunt, cheap energy, let's not mess it up. an let's be clear. this is not just a war on coal. this is a war on working people. this is a war on the family. who are sitting at their table, trying to figure out how they're going to pay their power bill, how they're going to heat or cool their home, how they're going to put food on their table, and you know what? energy cost well, all know this, when it goes up, it's passed down through the cost of product. i will tell you that arkansas where i'm from, a big percentage of our energy is based on coal. mr. griffith: i don't think there could be any doubt that that's the president's intention under the plan he announced today this the focus tonight -- >> i don't think there could be any doubt that that's the president's intention under the plan he anouned today. and that's the discussion

tonight. if you listen to the pattern of statements the president has made from the time he was a candidate to his administration today. as a candidate, president, then-senator, obama said, under my plan energy rates would skyrocket. he said his energy plan was for energy prices to skyrocket. mr. gardner: when he nominated sec retear, to be he said he'd like to see gas prices at around $8. european prices. too now it's $4 and it's high. mrs. roby: we've heard this president say repeatedly, i support an all of the above approach to energy production and then you try to promulgate a rule like what came out today

and unilaterally announce a war on coal a war on american families a war on jobs in the united states of america. what reasonable individual would put that with an all of the above approach to energy production so that we can become independent in the united states of america? it makes no sense. we should hold this administration accountable for this. we in congress have a job to make sure our constituents back home understand this doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense for jobs, it doesn't make sense for families, and we absolutely ave to hold him to this. mr. griffin: we talked about regulating greenhouse gases -- mr. griffith: we talked about regulating greenhouse gases and it would make prices go up and we said there are programs for

that. but the president cut the liheap program, he's going to make an electric bill fwose through the roof and they want us to cut the assistance program that would help the poorest of the poor. that doesn't make any sense. i don't understand it. because they're really going to hurt american families. mrs. roby: will you share, mr. gardner, will you share the testimony, because i watched it and it's really powerful, you were questioning in the energy and commerce committee about whether there's ever, you can than i story better can because i just watched the clip, any connection between the number of jobs that would be affected by the regulations that come down from the e.p.a.? mr. griffith: one of the -- mr. gardner: one of the things is the focus on regulation and the welcome of focus on that regulation's effect on jobs. we had them talk to the energy and commerce committee about

whether or not a regulation on energy production was good. and i asked a simple question, and the question was, whether or not there was a jobs analysis performed when they issued the regulation? did they look at whether or not jobs would be impacted by this regulation? and after five minutes of what can only be described as an abbott and costello "who's on first" kind of conversation, the answer was clearly no, this administration did not take into account the impact energy regulation would have on job creation. as we have a conversation with the country about an all american energy plan, we have got to realize that not only does it impact the coal-fired power plants or the nuclear plant or the wind farm down the road but it impacts our family's ability to afford a brighter future. mrs. roby: in the president's speech today he made the case that more regulations and restraint from the energy secor, to your point, would be good for our economy and create jobs.

regulation creating jobs? i know none of us believe that and i know we've never heard from one constituent that owns a business that regulation, more regulation creates jobs. and furthermore, this is the same president that tried to sell us solyndra and we're going to take this, we're going to take him at his word? it's really unbelievable. >> if i might add to the gentlelady's point this administration has continually pushed the notion that the gentlelady's describing, that regulations do create jobs. their argument is that when they regulate our industries, when they regulate our local companies, when they regulate the local small businesses in our communities that those -- businesses have to hire people to respond to regulations, therefore, presto, this administration has created jobs. mrs. roby: but aren't the businesses -- they want to create product to sell to the american people, not hire people to follow regulations. >> so to the gentlelady's

point, what this administration has done, he's created a couldn't tri-that focused job creationed on bureaucracy and red tape. mr. yoder: they're forcing debt on our kids and grandkids to have bureaucrats to come to our communities to force companies to hire people to deal with the bureaucrat exsystem. we're supposed to be the land of hope and opportunity and they're taking us toward being the land of regulation, the land of unemployment, the land of mandates and taxes and all of this together, it's no wonder that our unemployment rate is still almost 8%, 7.6%, the longest the unemployment rate has been this high since the great depression for this long. for this administration to say that this is somehow a job creation agenda, regulating our local businesses, regulating our energy costs and driving up the cost of energy and the gentleman from arkansas spoke to this, this is not just a war on a business. this is not just a war on an energy producer. this is not just a war on a

coal company. this is a war on the american people. they are the victims here. it is not the small business owners. it is the american people, it's the people struggling to pay their bills, it's the person on the fibs income. it's the seungle mom, it's the senior, it's someone whose energy costs are that big a portion of their monthly budget this hurts them mt. pocketbook. it's that family trying to make life work. they are the folks who ultimately get hurt in this situation. we have to stand up for the victims in this country. that silent majority that's being hurt by these anti-energy policies. at the end of the day, that's why i joan my colleagues to support an all of the above energy approach to put people back to work, to lower the cost of energy in this country and make us more secure by making us less dependent on foreign sources of energy. mr. griffin: i would like to lay this out and give the president

the opportunity to change his mind. we know he has been torn by workers on one side and environmental extremists on the other. and has been looking for any excuse not to look at the jobs that will come with the keystone pipeline. and when you talk about coal, keystone pipeline or natural gas that we are getting out of the ground that has revolutionized this country and provided so many jobs for so many workers, but so many reasons why opponents of the keystone pipeline have said they are opposed to the pipeline is that the tar sands coming -- being taken out of the ground in canada, it, at its core which is a little bit different kind of crude. and a lot of them have said, well, we are opposed to the keystone pipeline because it's

different than other pipelines. this crude is different. this crude is more cor owes i have. this -- corrosive and more dangerous and should not be going through pipelines because it is dangerous. i have great news for the president tonight if he is watching this. the great news is in january of 2012, we put in a requirement in the legislation that required the obama administration -- going to be real clear about this because it is breaking news and broke today and hadn't got a lot of attention, but it's critical, we put in our bill that became law, that the obama administration needed to do a study through the department of transportation to determine whether this bitumi nrely was different than other crude and

was more dangerous to pass through a pipeline and whether it was something we needed to be extra worried about because all opposed, they preach about how dangerous it is. >> what did the study say? mr. griffin: national research council, not some third-party political group working for the obama administration, the secretary of transportation, pursuant to this congress' request that they study it, i have the executive summary right here and this came out today, here's what they concluded and this is big news. this is one of the reasons the president is against keystone pipeline. it says, quote, the committee does not find any causes of pipeline failure unique to the ransportation of diluted

bitumin and the council does not find any chemicals that are outside the range of other crude oils or any other aspect of its transportation by transmission pipeline that would make it more likely than other crude oils to cause releases. mr. griffith: are you saying it is just as safe? mr. griffin: i wish i could have said it that clearly. but the bottom line, this isn't tim griffin saying it but the obama administration's own study that we mandated they conduct. if you look at the arguments against the keystone pipeline that the environmental extremists have been putting out there, this has been number one at the top that they have been basing their whole bill on this and the obama administration says, sorry, not backed up by the facts. mrs. roby: what is the holdup?

what's the holdup, mr. president. mr. speaker, we have got again and i can't emphasize this enough and the whole point of this hour is based on that new information and war on american families and jobs, what is the holdup? what is the deal? 20,000 jobs and we are continually seeing this is ident -- the president for all the above energy approach and every corner attacking domestic energy production. mr. gardner: in colorado, we have it all. we have a coal mine and wind energy and wind farms and wind energy manufacturing. we have one of the nation's most promising oil and gas things right now. in western colorado, we have thousands of jobs that are being created and thousands more that could be created if government could get out of the way.

bureau of land management if they approve a handful of permits at the b.l.m. could create over 100,000 jobs that this country could put to work if these permits were approved. to hear the president talk about an all of the above energy policy and see his actions that go incomplete opposite direction. you know, i would -- >> i would like the president to be straight up to say i like some jobs. just be straight up with us. mr. griffin: just say i have a war on coal. i have a war on the keystone pipeline. i have a war on natural gas and removing it out of the ground, slowing down permits. i like a certain kind of energy and i'm going to fund it through the government. mrs. roby: let me say this real quick, as a reminder, tonight's

conversation is at #affordableenergy and remind you, mr. speaker, that's where we are having that conversation tonight alongside countless others. i wanted to throw that in there as this conversation continues. mr. griffin: i would point out again going to the environmental responsibility that we have. you as a mother, i'm a father of two, a three-year-old and five-year-old. we want clean air and clean water and duke university, last month, working with the university of arkansas and working with the obama administration's own u.s. geological survey concluded that wellwater, tested 130 wells in arkansas, that wellwater was the as not polluted by natural gas extraction that's

going on there. just more factual evidence that we can have the jobs and if we extract the energy responsibly, we can take care of the environment at the same time. mr. gardner: one of those promising things is not the fact that it is creating thousands of jobs but the side benefits of what the revenues that are produced, what that revenue goes to. in wells county, colorado, the only county in the country that zero bonded indebtedness. .hey pay for it 150 got two companies, million these two companies paid to one single county. 40% of that $150 million goes to the school district, goes to the community colleges.

not only are we able to develop affordable energy for the american people and put people to work, that revenue turns around and goes to the core community institutions that make our country strong. mr. griffin: in one of my away the when you take money that comes from richmond and washington for education -- mr. griffith: 70% of the tax dollars in that particular county are derived from the coal and natural gas severance tax. you eliminate coal, they don't know how to fund their schools. we aren't just talking about big business, but the schools, classrooms. mrs. roby: there is a war on education as well. mr. griffith: it's a war on everything we hold dear because the truth of the matter is when you are number one nation in the world, everybody else wants to be where your right now we are

number one. this administration wants to throw away what helps us get there and that is affordable reliable energy plan and we can't throw it all out and expect us to have the standard of living we all have. we won't have the money for roads or won't have the money for so many things that people think of today as being there. but the money has to come from somewhere and it just can't come out of thin air. i'm sorry, mr. president, money doesn't grow on trees. mrs. roby: when it comes to our responsibility, we are going to debate and hopefully debate on the offshore energy and jobs act and this is legislation that will increase production and drive down costs and increase american jobs. and what it does, it expands u.s. offshore energy production in order to create a million new american jobs. labor energy prices, grow our

economy, strengthen national security, strengthen our community by lowering our dependence on international oil. and you know, currently the obama administration keeps 85% of our offshore areas offlimits to energy production, 85%. and this h.r. 2231 again we will be debating and voting on later this week will open new offshore areas for that energy production and require the obama administration, and again, mr. president, who is for an all of the above approach requires them o submit a new lease plan. >> what a great opportunity for both parties to work together to create jobs.

mr. yoder: there are over 1 million jobs that could be created and commonsense legislation that puts americans to work. i'm sure this legislation will pass this week but an opportunity for folks to vote on something that will make a difference and i challenge folks in both parties to stand up. the real hope will be whether the senate takes it up. we passed dozens of bills that create jobs to put american people back to work but almost an 8% unemployment rate in this country. i'm fed up with washington getting in the way of progress. at every turn, the solution is greater taxes, greater mandates and burdens on the american people. we are talking about prosperity to go back to work and put food on the table and done through a simple thing. domestic forms of energy that are right here. why wouldn't we utilize this energy that is right here in

this country. it seems foolish and shortsighted and hurts the american people when we aren't supporting this. this is a great week for folks who are for all of the above energy approach to step up and join us in proposals that will put americans back to work and rebuild this country. mr. griffin: we understand and hopefully we can get more and more folks to understand that this body is not creating the jobs. we want the private sector to continue to create the jobs and lead. but sometimes, the barriers to job creation and growing jobs in this country are barriers that washington has put into place. and i find that a lot of the the times we are legislating in this body, we aren't trying to create jobs to get in the way of the private sector.

we go to people in the private sector and we say what's your biggest hurdle? what's your biggest barrier? how can we help you grow more jobs and more often than not, they'll say get out of the way. and a lot of the bills that we put on the floor are to help washington get out of the way. move it out of the way and let the private sector continue to lead in this area. and i want to mention one more thing real quickly on optimism. if you study where we are as a country, whether it's with regard to the debt, regulations, yeah, we have a lot of work to do there, but if you study where we are with regard to innovation, energy extraction, natural gas extraction, the low cost of natural gas, the companies that i mentioned in these articles that are moving

from europe, i smell nothing and i see nothing but optimism. the future of this country is limitless. and when i'm long gone, my kids that are three and five now are going to be living in a country, if we do things right, that just continues to grow and has all the energy we will ever need. and as an economist pointed out to us earlier tonight, if you're russia and saudi arabia and you're looking at the innovation that has come out of american companies and looking at the deposits of natural gas and shale oil that we have in north america, you're worried. mr. yoder: and it is exciting. . . . here's an article, it says

america's shale oil is loosening the grip of oil exporting companies on the market. because of the work we're doing here in this country, we're loosening the grip of opec. a renowned energy expert testified before the energy and commerce committee talking about how the energy development in the united states is allowing our sanctions against iran to work. that we're lessening their ability to sell and fund terrorism activities because we're able to produce it here in the united states, displacing around the world the sale of iranian oil and iranian energy. when our colleague from arkansas talks about the optimism that we have in this country, the people of my district who see it each and every day in little tiny towns that used to have one stoplight and now have a new housing development going up because of production in the energy field or traffic they never had before because they have activity going to and from the work scythe, people who graduated from the local high school who for the first time

in their lifetimes, or maybe their parents' lifetimes, know they can stay there in the hometown, with a family and with good-paying jobs and benefits because of the energy production. in colorado we do have it all. we have wind energy and solar energy. it's not just regulations that are blocking the traditional fossil fuels, it's regulations holding up wind energy projects, the ability to sight a trans-- site a line, the ability to get the power to people who need it is being held up. there may be people thinking talking just about regular ligses on fossil fuel bus they're holding up clean emergency too. if we truly cared about affordable energy, if we truly cared about doing something good for our country which i believe we all do, then we would get government out of the way and let america work. and our chance is this week.

mr. griffith: and this is the problem i see in my district, it's not that we couldn't have jobs but washington is getting in the way and every month we're having layoffs in some coal plant here or some coal plant there, or the companies that make things for the coal plant. while they remain eternally optimist ex, it's hard when that layoff slip coming -- comes to your house and you know you're no longer going to have that job. that's why this war on coal affects each and every one of us but it affects folks in my district maybe a little bit more because we're on the front lines and wore getting those layoff notices now an i have people that i know who are casualties in the president's war on coal and i'd like to hear from them at #affordable energy and i hand it back to you, madam chair. mrs. roby: i want to thank my colleagues for joining this conversation tonight and we'll continue this conversation at

#affordableenergy but the bottom lean is this, while the president continues to propoet his political agenda, we here in the house of representatives, the majority are committed to -- are committed, as we have demonstrated time and time again, that we are committed to the all the above approach. this isn't, as you've heard from my colleagues tine this isn't just a war on coal, this is a war on the american family and american jobs and we are committed to getting government out of the way so that the american family and the american business can thrive. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair thanks the gentlelady and her colleagues. under the speaker's anonsed policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. ellmers, for 30 minutes. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss the upcoming implementation of obamacare. prior to coming to washington,

i was a nurse for over 21 years and i'm passionate about health care. my husband is a general surgeon. he continues to practice in our hometown of dunn, north carolina. i'm very, very proud of that. you know, a couple of years ago, when the president was proposing his legislation to basically overhaul health care in america, my husband and i became very active speaking out. that was well before ever considering running for congress. as a result, because of our passion and concern for this country and health care as a whole, i found myself winning my election and here, fighting the fight. we continue with this fight an we are 98 days away from the open enrollment process going into effect for obamacare. this is something that the american people have been sitting back and watching for quite some time and there are many, many questions that remain to be answered.

you know, mr. speaker, a recent g.a.o. study shines some light on some areas we have been asking questions about for a very long period of time. serving on the energy and commerce committee, the energy and commerce committee put forward a request to the g.a.o. to find out where exactly are we in the implementation of obamacare? this takeover of america's health care affecting 1/6 of our economy. and affecting jobs across this country. it's the number one reason today, mr. speaker, that employers are not hiring. because they're not sure of the effects that this will have once fully implemented. there again this week, the nonpartisan government accountability office put forward their findings. and i'm -- i just want to highlight some of those for you.

states have yet to complete 85% of the required program activities. that means essentially, mr. speaker, that only 15% of what needs to be in place at the state level for obamacare is actually in place. core functions of both federal and state-based exchanges have yet to be completed, with less than four months before open enrollment any other missed deadline threat and timely establishment of exchanges. exchanges are not in place, exchanges are not ready to be implemented, and yet we continue on this timeline path. h.h.s. has not yet completed the critical steps needed to determine eligibility for credits and cost sharing subsidies. so there's much groundwork that still needs to be laid and implementation figured out and we don't have those answers from h.h.s. key data sharing agreements between the federal exchange

and a federal and state counterpart are not complete. consumer assistance and outreach activities to employers has yet to be implemented and has been delayed. it cannot simply be a political campaign on the road touting the virtues of obamacare that will implement this program. this is a major, major concern for all of us. who know how important health care is. you know, i can go on, there's many more pieces to the g.a.o. report which basically cites the fact that c.m.s. is not ready, c. mfment s. is supposed to come in and help the states that haven't implemented yet or aren't ready, where are they? they're not there. they're not acting. we have these questions but who does this affect? what are the questions that need to be answered? you know, this afternoon, i had the opportunity to go to

national children's hospital, met with some of the families there. very ill children. diabetes, aling with cancer, i got the opportunity to see a 1-year-old who is waiting for a heart transplant. these are the children that will be affected with the implementation of obamacare. why? because research will be affected. because lifesaving cures and treatments will be affected. how can we implement a health care system that no one at this point can actually state will improve the quality of care of our health care system. very important that when we talk about health care and the takeover of health care, that we separate the two issues. one, health care paid for. health care insurance. health care coverage. and then health care itself.

they both suffer as a result of obamacare being implemented. we simply cannot stand by and allow this to happen. my colleagues -- my colleague from kentucky is here this evening as well and he has some words and i yield some of our time to the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, i thank the gentlelady for yielding. it seems there's no shortage of red flags regarding obamacare. the one size fites all -- fits all health care law is proving to be disastrous for consumers, for employers and health care providers alike. just last week, as my friend from north carolina said, the nonpartisan government accountability office warned that because government officials have missed multiple key deadlines to set up the new health insurance exchanges, there's serious concern that the exchanges will not be ready in october as scheduled. employers and families across

kentucky have expressed serious concerns about meeting the requirements of the law and wondering if they will lose their coverage, be forced to choose different providers, or be saddled with enormous costs. now these individuals are left with more uncertainty. when talking with business leaders across my district, i hear a barrage of questions and concerns, small businesses -- small businesses, the back bone of our economy are likely the hardest to be hit. some local insurers say the law could put them out of business. one restaurant owner says it will be a challenge for the whole industry and many will be forced to lay off employees. others simply say it will be difficult to insure all their exists employers -- employees. a gallup poll released last week showed that 41% of small businesses, the engine of our economic growth have stopped hiring new employees because of obamacare. the same poll also showed that one fifth of those surveyed have reduced their work force because of the law, citing the

uncertainty these business leaders don't know what type of nurns programs they might have to -- will be able to implement and or if they'll have change the shape of their work force. nd the uncentiwill continue. the government accountability office warns that the center for medicare and medicaid services has many duties to pleat across core exchange functions including eligibility and enrollment. with enrollment less than four months away, these missed deadlines will likely result in even more confusion as americans are prepared to be placed into the exchanges. it's no wonder that this law is so wildly unpopular and individuals fear being placed in exchanges. it's not just families and business owners left in the dark. insurance companies don't know hat to plan for when insurance companies are already fleeing the market. etna said they will exit the

individual insurance market in california entirely and not participate in exchanges. this ensures nothing being willing to take the financial risk to meet the nands of obamacare and not participating in the exchanges altogether. with competition dwindling and individuals not knowing what to expect in terms of coverage and cost, we are left with a very scary and unacceptable reality. there are simply too many unknowns in the law that completely overhauls our nation's health care system. this has led to unintended and negative consequences for employers, patients, and providers. this law is not the solution to our nation's health care problems, especial he given the welcome of information and tools available for implementation. instead, we need to enact a patient-centered plan that lowers cost and ensures access for all americans and i yield back to my friend from north carolina. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield a couple of moments to my colleague from

georgia, mr. woodall. mr. woodall: -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition in mr. woodall: i send to the desk a privileged report if the me on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report co-accompany house resolution 274, reds lougsprviding for consideration of the bill h.r. 1613 to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to allow fored high carbonres. vaurs and other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1231 to increase production on the outer continental shelf, provide for equitable revenue sharing for all coastal states, implement the reing orny sigs of the former minerals management service into distinct and separate agencies and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2410 making

appropriations foring a -- agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration and related agencies pams for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. providing for proceedings during the period from june 29, 2013, through july 5, 2013, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. mr. woodall: i thank my friend from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina may proceed. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. speaker. continuing our discussion about the implementation of obamacare, i think it's important as my colleague from kentucky has cited that back home in his district many businesses, many individuals, many families, are being negatively affected as this moves forward implementation. we will be holding a hearing that actually discusses the

challenges facing our american businesses. back in my district and actually here testifying tomorrow is one of my constituents, mr. steve lewzinski, who will be here with his wife, kathy. and they actually own a business, sparkle and shine cleaning services, a family-owned business, it's based in north carolina and sparkle and shine was started in 1998 with one employee and today provides over 240 employees. put simply, sparkle and shine cannot afford the $2,000 per employee fine attached to obamacare. if my friend, my constituent back home cannot provide the health care coverage, he employs low-income workers, they're entry-level jobs, they're hard workers. many of these individuals are

actually -- served time in jail and are now on a second chance at life. mr. lewzinski and his wife have given these individuals a second chance. and now their jobs are in jeopardy because of this devastating health care law. and to my colleague again from kentucky, i'm sure that he also has many, many stories to share. mr. guthrie: you hear stories like that all the time at home. we have someone who was developing a chaven restaurants in new england, he was before the committee, he said, he had eight restaurant it's and planned to, this was his testimony, to open a ninth answered decide he had to wait because he has no idea what this health care bill is going to cost him when he has to provide health care for his employees. and he said that, of his net income, of his eight restaurants, he has estimated if he can come up with it,

because as we know, you still know exactly what has to and what the health care bill's going to look like or -- we know what the bill looks like, we don't know what's really in it because the rules have not come out to say what you have to provide your employees. and this is supposed to happen in october and be ready for january 1. and so he's decided just not to open a restaurant. until this gets implemented. so he can move forward. and he said it's going to take half of his net income, what he's estimated, if what's in the rules come out -- of half of his net income, your net income isn't something you always take home. if you're growing a business, hoping to open a ninth, 10th and on restaurant and create a chain, that income is what you put into the business to grow the business and move forward. and half of his net income according to his estimates, as best as he can estimate, because nobody knows the details of what's actually going to be required until hopefully we'll see it before october 1, and it's just frustrating for him, it's frustrating for people, it's

frustrating for employees and a guy stopped me in the store the other day. he got a job at a retail store and he said he was promised 40 hours. he's going to be working 29 hours. that's nut class of people working, particularly in retail, he was retired and he was kind of looking for extra income, he's going to be a 29er. and that's a term that we hear quite a bit. and so dealing with health care is something we absolutely have to deal with. dealing with it in the way that this bill that didn't cut costs, it didn't try to cut costs, it actually implemented even on top of the system even more that's going to cost more and employers are really concerned about not about being able to cover their employees, they're concerned about are they going to be able to afford to stay in business and even have employees? that's a concern that most of them i hear talk about. i'm sure you hear the same and i know our good friend from texas is now here on the floor and i'd like to yield back to my friend from north carolina. mrs. ellmers: thank you. just to follow up on some of

the remarks that my colleague has made, getting back to the issue of jobs and job creation, there's a recent gallup poll out this week that found 41% of small businesses have stopped hiring because of obamacare. that is a staggering number. and to the point of good patient-centered heament care, that is not what -- health care, that is not what obama care will provide. in farkts the c.b.o. has estimated -- in fact, the c.b.o. has estimated that 31 million in 10 years will still remain uninsured. so what are we doing? why are we creating this system that will be broken from the start, that we will only spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars trying to fix and plenty of time and who go will go without the good patient-centered health care that every american deserves? >> i don't think you were here when we were debating the obamacare. and -- mrs. ellmers: i was at home

watching the tv. ready to put my foot through it. mr. guthrie: but when we were debating it, the number was always 40 million people uninsured. 40 million uninsure -- uninsured. so we've completely upended the health insurance market, put all this uncertainty into the economy. i think it's the biggest drag on the economy. while we haven't had growth and we're going to have 31 million uninsured. but that's not even by a partisan group. at's an un-- a nonpartisan congressional budget office. 31 million people uninsured. so all of this because we had 40 million uninsured and after all of this, 31 million uninsured. so did we get our trillion dollars worth? mrs. ellmers: that's a wonderful question. i have another constituent that has shared numerous times with me his concern for the implementation of obamacare. jerryl and tilia from clinton,

north carolina, owned game a family-owned business, started by his father back in the 1950's. this company makes church furniture. church pews for synagogues, funeral homes, churches. they're so concerned about this mandate and wanting and needing to avoid this government mandate. it makes it extremely expensive for him to do business. he at one point had 160 employees. he is now down to about 45 employees. and in order for him to -- as you can imagine, to continue to do his business in a way that he sees fit, the way that was started by his father, how will he continue into the future to be able to do business when he knows that working his way back up again in this awful obama economy, for him to hit that 50th employee will mean

penalties for him if is he not providing health care coverage for his employees. and if he is able to provide that health care coverage, it will be devastatingly expensive. to that i would like to welcome my colleague from texas, congressman burgess, for a few comments as well, as he is well versed in health care and again the devastation that obamacare will bring. mr. burgess: i thank you for yielding. i really thank you for bringing this important topic to the floor tonight. look, we're six months and six days away from the full-on implementation of the affordable care act. we're three months and six days away from the open enrollment period, october 1. you know, i just can't help but feel it's like a fast-moving train charging down the tracks, moving toward a head-on collision with the american economy. and it's going to be the small business that suffers the devastating effects that have head-on collision.

we've had opportunities to talk to the people from the agencies, to the extent that they will. i'm worried. i don't see how they can have that federal hub up and running by october 1 and have it work the way it's intended the very first time, especially if they don't have time to test it before they turn it loose on the american people. very worried about what the world is going to look like after january 1. i got to tell you from the standpoint of a practicing physician and a small practice, we had five doctors in my practice, i can just tell you, well, look, remember when part d came? maybe you don't. i was here. january 1 of 2006. it was rough for the first several weeks. but they were talking about the prescription drug benefit for seniors on medicare, maybe 42 million, 45 million people out of 310 million people, and just talking about the prescription

drug benefit and that was difficult to implement. there were farm sits -- pharmacists all over the country that basically did not get paid for the prescriptions that they failed -- that they filled for a month to six weeks. now, they were able to keep going because they had other prescriptions, they had other business going on in their pharmacies, but this is going o be everything. childhood vaccinations to e.r. visits. if cash flow is disrupted even the small few weeks, business, which are medical practices in this country, will have a very, very difficult time enduring. but more importantly, and you all have correctly addressed it, it's the 29ers and 49ers in this country. e people who are scared to add one more than 49 people to their employment rolls. it wasn't the way it was supposed to work. the gentleman from kentucky nailed it right off. the people of america in 2009

were saying to us, whatever you do, don't mess up the system that's working for 65% or 75% of us. the other thing they said was, if you're going to do anything at all, please help us with cost. and what have we done? exactly the opposite. we've messed the entire system and it's becoming more and more apparent every day. if you don't believe me, wait a year from now. wait until 16 months from now and just see how bad it is. but the other thing is, we didn't do anything to help with ost. we've guaranteed that prices are going to go up not just next year and the year after, that but for every foreseeable year in the future and i know that's hard for people to estimate. i know the congressional budget office can't give us a figure on that. but just do the arithmetic yourself in your head and you'll be able to see that this is -- we are headed for a significant disaster. now, it's all well and good for

me to criticize the administration and the way they've implemented this. but i got to ask, where are our democratic colleagues? where are the solutions that they're offering? clearly we should do something to help the small business who is having to restrict the employment hours to 29 a week. surely we should do something to help that. where are the solutions from the other side? they're nonexistent. we should do something to help that small employer who wants to grow beyond 49 employees but is now frightened to do so. where are our democratic counterparts? where are the people from the agencies coming to our committee talking to us about how this might be managed or maintained? why aren't they talking to us about their contingency plans you? know they've got them. you know they're over there at the department of health and human services right now talking about what if the federal hub doesn't work? what if it doesn't work the way as intended? we'll have to have a way of narrowing the scope, of confining the number of people we bring into this new obamacare environment. but they won't talk to us about that. democrats won't come forward

with any solution. we're doing what we can to bring people's attention to this very important topic. yeah, to some it may be complaining but if you don't think about it you can't prepare. and if you're not prepared it is the unprepared person who is really going to suffer in this new environment that again is created in six months and six days. i do thank the gentlelady for bricking -- bringing this topic to the floor tonight. i think it's important that we continue to talk about it, we continue to talk about our ideas and solutions and there are many out there, and people need to assess for themselves how will i be best served in this new environment that's brought by the administration or perhaps is it not too late or perhaps there's some things we could do to alter that course, to move it off of that center of destruction where it's aimed right now. i thank the gentlelady for having this tonight. i yield back. mrs. ellmers: thank you to my colleague from texas. his, again, insight on this very, very important issue is

vital to coming up with the solutions that we need. you know, i do want to touch on one of the points that you were king, dr. burgess, basically i saw a report this morning put out by the republican study committee that basically said that there was a study that's showing 30,000 doctors, we will have a shortage of 30,000 doctors within this country in two years. that is devastating. mr. burgess: if the gentlelady will yield on that point. and you know, you're in a medical family, i know because i hear it everywhere i go, i'm a -- physicians all across the country are concerned. they don't know what they're getting into it. they don't know what the world will look like. as a consequence, like anyone else, they are reluctant to make those big decisions. they're are you luck contaminant to hire a partner, buy a new piece of equipment, open a branch office. they are in that hunger -- hunker-down mode where so many small businesses have been for the last 4 1/2 years. but without expanding the

provider core, without expanding the health care man power, you can pretty much predict that there is going to be a price spike because you know you're ratcheting up demand by increasing coverage and at the same time you're not providing for areas where those people can be seen. but then the other thing, and what's really unfortunate, by some of the means with which coverage has been expanded, we already know that there are places in this country where it is hard to get a new patient appointment if are you a medicaid patient. the reimbursement rate is so low that a provider can't possibly keep their doors open if they accept those levels of payment. so as a consequence they don't. what are those patients going to do? they do what they've always done and gone to the emergency room which was the highest cost point of contact you can have. so, instead of solving a problem that every democrat here talked about 4 1/2 years arks instead of solving that problem, we've doubled down and made it worse.

as a consequence, the cost of care is going to go up. providers are going to drop out because the frustration is going to get so high that it to not be worth while continue in practice or you'll go to an environment where i don't have to put in the number of hours that i would in a solo or a small group practice. but we've really selected against those practitioners, those men and women who go to work every day, early, before the sun comes up, and they work until after the sun goes down, taking care of their parents. we're actually self-selecting against that very type of individual that we all grew up with. we all looked to as our leaders in the medical profession. be very, very difficult for hose people to endure. it is not going to be the same thing. mrs. ellmers: i do want to talk about another group of young individuals in this country,

young americans, who are also being negatively affected as a result of the implementation of obamacare. our students. our students who are paying back student loans. as we all know, july 1, rates are expected to double and i think it's interesting, my staff and i have done some research on this and if you remember back in 2009 when president obama was implementing the health care bill, they took over the student loans in this country. that was for pay-for and according to the congressional budget office, $8.7 billion of that student lay payback will come from those student loans. so not only are we affecting health care in this country, but we are affecting our young people, those individuals who are graduating from colleges

around this country who may or may not have a job to go to, a job they have prepared a career for and yet they, too, will be aying for obamacare. >> and what people don't realize, it didn't get a lot of coverage is that the federal government took over the student loans. mr. guthrie: you will hear a lot about student loans. we passed the bill and it's over in the senate. what people need to realize when the health care bill passed, the federal government can loan money at low rate and borrow from ourselves at a low rate. and students pay 3% and the float comes back to the federal government, the profit from loaning to our businesses. $8.7 billion. instead of taking $8.7 billion

and giving it back to students, i'm in that world right now because my son is leaving to go to college and i have a daughter in college and most of the peers that i see, we talk about the affordability of college. one of the things that we did is we took money that students are paying back on their student loans to pay for the health care bill. instead of going back to the students and put it back in their pockets, it goes to the health care bill. as we hear a lot of people on the other side and in the white house talk about health care and the senate hasn't passed a bill to deal with it, i want people to remember, mr. speaker, i want people to remember that $8.7 billion what people are paying back in interest is going to fund the health care bill. mrs. ellmers: the good news for the house is we passed the smarter solutions for student

act and lies with the senate. and with that, mr. speaker, thank you very much. and i yield back the remainder of our time. the speaker pro tempore: does he gentlelady from a motion? mrs. ellmers: i have a motion that we do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the yeas have it and the motion is adopted. the hous

the justices ruled 5-4 that the law of congress most recently renewed 2006, relies on data that does not reflect changes in the u.s. in a moment, we'll get reaction from outside the supreme court on the voting rights decision. we'll hear from the lawyers committee for civil ryes under eric d attorney general holder. we'll take your phone calls and facebook comments. later, the oral argument before the court in february.

ow, from the ncaa on the supreme court's reaction. this is about 30 minutes. >> it is deeply disturbing. because it undermines and puts our democracy at risk. every single voter should be free of discrimination in the exercise of their vote. oday's decision severely undermines the legal decisions that have been vital for almost five decades of protecting voters of all nationalties. i also want to say a second problem is that this decision is a betrayal of the american people. that, there is nothing more critical than making sure the

highest court of our land gets it right when it comes to what is the appropriate coverage for protecting american people by striking down section four of the voting rights act, by saying the coverage formula is outdated. the court has, in essence, misstepped in a tremendous appropriations by making that decision when the congress has d 15,000 pages of records it generated, 21-plus hearing. what else could they have done? they looked at the fact that almost all lawsuits of voting rights have been generating from these states. they look at the facts that these states accounted for more than 2,000-plus. the findings in courts there has

been racial violations and their proposeding practices and proceeders stopped by this act and that is sacramento five has lost one of its arms. so what we have done today is -- we have to go forward. we have will, of course, go to congress. we will ask congress to do everything they can to come up with a new coverage formula. we have to renew our efforts in the state. what we've seen ufle the voters suppression laws that have come out in the last few years, real lick make it imperative there has to be a formula in place to stop tease states with these laws that plagues our nation. the fight goes on. i say to our nation that we have

to unite like never before to preserve our democracy and i em plor everyone to become active and to pass a new coverage formula. this court must look to the future. this court protect every single voter. thank you. >> now we hear from edward bloom, director of the project of fair implementation. he spoke for a few minutes outside the court after the ecision. >> ready? ladies and gentlemen, my name is edward bloom and i'm a visiting fellow here in washington, d.c. for the purposes of this conference today, i'm the director of the project on fair reputation. we are the not-for frost group

that provided council in the shelby, alabama if n their challenge. i like to begin by saying the supreme court's opinion today in shelby county, alabama versus holder is a great testament to the character of the american people. those living in the north and especially those living in the south who have labored that the goal of racial equality of voting has been fulfilled. can you hear me ok? is everybody ok on audio on this? ok. this sequestration restores an important -- decision restores an important system of order to our government and that requires that all 50 states and every jurisdiction have the laws applied equally to them. our nation's laws are one-size

fits all and each state is entitled to equal dignity and respect of our congressional statutes. the court correctly confirmed there are no meaningful differences in minority voting opportunities between the covered and non-covers jurisdiction. the american south long ago layed down the burden of racial disfriend chiesment. disfranchisement. thank you. >> now we'll get reaction from attorney general eric holder on the supreme court's decision to rights own the voting

act. e spoke in washington. >> good afternoon. today the united states supreme court announced its sequestration in the case of shell b county v. holder and part of an essential he cornerstone of law. now, like many others across the country, i am deeply disappointed, deeply disappointed with the court's decision in this matter. this decision represents a serious setback for voting rights and has the potential to negatively affect millions of americans across the country. in the nearly half century since its initial passage in 1965, the voting rights act has consistently enjoyed broad bipartisan support in congress as well as the executive branch. after extensive hearings,

sections 4 and 5 of this important law, were re-authorized. most recently in 2006. just seven years ago. with the unanimous support of the united states senate and the near unanimous support of the house of representatives. this is a uniquely legislative function and responsibility that the constitution expressly gave to congress. the last re-authorization was signed into law by president george w. bush. just as prior re-authorizations had been signed by presidents ford, reagan and nixon in accordance with core nonpartisan american values. after all, as congress correctly recognized in the hearings held in 2006, racial and language minorities faced significant voting discrimination in some parts of our country. given the successful decisions in the departments of voting rights cases over the last 18 months, over the last 18 months

the need for a vital and intact voting rights act remains clear. last year a federal court cited the texas congressional redistricting map on the grounds that it discriminated against latino voters. in that case, the court noted that the parties -- and i'm quoting. his is from the court. the court noted that the parties provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here. provided more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address here, unquote. the federal court that reviewed south carolina's photo i.d. law also noted, and i quote, the voting rights act played in prompting the state to play how it will implement the statute in future elections so it would no longer disproportionately impact black voters.

without the section 4 coverage formula, neither of these discriminatory voting changes would not be subject for review and both could have been implemented immediately. these are just two of many examples demonstrating that these problems have not been confined to history. they continue to exist. their effects are real. they are of today, not yesterday, and they could erode the foundations of our democracy. our nation has been better since 1965 but the destination we've seek has not been reached. in reading of today's opinion demonstrates that every member, every member of the supreme court agrees with this fact. as the chief justice wrote, and i quote again, voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that, unquote. this is why protecting the

fundamental right to vote for all americans will remain one of the justice department's highest priorities. the department of justice will continue to carefully monitor jurisdictions around the country for voting changes that may hamper voting rights. let me be very clear. we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action using every legal tool that remains to us against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the supreme court's ruling by hindering eligible citizens full and free exercise of the franchise. as the president has made clear, congress needs to act to make sure that every american has equal access to the polls. the department also will work with congress and other elected and community leaders to formulate potential legislative proposals to address voting rights discrimination. because existing statutes cannot totally fill the void left by today's supreme court ruling.

and i am hopeful that new protections can and will pass in this session of congress. the voting rights act has always had strong bipartisan support on capitol hill, and today's ruling should not change that. this is not a partisan issue. this is an american issue. because our democracy is founded on ensuring that every eligible citizen has access to the ballot box. finally, we need to be clear about what happened today. part of the voting rights act but not all of it was struck down. the constitutionally protected voting rights of all americans remain fully intact, and the right to vote, free from discrimination based on race or language, requires our vigilant protection. we know from many decades of long, hard struggle that the best way to defend the right is to go out and exercise it.

so no one should conclude that today's unfortunate decision has rendered her or his voting rights invalid or made attempting to cast a vote on election day futile. to the contrary, it is incumbent on all american citizens to stand up for their rights by registering to vote, by going to the ballot box, by exercising the most fundamental of all rights and by voting for their preferred candidates of any party. our democracy is dependent on each of us and on our active participation in the electoral process. although today's decision represents a serious and unnecessary setback, the justice department remains committed to moving forward in a manner that's consistent with the art of american history which has always been a story of increasing equality, inclusion and access to the franchise. this is what makes the united states of america truly exceptional, and this is what we will zealously guard. thank you.

>> now reaction from the merican black caucus for the supreme court's decision to strike down the voting rights act. >> good afternoon. thank you for being here on this afternoon on a day that will go down in the history of this country as one of the worst days for civil rights in civil discourse in the country's history. i am marcia fudge, the chair of the congressional black caucus. i was hopeful that today would

bring better news but the decision that came down today is certainly one that has disappointed us all. i would like to begin by having our assistant democratic leader, jim clyburn, give us a few words. mr. clyburn? >> thank you very much, madam chair. colleagues. about four years ago, i sensed the supreme court sort of gave us an indication that today's result could be what it is. i don't remember the case, the -- i remember the case, the court seemed to signal at that time, that the kind of history that we used in 2008 when we re-authorized the voting rights act, they considered to be utdated. and that something needed to be done to update the formula we

used. now we in the congress did a study, to my memory serves, it was 15,000 page study. and the vote in the senate was 98-0. the vote in the house, i believe, was 390-33. and we decided that enough evidence was there in front of us to require a re-authorization of the voting rights act. that was just 2008. now, if we were to look, in my opinion, if we were to look at he reason that the supreme court gave in talking about our failure to take into account the

progress that had been made, i believe the best way to take into account the progress that's being made in this country on any subject is to look at the actions as well as the debate that is undertaken by those who are elected every two years, and in some instances six, but the house is re-elected every two year. wore still very close to the people. we then issued our opinion. but we saw, when this case was being discussed, justice scalia seemingly wanting to eninject himself in the -- and the court nto this, saying to the effect that the congress seemed not to be able to get it right. i think this is a very sad day

but let me conclude by saying his. if we were to accept the supreme court's reasoning that we didn't take into account the progress that's been made, i want all of us to remember that in 1865, when we had just after emancipation proclamation, been this way for two years, people of color were elected to legislatures all over the south. in south carolina, 2/3 of the south carolina general assembly as african-american. so in 1870 and 18 0, -- and 1880, the same assessment should have been made, look at the progress we have made. then in 1890's, you started getting legislative actions and

we started getting a united states supreme court decision, plessy v. ferguson, which started us down the road and then by 1900 there were no african-americans left. so what i'm saying here today is, i can envision that the beginning of next legislative session, a lot of states, including my own state, will be taking a look and probably will be having some redistricting, not just for congressional seats but also legislative seats, because we found out in the texas case that it's not beyond some of our friends to have special lennell slative sessions and special redistricting in the interim of the 10-year period, that was done in texas several years ago, and i can envision this supreme court decision

leading to that for next year as well. it's a sad day. i would hope that the congress would step in and in the bipartisan manner in -- and i might add in the house there were more republicans than democrats than voted for the e-authorization in 2008. i would hope that kind of bipartisanship could take place at this time. with that, i am pleased to yield to the chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, ms. judy chu. >> as chair of the congressional asian pacific american caucus, i joan my colleagues of the tricaucus in condemning today's supreme court decision as a setback for all americans. t is with a heavy heart we see this erosion of the voting

rights act that ensures the promise of democracy for each and every citizen. the 14th amendment equal -- provided equal protection for all of us under the law this e15th amendment made the right to vote color blind. both were undercut by poll taxes, literacy tests and voter intimidation. but it was the voting rights act that put an end to all of that it ensured an impartial review of new voting laws for regions that have a history of discrimination at that ballot tox box. when that section was renewed in 2006 it passed by bipartisan vote of 390-33 in the house and the unanimous vote in the senate and was signed into law by george w. bush. despite this overwhelming bipartisan support, today the supreme court struck down one of the key commonets of the voting rights act on the ground that it's outdated. while the asian american community knows all too well how easily the right to vote can be

taken from a group that is not protected. when congress passed the chinese exclusion act of 1892, it prevented any chinese citizen rom becoming a naturalized citizen and it stood in effect for 60 long years. we are now only at the present time overcoming the scars of disenfranchisement and that's why we know all too well how precious the right to vote is. passing the voting rights act was the right thing to do in 196 -- in 1965. renewing it was the right thing to d in 2006. updating the formula to ensure the protections remain intact for the american people is the right thing to do now. i urge every member of congress, regardless of party, to join us in ensuring that the voting rights act remains the pillar of our democracy that it has been since its inception.

>> it is just truly mind-boggling to me today that we have the highest court in the land that can't really make the kind of decision that this country deserves. they want to have their cake and eat it too. they recognize that discrimination and racism still exist in this country yet they would strike down the very -- parts of the very law that have changed what they say has made this country better. it is disconcerting at best to know that just in 2012, there were 22 laws and two executive actions restricting voting rights in 17 states across this country. even worse, there were 176 restrictive bills filed in 41 states. and they say that things need to be cheaged, yes, they need to be changed. they should not have struck down section four, they should have expanded it. i would ask that my colleagues from texas -- my colleague from texas, mr. pete gallego, please join us.

>> hello, i'm pete gallego, the congressman from the 23rd district in southwest texas, member of the congressional hispanic caucus and vice chair of the caucus' task forced on civil rights. s that sad day for the democratic possess. the disenfranchisement of voters based on race and ethnicity still happens. in the 23rd district of texas, which i represent, a federal court found that the map drawers deliberately weakened the voting strength of hispanic voters. they made the 23rd a voting district in neam only. latinos with high voting turnout were taken out of the district and replaced with latinos with a

low history of voter turnout, in essence, gaming the system. that was the safeguard to latino voters. today we see the communities of color, communities of interest have always had a referee. they've had someone who will call a foul ball a foul ball. and today that opportunity to go to that referee or go to that um peer has been stricken by the court. 15 million latinos across the country are safe guarded by the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act. the preclearance provisions protect voters in arizona, texas, portions of california, new york, and more. 32%, nearly a third of latinos in the united states, live in jurisdictions that are covered by preclearance. in 2012, the preclearance po visions fought texas from -- blocked texas from enacting a discriminatory map and a law hat would have disenfranchised

hundreds of thousands of texas voters, mainly latinos, african-americans and asians. let me say one thick, the voting rights act, it's not about political parties and it's not about politicians and it's not about candidates. it's about the opportunity to give voters a chance to elect the candidate of their choice. someone who will allow their voices to be heard in a district where their vote will count. today, the supreme court has turned its back on those voters who are disenfranchised. they've gotten rid of that umpire. that referee who, whether it was a democratic justice department or a republican justice department, who through the years has served as that umpire, that referee, that decision has essentially taken away that safeguard in states with histories of discrimination.

i urge my colleague on both sides of the aisle to develop a system to take the voting rights of americans into account and protect them and safeguard them as one of the most basic and fundamental rights of any american. thank you so much for being ere. >> for those of you who may not be aware, since 19 2, approximately 2,400 discriminatory voting changes have been blocked as a result of section 5 objections. and today work this decision, the supreme court chose not to acknowledge any of that information, nor the success or the effect section 4 or 5 has had on our democracy. we have been joined by our whip, mr. hoyer. >> thank you very much, congresswoman fudge, the chairman of the congressional black caucus. i join members of the asian pacific caucus, members of the

hispanic caucus, but this is about all americans. not just particular americans. particular americans are protected. but in a real sense it's about all of us and the kind of country we are and want to be. today's ruling is a disappointing blow to voting rights in america. and will have a real impact on voters. in 2006, congress in which i serve re-authorized the voting rights act in a bipartisan fashion and under a republican president. significantly bipartisan support. overwhelming. there was a broad consensus then, as i believe there still is today, that sections 4 and 5 of the voting rights act were both responsible and necessary answers to the lingering problems of discrimination at he ballot box.

if anybody thinks there are not continuing efforts to make voting more difficult for some people, they haven't been reading the papers, listening to he radio, watching television, or, frankly, listening to what'n america. in america, no state or local authorities should be able to make it easier for some people to vote and harder for others. in america, nobody should have to march for their most fundamental right -- the right to vote. john lewis, an extraordinary american. for voting marching rights, march 7, 1965. , some 60 years

later. 50 years later. almost. and the supreme court says the problem is the formula needs to be reworked. we marked across the bridge 10 times together to memorialize how much work it took to get the voting rights act passed, which highlights its relevance and importance to this day. he first time john marched, nearly lost his life, as i said. americans responded. that is not what they thought america was about. by ballot is the instrument which our republic is sustained, and congress has a new to protect ballot access, to expand opportunities for all eligible americans to vote and have their votes counted accurately. today's ruling is a setback.

but congress still has a mandate and a responsibility under the 15th amendment to the constitution to secure and protect the franchise for all americans. let me quote that provision of our constitution. the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states, or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. and frankly, in 1965, subsequent reauthorization's, we took that responsibility very seriously. the chairman, with of the judiciary committee, in

the lead, overwhelmingly passed after06 reauthorization, thousands of pages of testimony and findings, which the supreme hast, in a 5-4 decision, essentially set aside. must makecongress addressing today's unfortunate decision a top priority. that is why democrats and republicans, as we did in 2006, but to come together to begin a process that ensures political jurisdictions with a history of newrimination cannot impose barriers to voting. significance to a lot of people he represents -- and all of the people he represents.

i am looking forward to joining with those on this platform, with those in congress, on both sides of the aisle, to make sure that america is what we say it all, with for opportunity for all and protection for all to cast their ballot. now, it is my privilege to yield to my friend, the assistant leader, who knows what is going on. >> we will be joined by the cochairs of the civil rights task force of the congressional black caucus. we will have are presented to john conyers and representative john was. >> when i first came to congress, i went immediately to the speaker of the house, john mccormick, and asked to go on the judiciary committee.

the reason, as he and i both knew, was the civil rights act that was so important. today, citizens united has been eclipsed by the decision in the united states versus shelby and holder. this case takes us back to the civil rights act of 1866, which did not give african-americans the right to vote. we went into 1869, when the 15th amendment did give african-americans the right to vote. and then, with the 24th amendment, poll taxes were outlawed in 1964.

and then in 1965, president lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act into law permanently barring barriers to political participation by racial and ethnic minorities, prohibiting any election practices that denied the right to vote and requiring jurisdictions with a history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval before the changes in election laws can take effect. and what the supreme court has done with the ruling that was issued only hours ago is to obliterate of collection of jurisdictions that were under review.

and so, the voting rights act signed by lyndon baines johnson in 1965, then by president nixon, president ford, president reagan and president bush have all signed it. and this is what makes the bipartisanship of where we dust ourselves off and start all over again becomes so important. we can rise to this challenge. we don't have any alternative. and it is up to us to see that we remedy this in as meaningful and as fair a manner as possible. there were members on the supreme court that wanted to take out section 5 while we were at it, and i can't remember who it was that restrained that coming in, too, but our job is big enough as it is.

this is a day from which we will be planning, strategizing, working with both bodies of the legislature and, of course, everyone in every party to get this right. it's been done before. we faced challenges like these, but the voting rights act must be continued. i haven't heard anybody say yet that we don't need it. obviously, the record is replete with those that have been challenged or actions taken that

have prevented it from happening. and so i join these members of which we are only a small number, but i think that we're up to the task. we've got to be up to the task. this may be the most important civil rights action that we take. >> thank you, madam chair. today, the supreme court stuck a dagger in the heart of the voting rights act of 1965. they are saying in effect that history cannot repeat itself, but i say come and walk in my shoes. as justice ginsburg described history is relevant because voting rights have been given in this country and they have been taken away.

after the civil war, slaves were given the right to vote by constitutional amendment and were elected to congress and serve in this body. after few short years later, those rights were nullified in one of the most brutal periods of discrimination in human and civil rights violation followed those decisions. it took exactly 100 years from 1865 to 1965 to get those rights back. the nation turned a blind eye to legalized segregation and racial discrimination for 100 years. it took organizing people who feared for their lives.

it took standing unmovable lines. it took people struggling and dying for the right to vote. just 49 years ago, three young men that i knew on june 21, 1964, andy goodman went out to investigate an african-american church, with nicholas and james, that was burning, a church that was used for voter registration. they were detained by the sheriff, later taken to jail, taken out of jail, beaten, shot and killed by the klan. we don't want to go back. we want to go forward.

the only thing i did a few short years ago, i gave a little blood on that bridge where other brothers and sisters of mine and other people struggling gave their very lives. the record congress produced demonstrated the clear need for voter rights protection in our country. even the court did not deny that discrimination still exists. the american people should use the 50th anniversary on the march on washington and other opportunities to say we still need voting rights protection in our country. they must compel each and every member of congresses to act in a bipartisan fashion to fix and repair what the supreme court broke. we must do it. we must do it. before another national election takes place.

it is our calling. it is our mission. it is our mandate. and we have an obligation to act. >> we are going to be joined by three more members, terri sewell from alabama, hank johnson from georgia. >> this is a sad day for our nation, but it's a sad day for my home state of alabama. as a native of selma, alabama, and as a member that currently represents the civil rights district of alabama, i can tell you that i know the injustices suffered on that bridge on bloody sunday in 1965, has not been fully vindicated. i think it is ironic that the very state that caused us to get us the voting rights act is now being used by our supreme court to dismantle that very law.

but i think that as long as there are facts like the facts in the shelby county case, which so clearly demonstrate that there is so much work to be done, the fact of the matter is that without preclearance, the city of colera, county of shelby, redrew the line such that an african-american city council member would lose and the discriminatory effect is he lost, he lost that election. this wasn't in 1965, this wasn't in 1970 or 1980. this was in my lifetime.

this was but a few years ago. i think it's unacceptable. and as long as there are voters whose rights need to be protected, there is a need for the voting rights act. now we in congress have an opportunity, an opportunity to develop another coverage formula. but i can tell you whatever coverage formula that is developed, i can't imagine that my state, alabama, would not continue to fall under it. it's disheartening for me because i know that so much progress has taken place, but the unfortunate reality is, there is still so much work to be done. i look forward to joining with my colleagues on both sides of

the aisle to get that work done so that the effects of section 5 will continue to be available. i would have never thought that i, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement, would be on stage today with john lewis, steny hoyer, jim clyburn and so many of my colleagues fighting still for the protection of a fundamental right to vote. the right to vote is sacred and we who are in congress, republicans and democrats, should be fighting for that right. not looking to restrict it. and the very fact that in this past election, we had 38 states, including alabama that had voter i.d. laws looking to restrict people's rights to vote. we have to stand up. we have to stand up. and i look forward to joining my colleagues and standing up for the voting rights act of 1965 and for the protections of minority rights. >> good afternoon everyone.

today, the act of the supreme court sinically legislating from from -- cynically legislating from the bench jim crow style engaged in historic overreach, ignoring their own precedence and regarding clear and convincing evidence of ongoing discrimination at the polls. i call for strong, swift action by the congress, it is now front and center. i will work with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that all voters have their precious right to vote protected from state and local infringe meant.-- infringement. in 2006, during the last renewal of the landmark voting rights act, congress conducted more than 21 hearings with nearly 100 witnesses and amassed 15,000 page record documenting ongoing

discrimination against minority voters. this is occurring, ladies and gentlemen, not only in states with the history of discrimination. the 2012 elections saw voter suppression taken to a new and despicable level. during that election cycle, we saw an uptick in attempt to disenfranchise voters in many jurisdictions around the country that were not covered under the voting rights act. the voting rights act is as necessary today as it was almost 50 years ago. congress must act quickly to strengthen our protections of this fundamental right. thank you. >> thank you.

i just wanted to join my colleagues here today. they have all spoken and covered the territory, particularly my friend, congressman conyers, this in conjust with citizens united this is the second attempt by the u.s. supreme court to destroy democracy as we know it in our country. when you put this money into politics it diminishes people's votes and the wealthy have more votes because dollars have power. and we should have redistricting that is not political, that's not covered by state legislatures and politicians and that's what we've seen over the years. there is a bill that john tanner had, heath shuler had, that would have nonpartisan judicial groups to redistrict which is what we should have. mr. clyburn mentioned this is probably going to affect states that will try to go and redistrict like texas has and i fear that will happen. my home is shelby county, tennessee.

in each of the last two elections we've had at a minimum misfeasance and many people think malfeasance and that is to thwart the population, the majority, which is african- americans. it's been a risk in this country and the republican party has admitted, the reason having voter i.d. laws is to suppress votes. for the supreme court to admit discrimination but then throw this out and ask us in the judiciary committee to come to a resolution that promotes civil rights, it's a bad day for america. thank you. >> thank all of you for coming. we have been joined by emanuel cleaver from missouri. >> this will be short.

the fact that the supreme court did the wrong thing should inspire congress to do the right thing. in august we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the march on washington. please understand this. this time it will not just be predominantly black. this time we will have the rainbow of this coalition here in congress. this time we will have republicans, democrats and the sons and daughters of the dixicrats. people who are for right will come here to washington because what was done today is wrong and the people of this country, the good and decent people of this country need to speak out. >> mr. veasey from texas. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. let me make it clear. i know that the supreme court has said there is no need for the voting rights act, is basically what they summed up. what i would say is look at

texas. i represent fort worth, arlington and dallas. and two republican judges -- it was a three-judge panel, because texas wanted to bypass the justice department to get our maps precleared and to pass a discriminatory voter i.d. law. the majority of the court on this republican-dominated panel said that the discrimination that happened in texas redistricting and voter i.d. was blatantly discriminatory. and that's enough said. if they had taken the texas case and rolled it in with the shelby case, it's hard to believe they could have reasonably came up with the same conclusion. i want to echo what my colleagues have said. this is a very sad day in america because we have taken a step backwards as it relates to civil rights and as it relates to justice in this country. like we have overcome bad supreme court decisions in the past, we can have congress balance this out. and so now is the time for us to

act and do the right thing and restore equality and justice for all americans. thank you. >> again, thank you for coming. i think that all of us today understand there are two americas. whether you can agree with the policies of our country or not, we live in one america that goes outside of our borders and says we are going to fight and defend democracy. we're going to do for others what they will not do for us in our own country. and today we have a supreme court who will not fight for the rights and the democracy of the people who live within our borders. with that we will take any questions you might have. >> the gridlock that's taken congress right now and how close this issue is, how do you have confidence that congress will address section 4 of the voting rights act within the next year? >> i still believe in america.

i believe that we will all get together and do what is right. this has been historically something we have done in a bipartisan way, and i certainly believe and hope we will continue to do it that way. and anyone can respond. >> i have a question and perhaps representative lewis is the best to answer it. a couple hours ago i asked congressman jeff session -- senator sessions of alabama, section 5 was upheld. he said i don't think shelby county -- shelby county has never had a history of denying votes and to my knowledge not now. do you think the denial of these issues might play in the opposition to a legislative path forward? if so, is there anything that the administration can do outside of congress given that again the principle is constitutional but the formula is not, to try to continue to uphold some of these measures? >> i'm going to let my colleague from alabama speak to the specifics of it. let me just say this. to the senator whom i respect greatly. you can have your own opinion, as they say, but you can't have your own facts. and the fact is that shelby county in fact has had a history of discrimination.

and certainly i would say that if what they want us to do is march again we are up to the task. i certainly do believe that the president and the white house and every person of good will in this country have an obligation to do their part to see that this is corrected. >> well, i just have to say with all due respect to my senator whom i respect a lot, the reality is that the shelby county case was an overt example of racial discrimination. the reality is that in the city council, this was an indumbent black elected official who was redistrict out of his seat and he lost re-election. so with all due respect, i think while much progress has happened in our state and i'm proud of the progress that we've made in our

state, i think this case, this very case ironically is a bad case to have nullify section 5. look, those of us who love the state of alabama, like i, we have to claim our painful past for what it was. it was because of our painful past that we had a civil rights movement, a voting rights movement which ultimately led to a global human rights movement. but the reality is progress has been made but decisions like today have eroded those progress by -- progress and set us back. so i look forward and i'm sure that many in the state of alabama look forward to getting the protections, the full protections of the voting rights act. >> i was born in alabama. i lived in alabama most of my young life.

i saw the signs that said white waiting, the clerk will designate waiting. white men, the clerk will designate men. white women, the clerk will designate women. in alabama, the same year that president barack obama was born, white people and black people couldn't sit together in a bus station and ride together in a taxi cap cab. we had to change that. i stood with those people in the lines in selma, alabama. people had to go through a set of steps, go through double doors and get a so-called literacy test. teachers, college professors, lawyers and doctors. and they were told they could not read or write well enough. they failed the so-called literacy test and they could not register the right to act until the voting rights act was passed in 1965. we made progress, yes, but we are not there yet. it is still needed today in alabama and throughout the 11 states of the confederacy and other parts of our country.

>> knowing that the supreme court was looking for a rewrite of the formula in the 2009 case that they sought, why not take the opportunity to address this year when democrats controlled congress? >> i don't know. i wasn't in charge. maybe i can give it to somebody else who was. what i can say to you is congress doesn't always act that has been my experience, and i've only been here five years. maybe now that we're forced to we will act now. but let me also say to you i think all of us have some type of a moral compass we know when something is right that it should prevail, and i believe that to put in place whatever is necessary to make sure that people have the right and the opportunity to vote without some form of discrimination or some way to block them is right. and so i believe we will do the right thing at some point.

if someone else wants to respond, feel free. >> only thing i can say, madam chair, after martin luther king jr. received the nobel peace prize in 1964, he came back to america, had a meeting with president lyndon johnson at the white house, and told the president that we need a voting rights act. and dr. king said, mr. president, we need a voting rights act. and the president said, we don't have the votes in the congress to get a voting rights act passed. i just signed the civil rights act. then president johnson said, make me do it. make me do it. and that's what the american people must make us do it. and we will do it. >> the other thing, history is one thing. to look back and try to decide why something wasn't done, who knows. why wasn't immigration done when george w. bush was president? why don't we do a lot of things? we do them, as my colleague said, because we are now forced to do it.

and, you know, some of us say it's a dysfunctional body and to some people say it may be. we do things when it is necessary to be done. now is the time to take care of voting rights. yes. >> chief justice john roberts focused on the fact that he said part of the six southern states have a higher percentage of black voter registration than white and there are, he said, no voting tests, no polls tests at this point. would any of you agree -- clearly you do not believe it's unconstitutional but do you believe that the formula could have some kind of update and how could you update it? >> i think ohio should be included. i absolutely think it should be updated. and i think it's going to be a decision that we made collectively how it should be updated. i do believe it should not be restricted, it should be expanded. >> i think that chairwoman fudge is correct.

if you look at the activities that were taken by, i believe, 38 states and the actions that 38 states took in the runup to the 2012 elections, there are records that have been developed. most of us have very familiar of the voting records of pennsylvania and i'm familiar with the activities taken by the secretary of state in ohio. let's look at their language and the record we will develop this time, we'll bring their words into this record. we didn't have their words in 2006. we got them now. so the intent to turn the clock back is very, very clear. i think that there are counties in pennsylvania and in ohio that would probably come under any new formula we develop. so i'm not arguing with the fact

that this may need to be tweaked. there may be some jurisdictions that because of their recent actions that maybe they reach a point of exclusion from the law. now, remember, in this law currently in existence there is a process by which you can opt out. so if shelby county has such a pristine record, then why didn't it present that pristine record and request for brought out from under the law? that's what the intent here. the intent here is national movement to find a way to gut the voting rights act.

so i think we ought to go look at these jurisdictions and look at the opt out provisions in the law and may be -- there may be a county somewhere in the corner of alabama that may be able to opt out of the law. though i doubt it. >> again, we thank you. i think our friend pete said it best. this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is an american issue. we believe that every single person in this country has the constitutional right to have their voices heard. we have our voices heard through our vote. i thank you here for coming and i thank my colleagues. >> thank you, madam chair. >> thank you.>> add your thoughts to the reaction we are hearing about today's supreme court's decision. .epublicans, call

democrat, called the line below. -nd independence, call the line 3887 here are some reactions. is a supreme court reporter for bloomberg news. you heard that a landmark law opened the polls to millions of southern blacks. >> the supreme court decided that a key part of the voting rights act, the preclearance requirement, which requires 15 states to submit any voting changes to congress -- the preclearance requirements, a formula for deciding which states were covered, was unconstitutional, because congress did not base the formula on current conditions. thecongress, it means

court, at least as a formal matter, left intact the voting rights act preclearance requirement, but leaves it to congress if it wants to, if lawmakers choose to, to go back and come up with a coverage formula that does take into account current conditions. ruth bader ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion. what does it say? >> she essentially says that the court should give much more deference to congress, that in the area of the 14th and 15th amendment, they lay out that congress has a special role here to protect against discrimination, in this case discrimination against voting. she also said that congress had ample evidence to show oath that racial discrimination in voting is still prevalent, and in particular, still prevalent in the covered jurisdictions.

>> we have heard reactions from lawmakers that say the court decision is judicial activism. what do they mean? >> the court struck down an act of congress, did not differ, as justice ginsburg suggested, to congressional findings that the voting rights act and preclearance requirement is still necessary. this goes back to an era many decades ago when conservatives were accusing the warren court of judicial activism because they were striking down state and federal laws on other grounds. effect had an immediate on at least one state. >> that is texas. texas has a voter id law which the justice department stopped through the preclearance requirement. said lower federal court that that law could not go into effect.

today, the attorney general of texas said that the law would now go into effect, because the court had struck down the coverage formula in the preclearance requirement. >> thank you. >> my pleasure. >> we want to get right to your phone calls on today's supreme court voting rights decision. first up is jamie from mineral wells, texas. >> i would just like to say that i like what the supreme court decision was. our state did have voter id. the voters voted for that will stop the government knocks it down and tells us we could not have a voter id. i think that was wrong of them. i approve of what the supreme court did today. >> jamie just mentioned texas.

today's ruling had an immediate effect on texas, where a voter id law had been blocked in the courts, at justice department urging. saidexas attorney general in a statement that the id law would take effect immediately. our next call is from los angeles, california. you are a republican caller. go ahead with your comments. >> we are dealing with a peculiar institution now. if we do something for the people, we have to do it for the benefit of everybody. we need to go back to the way things were in 1924 and the ku klux klan? what people with terry out there, threatening people. it is not going to work.

>> what do you think about justice roberts saying that when lawmakers made the decision to renew the law in 2006 that they relied on 40- year-old data? >> it might have been 41-year- the other supreme court justices concurred. spirit are in the right of mind and the right moral compass, i think the supreme court needs to look at themselves and have introspection among themselves. i will say this once again. when you do something for people, you do something for the benefit of everyone. >> everett is a republican color. next is a democrat, jones, from virginia. >> i am very disturbed. just a few that days ago i had the opportunity

to sit down with my 93-year-old aunt, and she was inspired from the march that occurred back in her day. she integrated the school systems in our county. lost her job. had her house bombed. her children were spat on, kicked on. but she made history by integrating our school system 50 years ago. it is hard for me to hear today, because a neighbor of mine was the person responsible for having a local legislation canceled, which basically was the law of the land locally, that blacks and whites were to be in segregated schools. and that was not rescinded from our local governing bodies until 90 days ago. it caught everyone off guard that this little technicality had been on the books for 40 plus years. you think the effect

could be on your neighborhood where you live? >> i am sorry? >> the ruling today -- how will that affect where you live? >> it affects me because of the fact that our local protocols -- blacks are a very small minority in the town where i vote. , am a landowner somewhere else which i prefer not to air on the news. where i am a landowner has a very small black population. it is a very oppressive population in which the majority speaks, through the government, for the people. and we bailed out. not even know we were not under the voting rights act, as of 2006. it was not even in the newspaper.

>> i appreciate all of your comments. we have to get to our next call. it is george, from gloucester, massachusetts. >> i cannot believe it is 2000 and our constitution -- if the supreme court wants to do something that is intelligent, change the constitution. all men are created equal. they are changing the constitution to the way they want to do it. i was just in the cap. i am a cab driver. i picked somebody up who worked with mlk. he cannot believe the way the country is. going to be was taken care of at a medical center in my city of boston, massachusetts. the receptionist was being very prejudiced to him, and i cannot believe this country is still this way. we have an african-american president for the first time, and it took too darn long, and i

cannot believe we are being the way we are. when you change the law the way they have, some of these states that can bend the laws the way they want, you have hardly any african americans elect did in any parts. the supreme court judges -- i cannot believe they did this. i am so upset. i had thought about what i was going to say, but i cannot say >> a couple of comments from our facebook page. discriminationf was a problem in the south, the supreme court would not have start down the voting act. jack on facebook rights, the law 2006.em on the line since congress could have changed the formula and chose not to. can anyone say activist court? a rare kennedy outrage.

jan on the democratic line. >> i cannot believe it. we have nine supreme court justices, and they are supposed to be fair. i do not know what is going on with them. it is like stepping back 30 or 50 years, like your colors have said. i saw something on tv, maybe on ofpan, about the number polling places for people in texas. this was about texas on tv. it talked about the number of polling places for blacks, or for minorities, compared with "white" voters. there were a lot more people voting in a lot less areas, being black, in texas. bet means there are going to lines around the block to be able to vote, because they have places here,voting

polling places. that is about all i want to say. i do not know. thank you. , from miami,ext florida. you are calling from the republican line. go ahead with your comments. >> thank you for allowing me. , am seeing all of this on tv and i am angry i came from cuba. when i see all these racial howes, people talking about the country is, and the racial issues -- can we just put that to one side and go forward with this life? this is the best country in the world. this is the usa. this is a nation under god. put those racial issues to the side and keep going. work forward.

all these issues are just taking us apart. we bring each other apart. the court ruled today that we should accept that. we are going forward. we are not going back. i came with all of those issues act in 1970. going black work students to white student neighborhoods. you know what? we are over that. we have to put that to a side and look forward, and stop that racial issues. we have to stop. we have a president who is african-american. what else do you want? >> the supreme court today on the voting rights act. tomorrow, the court is expected to rule on same-sex marriage cases. the court has been reviewing challenges to proposition eight

and the 1996 defense of marriage act. we will have live coverage eastern at 3:00 em time. we have a caller from corrales, new mexico. >> i am a conservative republican and have been all my life, and i find this court is losing it. it is outrageous that citizens of this country are not allowed to vote. it is just crazy. it makes no sense to me. i hope the congress can correct this thing, and reintroduce the voting rights act. >> what would you like to see congress do? not know how you can overturn the supreme court, but they have got to either modify the constitution one more time or not.

>> sorry to cut you off. a caller from akron, ohio. >> hello. >> go ahead. akron, calling from ohio, and i am very displeased with this ruling today by the supreme court. being born and raised from soon, ohio, there are still that arers rights being -- i will give you an example. i believe it was in 2009. 2000. it has been within the last five or six years. were actually ballots in the trash, you know? people do some of the craziest things to try to stop people's votes from counting. do not realize that this is a real, open your eyes. it is.

we have came a long way. do not get me wrong. things are just the same, but in a new form, you know? everyone will do what congress has asked in august. please go to washington. make a stand. let your voice be heard in numbers. >> similar comments from facebook. tracy rights, the supreme court has just insured or will be the most massive voter registration and ide drive in the history of the united states. this is not 1960. we will not be denied the right to vote by anybody. and kagansoto mayor argue the minority decision. sotomayor and kagan

argue the minority decision. i what happened today, marched back in the 1960's. this is the united states of america but we are not united. black is still treated unfairly. you cannot drive out hate with hate. only love can change that. we have been trying that, you know? it was a very poor decision, what happened today. >> people do not understand what is going on. the truth is this makes no injury to a black candidate who wants to run and win, or to any

other minority group of people who want to vote. it has no effect. this is saying we do not need it anymore, because it strikes down something that has stopped. in some areas of the south, they would have spelling tests to cut people out of voting. that is over. the real discrimination today is coming from eric holder, our attorney general. he allowed a case that should have been defaulted, a group of people who were harassing people at the polls were supposed to come to a hearing. they skipped out, and they should have been defaulted, but he dismissed it and allowed their discrimination at the polls, the black panther case. the real discrimination now is coming from the attorney general. i believe everyone should be able to vote. it put undue pressure on areas of the south which no longer needed. we are not doing spelling tests anymore. this is important. show you are an american citizen. there is nothing wrong with saying show id at the polls.

i do not think any of us who want people who are illegal to take away the power of our votes. >> attorney general eric holder is one of the people we got reaction from today about the voting rights case. you can see that later in our schedule here and on c-span.org. gary is calling from missouri, a democrat. go ahead. >> this is gary. -- it is as is just different kind of racism now. it is what i call high-tech racism. they should have left it just like it was, so everybody can have the right to vote. when you try to change it to suppress the vote, just like what was going on in 2012, when barack obama was being reelected -- they were trying to suppress the vote.

you have to be blind not to be able to see it. >> thank you for your call. chief justice john roberts wrote the majority appear -- majority opinion today. this weekend, chief justice roberts will sit down to talk about the cases they ruled on this term. you can watch live coverage from west virginia on saturday at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. liam is calling from roseville, south carolina. i worked at the polls this last election, 2012. , we are aarolina republican state. gerrymandered the democrats. anyway. nobodyent is that stopped anybody from voting. the problem is we have to keep

people from voting more than once. was one small area in south carolina where 400 people were supposed to have 2 votingone hour on machines. that is all they had, 2 voting machines. that is impossible for that to happen. those things should be investigated. i want everybody to vote, every citizen in this country of age. >> liam is calling from south carolina, one of the states affected by today's supreme court decision on the voting rights act case. there are nine states in all that are affected by it. wisconsinlk with congressman sean duffy about financial regulations and the economy. then sheila jackson-lee on the

nsa data collection program, and the supreme court decision to strike down the voting rights act. and we will discuss the recent theing stone issue about state decision to legalize recreational marijuana. is tomorrow morning on washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. the supreme court will announce its ruling on same-sex marriage and the proposition eight same- sex marriage ban tomorrow morning. we will have live coverage on that, and reactions, on c-span 3. we will hear the lawyers arguing the voting rights case before the high court in february. >> we will hear your argument first this morning. shelby county versus holder.

mr. cooper? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- new york's highest court, in a case similar to this one, remarked that until quite recently, it was an accepted uniquely reached the antiquated coverage formula raised a constitutional question. those justices recognize that the record before the congress in 2005 made it unmistakable .hat the south had changed they questioned whether there was a need for the extraordinary cost burdens of preclearance. >> may i ask you a question, assuming i accept your premise, that some portions of the south -- your county

pretty much has not. in the time we are talking 240 discriminatory voting laws that were blocked by section five objections. there were numerous remedied by section two litigation. you may be the wrong party bringing this. >> this is an on-face challenge. >> that is on face? why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the pit to me of what caused the passage of this law to start with? >> i do not agree with your premise. when i said the south has changed, that is a statement made by the eight justices in the northwest austin case. >> members of congress said that. on anys not anybody

side of this issue who does not admit that huge progress has been made. congress itself said that. in line with the question from , in the d.c.ayor ar court of appeals, the dissenting , if this case were about mississippi and alabama. application, section five, to them might be ok. as he assessed various measures in the record, he thought those states might be distinguished. he did not reach the question whether those states should he subject to preclearance, whether, on an absolute aces,

there was sufficient record. >> the state you are representing is about a quarter black, but alabama has no black statewide elected officials. if congress were to write a formula that looked to the number of successful section two suits per million residents, alabama would be the number one state on the list. if you factor in unpublished section two suits, alabama would be the number two state on the list. if you used a number of section five enforcement actions, alabama would again be the number two state on the list. you are objecting to a formula, under any formula congress could devise, it would capture alabama. respond, because i think justice sotomayor are has a similar question -- why should this be approached on faith? going back to all the cases that have addressed the voting rights act formula -- they have all

been addressed to determine the validity of preclearance during the circumstances prevailing and the formula. shelby county is covered not by independent determination of congress with respect to shelby county, but because it falls within the formula as part of the state of alabama. i do not think there is any reluctance. these challenges are generally disfavored in our law. ,hy do we strike down a formula as justice kagan said, which, under any circumstance, the record shows the remedy would , rational --al whatever standard of review we find, its application to alabama would happen. >> one question is whether the formula needs to be addressed. this court addressed the formula. verymstances there were a

small jurisdiction approaching a very big question. ofis the same in the city rome. it did the same in cats and back. it said the formula itself is the reason why shelby county encounters the burden, and is the reason the court needs to address it. >> the court did not do what you are asking us to do, which is look at the record of the other states or counties. on thecally concentrated record of the litigants in the case. from that, it extrapolated. you are asking us to ignore your record and look at everybody else. >> i do not think that is a fair reading. what the court did was examine whether the formula was rational in practice and theory. the court said we do not have

evidence on every jurisdiction that is reached i the formula. which were criteria predictive of where discrimination might like, congress could then sweep in jurisdictions to which it had no specific findings. we are not here to parse the jurisdictions. we are here to challenge this formula, because in and of itself, it speaks to old data. it is not probative with respect to the kinds of discrimination congress is focusing on. it is an inappropriate vehicle to sort out the sovereignty of individual states. in alabama, the number of legislators in the alabama legislature are proportionate to the number of black voters. it is a very high registration and turnout of black voters in alabama. but i do not think that really addresses the issue of the rationality in theory and practice of the formula. if congress wants to write another hypothetical statute, that will present a different case. ,ut we are here facing a county

a state, that are swept in by a formula that is neither rational in theory nor in practice. >> i suppose the thrust of the question so far has been if you would be covered under any formula that most likely would be drawn. why are you injured under this one? >> we do not agree that we would be covered under any formula. >> but that is the hypothesis. if you could be covered under most suggested formulas, why are you injured by this one? i think that is the thrust of the question. >> i think that if congress has the power to look at jurisdictions like shelby county individually, without regard to how they stand against other states, other counties, what is the discrimination among the jurisdictions?

after thoroughly considering each and every one, comes up with a list, and says this list greatly troubles us -- that might present a vehicle for saying this is a way to sort out the covered jurisdictions. everyone whose last name begins with a shall pay a special tax of $1000 a year. let us say that tax is challenged. i am somebody whose last name begins with a. would it be a defense for that challenge that for some reason this particular person really thatd pay a $1000 penalty most people with a different last name do not pay? that would just invent another statute.ill stop -- would somebody invent a statute that has a rational formula? >> if someone is acquitted of a

federal crime, would the prosecution be able to say, he did not commit this crime, but congress could have enacted a different statute which he would have violated in this case? you would not listen to that, would you? >> i agree with you. >> those hypothetical start from a predicate that the application has no basis in any record, but there is no question that alabama was rightly included in the original voting rights act. there is no challenge to the reauthorization act. the only question is whether a formula should be applied today. the point is that the record is replete with evidence to show that you should. it is not like there is some $1000 iseason for why being applied to you, or why a different crime is going to be charged against you. there is a real record as to what alabama has done to earn

its place on the list. >> with all respect, the question whether alabama was properly placed under the act in 1964 was answered in cats and back, because it came under a formula then deemed to be rational in theory and in practice. there is no independent determination by the congress that alabama singly should be covered. congress has readopted the formula, and it is a formula that covers alabama. >> of course, part of the formula looked back to what happened in 1965. it says, are you a jurisdiction that did engage in testing and have low turnout or low registration? that is not true of alabama today. >> that is correct. congress reenacted this in 2005, it knew it was picking out alabama. it understood it was picking out

alabama, even though the conditions are not engaging in that particular thing. but the underlying evil is the discrimination. the closest analogy i can think state has ane the plant disease, and in 1965, you can recognize the presence of that disease, which is hard to find, buy a certain kind of surface movement or plant growing up. now it has evolved. so by now, when we use the same formula, all we are doing is picking out that state, but we know one thing. the disease is still there in the state. this is a question of renewing a statute that in fact has worked. , is itstion, i guess, is rational to it out at least some of those states? to go back to justice sotomayor

or, as long as we are rational in at least some instances, directly to pick out those states, at least one or two of them, doesn't be statute survive a challenge? that is the question. the court said in northwest austin, an opinion you joined, current needs have to generate current burdens. what happened in 1965 in alabama, alabama itself has said was a disgrace. >> this is in the question. does it justify? this is not a question of rewriting the statute. renewing question of a statute that by and large has worked. thatu have a statute sunsets, you might say, i do not want it to sunset as long as the problem is still there to some degree. isn't that what happened?

>> if you base it on the findings of 1965, i could take a decision that follows along that line. we had a huge problem with the first passage of the voting rights act, and the court was tolerant of the congressional decision that there were vestiges of discrimination. when i look at those statistics today, i look at what alabama has in terms of black registration and turnout. there is no resemblance. we are dealing with a completely changed situation. you keep emphasizing over and over again, in your brief -- you said it a couple of times this morning. congress was well aware that registration was no longer the problem. this legislative record is replete with what they call second-generation devices. knowess said up front, we that the registration is fine. that is no longer the problem. but the discrimination continues in other forms.

>> let me speak >> let me speak to that, because i think that that highlights one of the weaknesses here. on the one hand, justice breyer's questioning, well, could congress just continue based on what it found in '65 and renew? and i think your question shows it's a very different situation. congress is not continuing its efforts initiated in 1975 to allow people -- >> counsel, the reason section 5 was created was because states were moving faster than litigation permitted to catch the new forms of discriminatory practices that were being developed. as the courts struck down one form, the states would find another. and basically, justice ginsburg calls it secondary. i don't know that i'd call anything secondary or primary. discrimination is discrimination. and what congress said is it continues, not in terms of voter

numbers, but in terms of examples of other ways to disenfranchise voters, like moving a voting booth from a convenient location for all voters to a place that historically has been known for discrimination. i think that's an example taken from one of the section 2 and 5 cases from alabama. >> justice sotomayor -- >> i mean, i don't know what the difference is except that this court or some may think that secondary is not important. but the form of discrimination is still discrimination if congress has found it to be so. >> when congress is addressing a new evil, it needs then -- and assuming it can find this evil to a level justifying -- >> but that's not -- >> the extraordinary remedy -- >> what it did with section 5. it said we can't keep up with the way states are doing it. >> i think we're dealing with two different questions. one is was that kind of remedy, an unusual remedy, never before

and never after invoked by the congress, putting states into a prior restraint in the exercise of their core sovereign functions, was that justified? and in katzenbach, the court said we're confronting an emergency in the country, we're confronting people who will not, who will not honor the fifteenth amendment and who will use -- >> and in 1986 -- or excuse me, 2006 -- congress went back to the problem, developed a very substantial record, a 15,000- page legislative record, talked about what problems had been solved, talked about what problems had yet to be solved, and decided that, although the problem had changed, the problem was still evident enough that the act should continue. it's hard to see how congress could have developed a better and more thorough legislative record than it did, mr. rein. >> well, i'm not questioning whether congress did its best. the question is whether what congress found was adequate to

invoke this unusual remedy. >> indeed, congress must have found that the situation was even clearer and the violations even more evident than originally, because originally, the vote in the senate, for example, was something like 79 to 18, and in the 2006 extension, it was 98 to nothing. it must have been even clearer in 2006 that these states were violating the constitution. do you think that's true? >> no. i think the court has to -- >> well, that sounds like a good argument to me, justice scalia. it was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation. >> or decided that perhaps they'd better not vote against it, that there's nothing, that there's no -- none of their interests in voting against it.

>> i don't know what they're thinking exactly, but it seems to me one might reasonably think this -- it's an old disease, it's gotten a lot better, a lot better, but it's still there. so if you had a remedy that really helped it work, but it wasn't totally over, wouldn't you keep that remedy? >> well -- >> or would you not at least say that a person who wants to keep that remedy, which has worked for that old disease which is not yet dead, let's keep it going. is that an irrational decision? >> that is a hypothetical that doesn't address what happened, because what happened is the old disease, limiting people's right to register and vote, to have -- >> no, i'm sorry. the old disease is discrimination under the fifteenth amendment, which is abridging a person's right to vote because of color or race. >> but the focus of the congress in 1965 and in katzenbach in 1964 and in katzenbach was on registration and voting, precluding -- >> it was on voter dilution as

well. it had already evolved away from that, or started to. >> i beg your pardon, but i think, justice sotomayor, that this court has never decided that the fifteenth amendment governs vote dilution. it has said the fourteenth amendment does, but the original enactment was under the fifteenth amendment. >> well, the fifteenth amendment says "denial or abridgement." what would "abridgement" mean except for dilution? >> well, "abridgement" might mean, for example, i let you vote in one election but not in another, for example, separate primary rules from election rules. abridgement can be done in many ways. i think dilution is a different

concept. we're not saying that dilution isn't covered by the fourteenth amendment, but i was responding to justice breyer in saying there was an old disease and that disease is cured. if you want to label it "disease" and generalize it, you can say, well, the new disease is still a disease. >> well, some of -- >> but i think that's not what happened. >> some of the questions asked to this point i think mirror what the government says toward the end of its brief, page 48 and page 49. it's rather proud of this reverse engineering -- we really knew it was some specific states we were interested in, and so we used these old categories to cover that state. is that a methodology that in your view is appropriate under the test of congruence and -- and proportionality? >> no, i think it is not. first of all, i don't accept that it was, quote, "reverse engineered." i think it was just, as justice breyer indicated, continued because it was there. if you look at what was done and was approved in 1964, what congress said, well, here are the problem areas that we detect. we've examined them in detail. we've identified the characteristics that would let somebody say, yes, that's where the discrimination is ripe. they're using a tester device.

the turnout is below the national average by a substantial margin. that spells it out and we have a relief valve in the then- existing bailout. so it was all very rational. here you'd have to say is the finding with respect to every state -- alaska, arizona, the covered jurisdictions in new york city -- is the designation of them congruent to the problem that you detect in each one? even assuming -- and we don't accept -- that any of these problems require the kind of extraordinary relief, what's the congruence and what's the proportionality of this remedy to the violation you detect state by state. so merely saying it's reverse engineered, first of all it says, well, congress really thought about it and said, we made up a list in our heads and, gee whiz, this old formula miraculously covered the list. there's no record that that happened. >> counsel, are you -- >> suppose -- suppose there were and suppose that's the rationale, because that's what i got from the government's brief and what i'm getting -- getting from some of the questions from the bench. what is wrong with that?

>> if -- if there was a record sufficient for each of those states to sacrifice their -- their inherent core power to preclearance, to prior restraint, i think that you certainly could argue that, well, how congress described them, as long as it's rational, might work. but i don't think that we have that record here, so -- >> well, and -- and i don't know why -- why you even go that far. i don't know why under the equal footing doctrine it would be proper to just single out states by name, and if that in effect is what is being done, that seemed to me equally improper. but you don't seem to make that argument. >> well, i think that -- >> i thought -- i thought the same thing. i thought it's sort of extraordinary to say congress can just pick out, we want to hit these eight states, it doesn't matter what formula we use, so long as we want to hit these eight states, that's good enough and that makes it constitutional. i doubt that that's true. >> justice scalia, i agree with that. what i was saying here is that

congress did -- >> why? why does congress have to fix any problem immediately? >> i would like to hear the answer to the question. >> ok. the answer, justice kennedy, is congress cannot arbitrarily pick out states. congress has to treat each state with equal dignity. it has to examine all the states. the teaching of katzenbach is that when congress has done that kind of examination, it can devise a formula even if it understands that that formula will not apply across all 50 states. >> well, the formula that has -- >> so we accept katzenbach. but in terms of just picking out states and saying, i'm going to look at you and i'm going to look at you, no, that --that does not protect the equal dignity of the states. >> well, mr. rein, the formula that -- that is applied right now, under that formula covered jurisdictions, which have less than 25 percent of the nation's total population, they account for 56 percent of all successful published section 2 lawsuits. if you do that on a per capita basis, the successful section 2 lawsuits, four times higher in covered jurisdictions than in noncovered jurisdictions. so the formula -- you can, you know, say maybe this district shouldn't be covered, maybe this one should be covered. the formula seems to be working pretty well in terms of going

after the actual violations on the ground and who's committing them. >> there are -- there are two fallacies, justice kagan, in -- in that statement. number one is treating the covered jurisdictions as some kind of entity, a lump -- let us treat them. and as judge williams did in his dissent, if you look at them one by one, giving them their equal dignity, you won't reach the same result. >> well, all formulas are underinclusive and all formulas are overinclusive. congress has developed this formula and has continued it in use that actually seems to work pretty well in targeting the places where there are the most successful section 2 lawsuits, where there are the most violations on the ground that have been adjudicated. >> well, if -- if you look at the analysis state by state done by judge williams, that isn't true.

congress has picked out some states that fall at the top and some that do not, and there are other states like illinois or tennessee, and i don't think they deserve preclearance, that clearly have comparable records. and second, dividing by population may make it look it look better, but it is irrational. it is not only irrational when we object to it, but note that in the brief of the harris respondent they say it's irrational because, after all, that makes delaware, a small state, look worse on a list of who are the primary violators. it's not a useful metric. it may make a nice number. but there is no justification for that measure. >> and it happens not to be the method that congress selected. >> correct. >> if they selected that, you could say they used a rationale that works. but just because they picked some other rationale which happens to produce this result doesn't seem to me very persuasive. >> your time is -- >> thank you. >> about ready to expire for the rebuttal period. but i do have this question -- can you tell me -- it seems to me that the government can very

easily bring a section 2 suit and as part of that ask for bail-in under section 3. are those expensive, time- consuming suits? do we have anything in the record that tells us or anything in the bar's experience that you could advise us? >> well -- >> is this an effective remedy? >> it is -- number one, it is effective. there are preliminary injunctions. it depends on the kind of dispute you have. some of them are very complex, and it would be complex if somebody brought -- a state brought a section 5 challenge in a three-judge court saying the attorney general's denied me preclearance. so it's the complexity of the question, not the nature of section 2. and might i say, if you look at the voting rights act, one thing that really stands out is you are up against states with entrenched discriminatory practices in their law. the remedy congress put in place for those states was section 2. and all across the country, when you talk about equal sovereignty, if there is a

problem in ohio the remedy is section 2. so if congress thought that section 2 was an inadequate remedy, it could look to the specifics of section 2 and say, maybe we ought to put timetables in there or modify it. but that's not what happened. they reenacted section 2 just as it stood. so i think that section 2 covers even more broadly, because it deals with results, which the court has said is broader than effects. it's an effective remedy, and i think at this point, given the record, given the history, the right thing to do is go forward under section 2 and remove the stigma of prior restraint and preclearance from the states and the unequal application based on data that has no better history than 1972. >> mr. rein, i just remind, because it's something we said about equal footing, in katzenbach the court said -- "the doctrine of the equality of the states invoked by south

carolina does not bar this approach, for that doctrine applies only to the terms upon which states are admitted to the union and not to the remedies for local evils which have subsequently appeared." that's what -- has the court changed that interpretation? >> i think that that referred in katzenbach -- i'm familiar with that statement. it referred to the fact that once you use a formula you are not -- you are selecting out. the court felt the formula was rational in theory and practice and therefore it didn't on its face remove the equality of the states. they were all assessed under the same two criteria. some passed, some did not. but i think that that really doesn't mask the need for equal treatment of the sovereign states. >> i'm going to have a hard time with that because you can't be suggesting that the government sees a problem in one or more

states and decides it's going to do something for them and not for others, like emergency relief, and that that somehow violates the equal footing doctrine. you can't treat states the same because their problems are different, their populations are different, their needs are different. everything is different about the states. >> well, i think when congress uses the powers delegated under article i, section 8, it has substantial latitude in how it exercises the power. we are talking about remedial power here. we are talking about overriding powers that are reserved to the states to correct abuse. when congress does that, it has to treat them equally. it can't say -- >> would you tell me what you think is left of the rational means test in katzenbach and city of rome? do you think the city of boerne now controls both fourteen -- the fourteenth and the fifteenth amendment and how we look at any

case that arises under them? >> justice sotomayor, i think that the two tests have a lot in common because in city of boerne, the katzenbach decision was pointed out as a model of asking the questions that congress in proportionality asked us to address. number one, how does this remedy meet findings of constitutional violation? you've got to ask that question. they asked that question in katzenbach. what is the relation between the two? and then i think you have to ask the question -- all right, you know, is this killing a fly with a sledgehammer, a fair question, because when you start to invade core functions of the states i think that a great deal of caution and care is required. so i think that the rational basis test, the mcculloch test, still applies to delegated powers.

but here on the one hand the solicitor defends under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendment saying, well, if something doesn't violate the fifteenth it violates the fourteenth. and the court's precedent under the fourteenth amendment is very clear that the city of boerne congruence and proportionality test applies. the court has applied it, but i don't think we -- we wouldn't really need to get that far because we believe that if you examine it under mccullough, just as they did in katzenbach, it would fail as well. if there are no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. our questions have intruded on your rebuttal time, so we'll give you the 5 minutes and a commensurate increase in the general's time. general verrilli? >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: there's a fundamental point that needs to be made at the outset. everyone acknowledges, petitioner, its amici, this court in northwest austin, that the voting rights act made a huge difference in transforming the culture of blatantly racist vote suppression that characterized parts of this country for a century. section 5 preclearance was the

principal engine of that progress. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions under section 5 result in objections. so that progress under section 5 that follows from that has been as a result of the deterrence and the constraint section 5 imposes on states and subjurisdictions and not on the actual enforcement by means of objection. now, when congress faced the question whether to reauthorize section 5 in 2006, it had to decide whether -- whether it could be confident that the attitudes and behaviors in covered jurisdictions had changed enough that that very effective constraint and deterrence could be confidently removed. and congress had, as judge kagan identified earlier, a very substantial record of continuing need before it when it -- >> can i ask you just a little bit about that record. do you know how many submissions there were for preclearance to the attorney general in 2005? >> i don't know the precise number, but many thousands. that's true.

>> 3700. do you know how many objections the attorney general lodged? >> there was one in that year. >> one, so one out of 3700. >> but i think -- but, mr. chief justice, that is why i made the point a minute ago that the key way in which section 5 -- it has to be the case, everyone agrees, that the significant progress that we've made is principally because of section 5 of the voting rights act. and it has always been true that only a tiny fraction of submissions result in objections. >> that will always be true forever into the future. you could always say, oh, there has been improvement, but the only reason there has been improvement are these extraordinary procedures that deny the states sovereign powers which the constitution preserves to them. so, since the only reason it's improved is because of these procedures, we must continue those procedures in perpetuity. >> no. >> is that the argument you are making? >> that is not the argument. we do not think that -- >> i thought that was the argument you were just making.

>> it is not. congress relied on far more on just the deterrent effect. there was a substantial record based on the number of objections, the types of objections, the findings of -- >> that's a different argument. >> but they are related. they're related. >> just to get the -- do you know which state has the worst ratio of white voter turnout to african american voter turnout? >> i do not. >> massachusetts. do you know what has the best, where african american turnout actually exceeds white turnout? mississippi. >> yes, mr. chief justice. but congress recognized that expressly in the findings when it reauthorized the act in 2006. it said that the first generation problems had been largely dealt with, but there persisted significant -- >> which state has the greatest disparity in registration between white and african american? >> i do not know that. >> massachusetts. third is mississippi, where again the african american registration rate is higher than the white registration rate. >> but when congress -- the choice congress faced when it --

congress wasn't writing on a blank slate in 2006, mr. chief justice. it faced a choice. and the choice was whether the conditions were such that it could confidently conclude that this deterrence and this constraint was no longer needed, and in view of the record of continuing need and in view of that history, which we acknowledge is not sufficient on its own to justify reenactment, but it's certainly relevant to the judgment congress made, because it justifies congress having made a cautious choice in 2006 to keep the constraint and to keep the deterrence in place. >> well, there's no question that -- >> counsel, in the reauthorization -- >> there's no question -- >> justice alito. >> there is no question that the voting rights act has done enormous good. it's one of the most successful statutes that congress passed in the twentieth century and one could probably go farther than that. but when congress decided to reauthorize it in 2006, why wasn't it incumbent on congress under the congruence and proportionality standard to make

a new determination of coverage? maybe the whole country should be covered. or maybe certain parts of the country should be covered based on a formula that is grounded in up-to-date statistics. but why -- why wasn't that required by the congruence and proportionality standards? suppose that congress in 1965 had based the coverage formula on voting statistics from 1919, 46 years earlier. do you think katzenbach would have come out the same way? >> no, but what congress did in 2006 was different than what congress did in 1965. what congress did -- congress in 2006 was not writing on a clean slate. the judgment had been made what the coverage formula ought to be in 1965, this court upheld it four separate times over the years, and that it seems to me the question before congress under congruence and proportionality or the

reasonably adapted test in mccull- -- or whatever the test is, and under the formula in northwest austin is whether the judgment to retain that geographic coverage for a sufficient relation to the problem congress was trying to target, and congress did have before it very significant evidence about disproportionate results in section 2 litigation in covered jurisdictions, and that, we submit, is a substantial basis for congress to have made the judgment that the coverage formula should be kept in place, particularly given that it does have a bail- in mechanism and it does have a bailout mechanism which allows for tailoring over time. >> this reverse engineering that you seem so proud of, it seems to me that that obscures the -- the real purpose of -- of the statute. and if congress is going to single out separate states by name, it should do it by name. if not, it should use criteria that are relevant to the existing -- and congress just didn't have the time or the energy to do this, it just reenacted it.

>> i think the -- the formula was -- was rational and effective in 1965. the court upheld it then, it upheld it three more times after that. >> well, the marshall plan was very good, too, the morale act, the northwest ordinance, but times change. >> and -- but the question is whether times had changed enough and whether the differential between the covered jurisdictions and the rest of the country had changed enough that congress could confidently make the judgment that this was no longer needed. >> general verrilli -- >> what the question -- >> general verrilli, could you respond to the question that justice kennedy asked earlier, which was for why isn't section 2 enough now? the government could bring section 2 claims if it seeks privately to do. why isn't -- he asked if it was expensive. you heard the question, so. >> yes.

with respect to -- start with katzenbach. katzenbach made the point that section 2 litigation wasn't an effective substitute for section 5, because what section 5 does is shift the burden of inertia. and there's a -- i think it is self-evident that section 2 cannot do the work of section 5. take one example -- polling place changes. that in fact is the most frequent type of section 5 submission, polling place changes. now, changes in the polling places at the last minute before an election can be a source of great mischief. closing polling places, moving them to inconvenient locations, et cetera. what section 5 does is require those kinds of changes to be pre-cleared and on a 60-day calendar which effectively prevents that kind of mischief. and there is no way in the world you could use section 2 to effectively police that kind of mischief. >> well, i -- i do think the evidence is very clear that section -- that individual suits under section 2 type litigation were just insufficient and that section 5 was utterly necessary in 1965. no doubt about that. >> and i think it remains --

>> but with -- with a modern understanding of -- of the dangers of polling place changes, with prospective injunctions, with preliminary injunctions, it's not clear -- and -- and with the fact that the government itself can commence these suits, it's not clear to me that there's that much difference in a section 2 suit now and preclearance. i may be wrong about that. i don't have statistics for it. that's why we're asking. >> i -- i don't -- i don't really think that that conclusion follows. i think these under the -- there are thousands and thousands of these under-the-radar screen changes, the polling places and registration techniques, et cetera. and in most of those i submit, your honor, the -- the cost- benefit ratio is going to be, given the cost of this litigation, which one of the -- one of the reasons katzenbach said section 5 was necessary, is going to tilt strongly against bringing these suits. even with respect to the big ticket items, the big redistrictings, i think the logic katzenbach holds in that

those suits are extremely expensive and they typically result in after-the-fact litigation. now, it is true, and the petitioners raised the notion that there could be a preliminary injunction, but i really think the petitioner's argument that section 2 is a satisfactory and complete substitute for section 5 rests entirely on their ability to demonstrate that preliminary injunctions can do comparable work to what section 5 does. they haven't made any effort to do that. and while i don't have statistics for you, i can tell you that the civil rights division tells me that it's their understanding that in fewer than one-quarter of ultimately successful section 2 suits was there a preliminary injunction issued. so, i don't think that there's a basis, certainly given the weighty question before this court of the constitutionality of this law, to the extent the argument is that section 2 is a valid substitute for section 5, i just don't think that the -- that the petitioners have given the court anything that allows the court to reach that conclusion and of course -- >> can you tell us how many

attorneys and how many staff in the justice department are involved in the preclearance process? is it 5 or 15? >> it's a -- it's a very substantial number and -- >> well, what does that mean? >> it means i don't know the exact number, justice kennedy. >> hundreds? hundreds? dozens? what? >> i think it's dozens. and so the -- and so it -- so it's a substantial number. it is true in theory that those people could be used to bring section 2 litigation. >> right. >> but that doesn't answer the mail, i submit, because it's still -- you're never going to get at all these thousands of under-the-radar changes and you're still going to be in the position where the question will be whether preliminary injunctions are available to do the job. there is no evidence that that's true. and i'll point out there's a certain irony in the argument that what -- that what petitioner wants is to substitute section 2 litigation of that kind for the section 5 process, which is much more efficient and much more -- and much speedier, much more efficient and much more cost effective. >> then why shouldn't it apply everywhere in the country?

>> well, because i think congress made a reasonable judgment that the problem --that in 2006, that its prior judgments, that there -- that there was more of a risk in the covered jurisdictions continued to be validated by the section 2 evidence. >> well, you do really think there was -- that the record in 2006 supports the proposition that -- let's just take the question of changing the location of polling places. that's a bigger problem in virginia than in tennessee, or it's a bigger problem in arizona than nevada, or in the bronx as opposed to brooklyn. >> i think the combination of the history, which i concede is not dispositive, but is relevant, because it suggests caution is in order and that's a reasonable judgment on the part of congress, the combination of that history and the fact that there is a very significant disproportion in successful section 2 results in the covered jurisdictions as compared to the rest of the country, that congress was justified in concluding that there -- that it there was reason to think that there continued to be a serious

enough differential problem to justify -- >> well, the statistics that i have before me show that in, let's say the 5 years prior to reauthorization, the gap between success in section 2 suits in the covered and the non-covered jurisdiction narrowed and eventually was eliminated. do you disagree with that? >> well, i think the --the -- you have to look at it, and congress appropriately looked at it through a broader -- in a -- in a broader timeframe, and it made judgments. and i think that actually, the the right way to look at it is not just the population judgment that mr. rein was critical of, the fact is, and i think this is in the katz amicus brief, that the covered jurisdictions contain only 14 percent of the subjurisdictions in the nation. and so 14 percent of the subjurisdictions in the nation are generating up to 81 percent of the successful section 2 litigation. it is not and i do not know the

answer. it was reasonable. >> it is not our submission as an objective matter. i do not know the answer to that question but what i do now is that congress has before it evidence that there was a continuing need based on section five objections based on the purpose-based character of those objections, based on the section to based on the polarized voting and based on a gigantic wealth of jurisdiction to maintain that the current and constraining effect of the preclearance process in the covered jurisdictions. >> and not impose it on everyone else. >> that is right even the difference in the section two legislation. >> i want to make sure i hear your answer to an allegation, an excellent argument that has been .ade

the problem was terrible. it has gotten a lot better. is not to some degree cured. i think there is a kind of common ground. the question is what about this statue that has a certain formula? theresponse is it has formula that no longer has tremendous relevance in terms of its characteristic, that is, literacy test but it has picked out nine states. it was rational when you continue and you do not sunset it. you keep it going. you're not held to quite the same criteria if you were writing it in the first place. that it does treat states all the same that are somewhat different. one response to that is -- this is the 15th amendment, the special amendment.

maybe you're right. then let's proceed state-by- state. let's look at it state-by-state. that is what we normally do. not as a plot. i do not know how satisfactory that answer is. i want to know what your responses as to whether we should -- if he is anht, that there is irrationality involved if you were writing it today in treating state a which is not discriminatory -- if that is true, do we respond state-by- state? or is this a matter we should consider not as applied but on its face. i want to your what you think about that. two responses. the first is one that focuses on the practical operation of the law. and the consequences that flow from it. i do not think that shelby county or alabama out to be

able to bring a successful facial challenge against this law on the basis it ought not to have covered arizona or alaska. the statute has bailout mechanism. those jurisdictions can try to avail themselves of it. and if they do and it doesn't work, then they -- they may very well have an as-applied challenge that they can bring to the law. but that doesn't justify -- given the structure of the law and that there is a tailoring mechanism in it, it doesn't justify alabama -- >> i don't -- i don't understand the distinction between facial and as-applied when you are talking about a formula. as applied to shelby county, they are covered because of the formula, so they're challenging the formula as applied to them. and we've heard some discussion. i'm not even sure what your position is on the formula. is the formula congruent and proportional today, or do you have this reverse engineering argument? >> congress's decision in 2006 to reenact the geographic coverage was congruent and

proportional because congress had evidence -- >> to -- to the problem or -- or was the formula congruent and proportional to the remedy? >> the court has upheld the formula in four different applications. so the court has found four different times that the formula was congruent and proportional. and the same kinds of problems that mr. rein is identifying now were -- >> well -- i'm sorry. >> were true even back in city of rome, because of course the tests and devices were eliminated by the statute, so no no jurisdiction could have tests and devices. and city of rome itself said that the registration problems had been very substantially ameliorated by then, but there were additional kinds of problems. the ascent of these second- generation problems was true in city of rome as a justification that made it congruent and proportional. and we submit that it's still true now, that congress wasn't writing on a blank slate in 2006. congress was making a judgment about whether this formula, which everyone agrees, and in fact mr. rein's case depends on the proposition that section 5 was a big success. >> well, maybe it was making

that judgment, mr. verrilli. but that's -- that's a problem that i have. this court doesn't like to get involved in -- in racial questions such as this one. it's something that can be left left to congress. the problem here, however, is suggested by the comment i made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a -- in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was -- in the senate, there -- it was double-digits against it. and that was only a 5-year term. then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. double-digits against it in the senate. then it was reenacted for 7 years. single digits against it.

then enacted for 25 years, 8 senate votes against it. and this last enactment, not a single vote in the senate against it. and the house is pretty much the same. now, i don't think that's attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. i think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. it's been written about. whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. i don't think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of

this act. and i am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless -- unless a court can say it does not comport with the constitution. you have to show, when you are treating different states differently, that there's a good reason for it. that's the -- that's the concern that those of us who -- who have some questions about this statute have. it's -- it's a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to congress. there are certain districts in the house that are black districts by law just about now. and even the virginia senators, they have no interest in voting against this. the state government is not their government, and they are going to lose -- they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the voting rights act. even the name of it is wonderful the voting rights act. who is going to vote against that in the future? >> you have an extra 5 minutes. >> thank you. i may need it for that question. [laughter]

>> justice scalia, there's a number of things to say. first, we are talking about the enforcement power that the constitution gives to the congress to make these judgments to ensure protection of fundamental rights. so this is -- this is a situation in which congress is given a power which is expressly given to it to act upon the states in their sovereign capacity. and it cannot have been lost on the framers of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments that the power congress was conferring on them was likely to be exercised in a differential manner because it was, the power was conferred to deal with the problems in the former states of the confederacy. so with respect to the constitutional grant of power, we do think it is a grant of power to congress to make these judgments, now of course subject to review by this court under the standard of northwest austin, which we agree is an appropriate standard. that's the first point. the second point is i do -- i do say with all due respect, i think it would be extraordinary to --to look behind the judgment of congress as expressed in the statutory findings, and -- and

evaluate the judgment of congress on the basis of that sort of motive analysis, as opposed to -- >> we looked behind it in boerne. i'm not talking about dismissing it. i'm --i'm talking about looking at it to see whether it makes any sense. >> and -- but -- but i do think that the deference that congress is owed, as city of boerne said, "much deference" -- katzenbach said "much deference." that deference is appropriate because of the nature of the power that has been conferred here and because, frankly, of the superior institutional competence of congress to make these kinds of judgments. these are judgments that assess social conditions. these are predictive judgments about human behavior and they're predictive judgments about social conditions and human behavior about something that the people in congress know the most about, which is voting and the political process. and i would also say i understand your point about entrenchment, justice scalia, but certainly with respect to the senate, you just can't say that it's in everybody's

interests -- that -- that the enforcement of section 5 is going to make it easier for some of those senators to win and it's going to make it harder for some of those senators to win. and yet they voted unanimously in favor of the statute. >> do you think the preclearance device could be enacted for the entire united states. >> i don't think there is a record that would substantiate that. but i do think congress was -- >> and that is because that there is a federalism interest in each state being responsible to ensure that it has a political system that acts in a democratic and a civil and a decent and a proper and a constitutional way. >> and we agree with that, we respect that, we acknowledge that northwest austin requires an inquiry into that. >> but if -- if alabama wants to have monuments to the heros of the civil rights movement, if it wants to acknowledge the wrongs of its past, is it better off doing that if it's an own independent sovereign or if it's under the trusteeship of the united states government? >> of course it would be better in the former situation.

but with all due respect, your honor, everyone agrees that it was appropriate for -- for congress to have exercised this express constitutional authority when it did in 1965, and everybody agrees that it was the was the exercise of that authority that brought about the situation where we can now argue about whether it's still necessary. and the point, i think, is of fundamental importance here is that that history remains relevant. what congress did was make a cautious choice in 2006 that given the record before it and given the history, the more prudent course was to maintain the deterrent and constraining effect of section 5, even given the federalism costs, because, after all, what it protects is a right of fundamental importance that the constitution gives congress the express authority to protect through appropriate legislation. >> before your time expires, i would like to make sure i understand your position on this as-applied versus facial issue. is it your position that this

would be a different case if it were brought by, let's say, a county in alaska as opposed to shelby county, alabama? >> no. not -- not -- no. let me just try to articulate clearly what our -- what our position is. they've brought a facial challenge. we -- we recognize that it's a facial challenge. we're defending it as a facial challenge, but our point is that the facial challenge can't succeed because they are able to point out that there may be some other jurisdictions that ought not to be appropriately covered, and that's especially true because there is a tailoring mechanism in the statute. and if the tailoring mechanism doesn't work, then jurisdictions that could make such a claim may well have an as-applied challenge. that's how we feel. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice.

>> mr. adegbile. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- the extensive record supporting the renewal of the preclearance provisions of the voting rights act illustrates two essential points about the nature and continuing aspects of voting discrimination in the affected areas. the first speaks to this question of whether section 2 was adequate standing alone. as our brief demonstrates, in alabama and in many of the covered jurisdictions, section 2 victories often need section 5 to realize the benefits of the of the ruling in the section 2 case. that is to say, that these measures act in tandem to protect minority communities, and we've seen it in a number of cases. >> but that's true in every state, isn't it? >> justice scalia --

>> i mean, you know, i don't think anybody is contesting that it's more effective if you use section 5. the issue is why just in these states. that's it. >> fair enough. it's beyond a question of being true in any place. our brief shows that specifically in the covered jurisdictions, there is a pattern, a demonstrated pattern of section 2 and 5 being used in tandem whereas in other jurisdictions, most of the section 2 cases are one-off examples. we point to a whole number of examples. take for example selma, alabama. selma, alabama in the 1990s, not in the 1960s but in the 1990s, had a series of objections and section 2 activity and observers all that were necessary to continue to give effect to the minority inclusion principle that section 5 was passed to vindicate in 1965. >> but a section 2 case can, in effect, have an order for bail- in, correct me if i'm wrong, under section 3 and then you basically have a mini -- something that replicates section 5. >> the bail-in is available -- bail- in is available if there's an actual finding of a constitutional violation. it has been used in -- in a number of circumstances. the united states brief has an appendix that points to those. one of the recent ones was in port chester, new york, if memory serves. but it's quite clear that the

pattern in the covered jurisdictions is such that the repetitive nature of discrimination in those places take, for example, the case in lulac. after this court ruled that the redistricting plan after the 2000 round of redistricting bore the mark of intentional discrimination, in the remedial election, the state of texas tried to shorten and constrain the early voting period for purposes of denying the latino community of the opportunity to have the benefits of the ruling. what we've seen in section 2 cases is that the benefits of discrimination vest in incumbents who would not be there but for the discriminatory plan. and congress, and specifically in the house report, i believe it's page 57, found that section 2 continues to be an inadequate remedy to address the problem of these successive violations. another example that makes this point very clearly is in the 1990s in mississippi. there was an important section 2 case brought finally after 100 years to break down the dual registration system that had a

discriminatory purpose. when mississippi went to implement the national voter registration act, it tried to bring back dual registration, and it was section 5 -- section 5 enforcement action that was able to knock it down. >> do you agree with the reverse engineering argument that the united states has made today? >> i would frame it slightly differently, chief justice roberts. my understanding is that the history bears some importance in the context of the reauthorizations, but that congress in -- in none of the reauthorizations stopped with the historical backward look. it takes cognizance of the experience, but it also looks to see what the experience has been on the ground. and what congress saw in 2006 is that there was a surprisingly high number of continuing objections after the 1982 reauthorization period and that >> i guess -- i guess the question is whether or not that disparity is sufficient to justify the differential treatment under section 5. once you take away the formula, if you think it has to be

reverse engineered and -- and not simply justified on its own, then it seems to me you have a much harder test to justify the differential treatment under section 5. >> this court in northwest austin said that it needs to be sufficiently related, and i think there are two principal sources of evidence. >> well, we also said congruent and proportional. >> indeed. indeed. i don't understand those things to be unrelated. i think that they're part of the same, same test, same evaluative mechanism. the idea is, is congress -- the first question is, is congress remedying something or is it creating a new right. that's essentially what boerne is getting to, is congress trying to go -- do an end-around, a back doorway to expand the constitution. we know in this area congress is trying to implement the fifteenth amendment and the history tells us something about that. but specifically to the question >> well, the fifteenth amendment is limited to intentional discrimination, and, of course, the preclearance requirement is not so limited, right? >> that's correct. but this court's cases have held that congress, in proper

exercise of its remedial powers, can reach beyond the --the core of the intentional discrimination with prophylactic effect when they have demonstrated that a substantial problem exists. the -- the two things that speak to this issue about the disparity in coverage and continuing to cover these jurisdictions, there are two major inputs. the first is the section 5 activity. the section 5 activity shows that the problem persists. it's a range of different obstacles, and section 5 was passed to reach the next discriminatory thing. the case in -- >> well, section 5 -- the section 5 activity may show that there's a problem in the jurisdictions covered by section 5, but it says nothing about the presence or absence of similar problems in noncovered jurisdictions, isn't that right? >> absolutely, justice alito. >> all right. >> and so i come to my second category. the second category, of course, is the piece of the voting rights act that has national application, section 2. and what the evidence in this

case shows, and it was before congress, is that the concentration of section 2 successes in the covered jurisdictions is substantially more. justice kagan said that it was four times more adjusting for population data. the fact of the matter is that there is another piece of evidence in the record in this case where peyton mccrary looks at all of the section 2 cases, and what he shows is that the directional sense, that the ellen katz study pointed to dramatically understates the disparity under section 2. and so he found that 81 percent >> all of the noncovered states are worse in that regard than the nine covered states, is that correct? >> justice scalia -- >> every -- every one of them is worse. >> justice scalia, it's -- it's a fair question, and -- and i was speaking to the aggregate -- >> it's not just a fair one, it's the crucial question. congress has selected these nine states. now, is there some good reason for selecting these nine? >> what we see in the evidence is that of the top eight states with section --favorable section 2 outcomes, seven of them, seven of them are the covered jurisdictions. the eighth was bailed in under the other part of the mechanism that, as justice kennedy points out, can bring in some

jurisdictions that have special problems in voting. and so we think that that points to the fact that this is not a static statute, it's a statute that is -- >> yeah, but his point, i think the point is this -- if you draw a red line around the states that are in, at least some of those states have a better record than some of the states that are out. so in 1965, well, we have history. we have 200 years or perhaps of slavery. we have 80 years or so of legal segregation. we have had 41 years of this statute. and this statute has helped, a lot. so therefore congress in 2005 looks back and says don't change horses in the middle of the stream, because we still have a ways to go. now the question is, is it rational to do that? and people could differ on that. and one thing to say is, of

course this is aimed at states. what do you think the civil war was about? of course it was aimed at treating some states differently than others. and at some point that historical and practical sunset/no sunset, renew what worked type of justification runs out. and the question, i think, is has it run out now? and now you tell me when does it run out? what is the standard for when it runs out? never? that's something you have heard people worried about. does it never run out? or does it run out, but not yet? or do we have a clear case where at least it doesn't run out now? now, i would like you to address that. >> fair enough, justice breyer. i think that the -- what the evidence shows before congress is that it hasn't run out yet. the whole purpose of this act is

that we made progress and congress recognized the progress that we made. and, for example, they took away the examiner provision which was designed to address the registration problem. in terms of when we are there, i think it will be some point in the future. our great hope is that by the end of this next reauthorization we won't be there. indeed, there is an overlooked provision that says in 15 years, which is now 9 years from where i stand here today before you, congress should go back and look and see if it's still necessary. so we don't think that this needs to be there in perpetuity. but based on the record and a 2011 case in which a federal judge in alabama cited this court's opinion in northwest austin -- there were legislators that sit today that were caught on tape referring to african american voters as illiterates. their peers were referring to them as aborigines. and the judge, citing the northwest austin case -- it's the mcgregor case cited in our brief --said that, yes, the south has changed and made progress, but some things remain stubbornly the same and the trained effort to deny african american voters the franchise is

part of alabama's history to this very day. >> have there been episodes, egregious episodes of the kind you are talking about in states that are not covered? >> absolutely, chief justice roberts. >> well, then it doesn't seem to help you make the point that the differential between covered and noncovered continues to be justified. >> but the great weight of evidence -- i think that it's fair to look at -- on some level you have to look piece by piece, state by state. but you also have to step back and look at the great mosaic. this statute is in part about our march through history to keep promises that our constitution says for too long were unmet. and this court and congress have both taken these promises seriously. in light of the substantial evidence that was adduced by congress, it is reasonable for congress to make the decision that we need to stay the course so that we can turn the corner. to be fair, this statute cannot go on forever, but our experience teaches that six amendments to the constitution have had to be passed to ensure safeguards for the right to vote, and there are many federal laws.

they protect uniform voters, some protect eligible voters who have not had the opportunity yet to register. but together these protections are important because our right to vote is what the united states constitution is about. >> thank you, counsel. mr. rein, 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in section 5? >> no. the fifteenth amendment protects the right of all to vote and -- >> i asked a different question. do you think section 5 was voted for because it was a racial entitlement? >> well, congress -- >> do you think there was no basis to find that -- >> was reacting -- may i say congress was reacting in 1964 to a problem of race discrimination which it thought was prevalent in certain jurisdictions. so to that extent, as the intervenor said, yes, it was intended to protect those who had been discriminated against.

if i might say, i think that justice breyer -- >> do you think that racial discrimination in voting has ended, that there is none anywhere? >> i think that the world is not perfect. no one -- we are not arguing perfectibility. we are saying that there is no evidence that the jurisdictions that are called out by the formula are the places which are uniquely subject to that kind of problem -- >> but shouldn't -- >> we are not trying -- >> you've given me some statistics that alabama hasn't, but there are others that are very compelling that it has. why should we make the judgment, and not congress, about the types and forms of discrimination and the need to remedy them? >> may i answer that? number one, we are not looking at alabama in isolation. we are looking at alabama relative to other sovereign states. and coming to justice kennedy's point, the question has is alabama, even in isolation, and those other states reached the

point where they ought to be given a chance, subject to section 2, subject to cases brought directly under the fifteenth amendment, to exercise their sovereignty -- >> how many other states have 240 successful section 2 and section 5 -- >> justice sotomayor, i could parse statistics, but we are not here to try alabama or massachusetts or any other state. the question is the validity of the formula. that's what brings alabama in. if you look at alabama, it has a number of black legislators proportionate to the black population of alabama. it hasn't had a section 5 rejection in a long period. i want to come to justice breyer's point because i think that -- i think he's on a somewhat different wavelength, which is isn't this a mere continuation? shouldn't the fact that we had it before mean, well, let's just try a little bit more until somebody is satisfied that the problem is cured? >> don't change horses. you renew what is in the past -- >> right. >> where it works, as long as the problem isn't solved. ok? >> well, and i think the problem

to which the voting rights act was addressed is solved. you look at the registration, you look at the voting. that problem is solved on an absolute as well as a relative basis. so that's like saying if i detect that there is a disease afoot in the population in 1965 and i have a treatment, a radical treatment that may help cure that disease, when it comes to 2005 and i see a new disease or i think the old disease is gone, there is a new one, why not apply the old treatment? >> well, mr. rein -- >> i wouldn't -- >> that is the question, isn't it? you said the problem has been solved. but who gets to make that judgment really? is it you, is it the court, or is it congress? >> well, it is certainly not me. [laughter] >> that's a good answer. i was hoping you would say that. >> but i think the question is congress can examine it, congress makes a record, it is up to the court to determine whether the problem indeed has been solved and whether the new problem, if there is one -- >> well, that's a big, new power that you are giving us, that we

have the power now to decide whether racial discrimination has been solved? i did not think that that fell within our bailiwick. >> i did not claim that power, justice kagan. what i said is, based on the record made by the congress, you have the power, and certainly it was recognized in northwest austin, austin, to determine whether that record justifies the discrimination among -- >> but there is this difference, which i think is a key difference. you refer to the problem as the problem identified by the tool for picking out the states, which was literacy tests, et cetera. but i suspect the problem was the denial or abridgement by a state of the right to vote on the basis of race and color. and that test was a way of picking out places where that problem existed. now, if my version of the if your version of the problem, literacy tests, is the problem, well, you have a much stronger

case. so how, in your opinion, do we decide what was the problem that congress was addressing in the voting rights act? >> i think you look at katzenbach and you look at the evidence within the four corners of the voting rights act. it responds to limited registration and voting as measured and the use of devices. the devices are gone. that problem has been resolved by the congress definitively. so it can't be the basis for further -- further legislation. i think what we are talking about here is that congress looks and says, well, we did solve that problem. as everyone agrees, it's been very effective, section 5 has done its work. people are registering and voting and, coming to justice scalia's point, senators who see that a very large group in the population has politically wedded themselves to section 5 are not going to vote against it, it will do them no good. and so i think, justice scalia, that evidence that everybody votes for it would suggest some of the efficacy of section 5. you have a different constituency from the constituency you had in 1964.

but coming to the point, then if you think there is discrimination, you have to examine that nationwide. they didn't look at some of the problems of dilution and the like because they would have found them all over the place in 1965. but they weren't responding to that. they were responding to an acute situation where people could not register and vote. there was intentional denial of the rights under the fifteenth amendment. >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you. >> counsel. >> these is submitted. u.s. supreme court will rule on to same-sex cases tomorrow. the nationwide restrictions placed on same-sex couples under the 1996 defense of marriage act. we will have live coverage starting at 10:00 eastern on c- span. john roberts will sit down to talk about the pieces they ruled on this term. saturday ate on

9:00 eastern. uite -- >> up next, president obama lays out his priorities on climate change. we will have more reactions to the supreme court shaking down part of the voting rights act. >> there are 1400 monuments on this battlefield. as the men who fought in this battle are getting older, they want to make sure that they are remembered. they're going to do that by building monuments. in modern times, we have other ways to make number eight -- commemorate things like that. this is monuments to the soldiers and their leaders. the monuments really help us interpret the story.

they are placed on the ground where they fall. most of the monuments are union monuments. the battle is going to be a union victory. why honestly, by the time the warriors, there's not a lot of money in the south of the monuments in northern states. 150the coverage of the anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. -- 8:00, the commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker, and a

candlelight procession. at nine -- 9:00, more calls and tweets for peter carmichael on american history tv on c-span three. [inaudible]-- ♪ >> thank you. thank you, georgetown. thank you so much. please be seated. and my first announcement today is that you should all take off your jackets. i'm going to do the same.

it's not that sexy, now. it is good to be back on campus, and it is a great privilege to speak from the steps of this historic hall that welcomed presidents going back to george washington. i want to thank your president, president degioia, who's here today.[applause] i want to thank him for hosting us. i want to thank the many members of my cabinet and my administration. i want to thank leader pelosi and the members of congress who are here. we are very grateful for their support. and i want to say thank you to the hoyas in the house for having me back. it was important for me to speak

directly to your generation, because the decisions that we make now and in the years ahead will have a profound impact on the world that all of you inherit. on christmas eve, 1968, the astronauts of apollo 8 did a live broadcast from lunar orbit. so frank borman, jim lovell, william anders - the first humans to orbit the moon -- described what they saw, and they read scripture from the book of genesis to the rest of us back here. and later that night, they took a photo that would change the way we see and think about our world. it was an image of earth -- beautiful; breathtaking; a glowing marble of blue oceans, and green forests, and brown

mountains brushed with white clouds, rising over the surface of the moon. and while the sight of our planet from space might seem routine today, imagine what it looked like to those of us seeing our home, our planet, for the first time. imagine what it looked like to children like me. even the astronauts were amazed. "it makes you realize," lovell would say, "just what you have back there on earth." and around the same time we began exploring space, scientists were studying changes taking place in the earth's atmosphere. now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the

air. that wasn't news. but in the late 1950s, the national weather service began measuring the levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, with the worry that rising levels might someday disrupt the fragile balance that makes our planet so hospitable. and what they've found, year after year, is that the levels of carbon pollution in our atmosphere have increased dramatically. that science, accumulated and reviewed over decades, tells us that our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on all of humankind. the 12 warmest years in recorded history have all come in the last 15 years. last year, temperatures in some areas of the ocean reached

record highs, and ice in the arctic shrank to its smallest size on record - faster than most models had predicted it would. these are facts. now, we know that no single weather event is caused solely by climate change. droughts and fires and floods, they go back to ancient times. but we also know that in a world that's warmer than it used to be, all weather events are affected by a warming planet. the fact that sea level in new york, in new york harbor, are now a foot higher than a century ago - that didn't cause hurricane sandy, but it certainly contributed to the destruction that left large parts of our mightiest city dark and underwater.

the potential impacts go beyond rising sea levels. here at home, 2012 was the warmest year in our history. midwest farms were parched by the worst drought since the dust bowl, and then drenched by the wettest spring on record. western wildfires scorched an area larger than the state of maryland. just last week, a heat wave in alaska shot temperatures into the 90s. and we know that the costs of these events can be measured in lost lives and lost livelihoods, lost homes, lost businesses, hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency services and disaster relief. in fact, those who are already feeling the effects of climate change don't have time to deny it - they're busy dealing with it.

firefighters are braving longer wildfire seasons, and states and federal governments have to figure out how to budget for that. i had to sit on a meeting with the department of interior and agriculture and some of the rest of my team just to figure out how we're going to pay for more and more expensive fire seasons. farmers see crops wilted one year, washed away the next; and the higher food prices get passed on to you, the american consumer. mountain communities worry about what smaller snowpacks will mean for tourism - and then, families at the bottom of the mountains wonder what it will mean for their drinking water. americans across the country are already paying the price of inaction in insurance premiums, state and local taxes, and the costs of rebuilding and disaster

relief. so the question is not whether we need to act. the overwhelming judgment of science - of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements -- has put all that to rest. ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest. they've acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it. so the question now is whether we will have the courage to act before it's too late. and how we answer will have a profound impact on the world that we leave behind not just to you, but to your children and to your grandchildren. as a president, as a father, and as an american, i'm here to say

[applause] act. i refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that's beyond fixing. and that's why, today, i'm announcing a new national climate action plan, and i'm here to enlist your generation's help in keeping the united states of america a leader - a global leader - in the fight against climate change. this plan builds on progress that we've already made. last year, i took office -- the year that i took office, my

administration pledged to reduce america's greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent from their 2005 levels by the end of this decade. and we rolled up our sleeves and we got to work. we doubled the electricity we generated from wind and the sun. we doubled the mileage our cars will get on a gallon of gas by the middle of the next decade. [applause] here at georgetown, i unveiled my strategy for a secure energy future. and thanks to the ingenuity of our businesses, we're starting to produce much more of our own energy. we're building the first nuclear power plants in more than three decades -- in georgia and south carolina. for the first time in 18 years, america is poised to produce

more of our own oil than we buy from other nations. and today, we produce more natural gas than anybody else. so we're producing energy. and these advances have grown our economy, they've created new jobs, they can't be shipped overseas -- and, by the way, they've also helped drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly 20 years. since 2006, no country on earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the united states of america. [applause] so it's a good start. but the reason we're all here in the heat today is because we know we've got more to do. in my state of the union address, i urged congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that republican and democratic

senators worked on together a few years ago. and i still want to see that happen. i'm willing to work with anyone to make that happen. but this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan gridlock. it demands our attention now. and this is my plan to meet it a plan to cut carbon pollution; a plan to protect our country from the impacts of climate change; and a plan to lead the world in a coordinated assault on a changing climate.[applause] this plan begins with cutting carbon pollution by changing the way we use energy - using less dirty energy, using more clean energy, wasting less energy throughout our economy.

forty-three years ago, congress passed a law called the clean air act of 1970. [applause] it was a good law. the reasoning behind it was simple -- new technology can protect our health by protecting the air we breathe from harmful pollution. and that law passed the senate unanimously. think about that -- it passed the senate unanimously. it passed the house of representatives 375 to 1. i don't know who the one guy was i haven't looked that up. you can barely get that many votes to name a post office these days. it was signed into law by a republican president. it was later strengthened by another republican president. this used to be a bipartisan issue.

six years ago, the supreme court ruled that greenhouse gases are pollutants covered by that same clean air act. and they required the environmental protection agency, the epa, to determine whether they're a threat to our health and welfare. in 2009, the epa determined that they are a threat to both our health and our welfare in many different ways -- from dirtier air to more common heat waves - -and, therefore, subject to regulation. today, about 40 percent of america's carbon pollution comes from our power plants. but here's the thing: right now, there are no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution that those plants can pump into our air. none. zero. we limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury and sulfur and arsenic in our air or our water, but power plants can

still dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air for free. that's not right, that's not safe, and it needs to stop. [applause] so today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all americans, i'm directing the environmental protection agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants. [applause] i'm also directing the epa to develop these standards in an open and transparent way, to

provide flexibility to different states with different needs, and build on the leadership that many states, and cities, and companies have already shown. in fact, many power companies have already begun modernizing their plants, and creating new jobs in the process. others have shifted to burning cleaner natural gas instead of dirtier fuel sources. nearly a dozen states have already implemented or are implementing their own market- based programs to reduce carbon pollution. more than 25 have set energy efficiency targets. more than 35 have set renewable energy targets. over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. so the idea of setting higher pollution standards for our power plants is not new. it's just time for washington to catch up with the rest of the country. and that's what we intend to do.

now, what you'll hear from the special interests and their allies in congress is that this will kill jobs and crush the economy, and basically end american free enterprise as we know it. and the reason i know you'll hear those things is because that's what they said every time america sets clear rules and better standards for our air and our water and our children's health. and every time, they've been wrong. for example, in 1970, when we decided through the clean air act to do something about the smog that was choking our cities and, by the way, most young

people here aren't old enough to remember what it was like, but when i was going to school in 1979-1980 in los angeles, there were days where folks couldn't go outside. and the sunsets were spectacular because of all the pollution in the air. but at the time when we passed the clean air act to try to get rid of some of this smog, some of the same doomsayers were saying new pollution standards will decimate the auto industry. guess what -- it didn't happen. our air got cleaner. in 1990, when we decided to do something about acid rain, they said our electricity bills would go up, the lights would go off, businesses around the country would suffer -- i quote - "a quiet death." none of it happened, except we cut acid rain dramatically. see, the problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is

that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in american business and american ingenuity. [inaudible] [applause] these critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can't or they won't do it. they'll just kind of give up and quit. but in america, we know that's not true. look at our history. when we restricted cancer- causing chemicals in plastics and leaded fuel in our cars, it didn't end the plastics industry or the oil industry. american chemists came up with better substitutes. when we phased out cfcs -- the gases that were depleting the ozone layer -- it didn't kill off refrigerators or air- conditioners or deodorant. american workers and businesses

figured out how to do it better without harming the environment as much. the fuel standards that we put in place just a few years ago didn't cripple automakers. the american auto industry retooled, and today, our automakers are selling the best cars in the world at a faster rate than they have in five years -- with more hybrid, more plug-in, more fuel-efficient cars for everybody to choose from.[applause] so the point is, if you look at our history, don't bet against american industry. don't bet against american workers. don't tell folks that we have to choose between the health of our children or the health of our [applause] the old rules may say we can't protect our environment and promote economic growth at the same time, but in america, we've

always used new technologies -- we've used science; we've used research and development and discovery to make the old rules obsolete. today, we use more clean energy more renewables and natural gas which is supporting hundreds of thousands of good jobs. we waste less energy, which saves you money at the pump and in your pocketbooks. and guess what -- our economy is 60 percent bigger than it was 20 years ago, while our carbon emissions are roughly back to where they were 20 years ago. so, obviously, we can figure this out. it's not an either/or; it's a both/and. we've got to look after our children; we have to look after our future; and we have to grow the economy and create jobs. we can do all of that as long as we don't fear the future; instead we seize it.[applause] and, by the way, don't take my

word for it -- recently, more than 500 businesses, including giants like gm and nike, issued a climate declaration, calling action on climate change "one of the great economic opportunities of the 21st century." walmart is working to cut its carbon pollution by 20 percent and transition completely to renewable energy.[applause] walmart deserves a cheer for that. but think about it. would the biggest company, the biggest retailer in america - would they really do that if it weren't good for business, if it weren't good for their shareholders? a low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. and i want america to build that engine. i want america to build that future -- right here in the united states of america. that's our task.[applause]

now, one thing i want to make sure everybody understands -- this does not mean that we're going to suddenly stop producing fossil fuels. our economy wouldn't run very well if it did. and transitioning to a clean energy economy takes time. but when the doomsayers trot out the old warnings that these ambitions will somehow hurt our energy supply, just remind them that america produced more oil than we have in 15 years. what is true is that we can't just drill our way out of the energy and climate challenge that we face.[applause] that's not possible. i put forward in the past an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but our energy strategy must be about more than just producing more oil. and, by the way, it's certainly got to be about more than just building one pipeline.[applause]

now, i know there's been, for example, a lot of controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the keystone pipeline, that would carry oil from canadian tar sands down to refineries in the gulf. and the state department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. that's how it's always been done. but i do want to be clear: allowing the keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest. and our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.[applause] the net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward.

it's relevant. now, even as we're producing more domestic oil, we're also producing more cleaner-burning natural gas than any other country on earth. and, again, sometimes there are disputes about natural gas, but let me say this: we should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions. federally supported technology has helped our businesses drill more effectively and extract more gas. and now, we'll keep working with the industry to make drilling safer and cleaner, to make sure that we're not seeing methane emissions, and to put people to work modernizing our natural gas infrastructure so that we can power more homes and businesses with cleaner energy.

the bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. it's lowering many families' heat and power bills. and it's the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future. and that brings me to the second way that we're going to reduce carbon pollution -- by using more clean energy. over the past four years, we've doubled the electricity that we generate from zero-carbon wind and solar power. [applause] and that means jobs -- jobs manufacturing the wind turbines that now generate enough electricity to power nearly 15 million homes; jobs installing

the solar panels that now generate more than four times the power at less cost than just a few years ago. i know some republicans in washington dismiss these jobs, but those who do need to call home -- because 75 percent of all wind energy in this country is generated in republican districts. and that may explain why last year, republican governors in kansas and oklahoma and iowa -- iowa, by the way, a state that harnesses almost 25% of its electricity from the wind -- helped us in the fight to extend tax credits for wind energy manufacturers and producers. tens of thousands good jobs were on the line, and those jobs were worth the fight.

and countries like china and germany are going all in in the race for clean energy. i believe americans build things better than anybody else. i want america to win that race, but we can't win it if we're not in it. so the plan i'm announcing today will help us double again our energy from wind and sun. today, i'm directing the interior department to green light enough private, renewable energy capacity on public lands to power more than 6 million homes by 2020. the department of defense -- the biggest energy consumer in america -- will install 3 gigawatts of renewable power on its bases, generating about the

same amount of electricity each year as you'd get from burning 3 million tons of coal. and because billions of your tax dollars continue to still subsidize some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world, my budget once again calls for congress to end the tax breaks for big oil companies, and invest in the clean-energy companies that will fuel our future. [applause] now, the third way to reduce carbon pollution is to waste less energy -- in our cars, our homes, our businesses. the fuel standards we set over the past few years mean that by the middle of the next decade, the cars and trucks we buy will go twice as far on a gallon of gas. that means you'll have to fill up half as often; we'll all reduce carbon pollution. and we built on that success by setting the first-ever standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses

and vans. and in the coming months, we'll partner with truck makers to do it again for the next generation of vehicles. meanwhile, the energy we use in our homes and our businesses and our factories, our schools, our hospitals -- that's responsible for about one-third of our greenhouse gases. the good news is simple upgrades don't just cut that pollution; they put people to work -- manufacturing and installing smarter lights and windows and sensors and appliances. and the savings show up in our electricity bills every month -- forever. that's why we've set new energy standards for appliances like refrigerators and dishwashers. and today, our businesses are building better ones that will also cut carbon pollution and cut consumers' electricity bills by hundreds of billions of dollars.

that means, by the way, that our federal government also has to lead by example. i'm proud that federal agencies have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 15 percent since i took office. but we can do even better than that. so today, i'm setting a new goal: your federal government will consume 20% of its electricity from renewable sources within the next seven years. we are going to set that goal. [applause] we'll also encourage private capital to get off the sidelines and get into these energy-saving investments. and by the end of the next decade, these combined efficiency standards for appliances and federal buildings will reduce carbon pollution by at least three billion tons. that's an amount equal to what our entire energy sector emits in nearly half a year. so i know these standards don't sound all that sexy, but think of it this way: that's the equivalent of planting 7.6 billion trees and letting them

grow for 10 years -- all while doing the dishes. it is a great deal and we need to be doing it. [applause] so using less dirty energy, transitioning to cleaner sources of energy, wasting less energy through our economy is where we need to go. and this plan will get us there faster. but i want to be honest -- this will not get us there overnight. the hard truth is carbon pollution has built up in our atmosphere for decades now. and even if we americans do our part, the planet will slowly keep warming for some time to come. the seas will slowly keep rising and storms will get more severe, based on the science.

it's like tapping the brakes of a car before you come to a complete stop and then can shift into reverse. it's going to take time for carbon emissions to stabilize. so in the meantime, we're going to need to get prepared. and that's why this plan will also protect critical sectors of our economy and prepare the united states for the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. states and cities across the country are already taking it upon themselves to get ready. miami beach is hardening its water supply against seeping saltwater. the overwhelmingly republican legislature in texas voted to spend money on a new water development bank as a long- running drought cost jobs and forced a town to truck in water from the outside.

new york city is fortifying its 520 miles of coastline as an insurance policy against more frequent and costly storms. and what we've learned from hurricane sandy and other disasters is that we've got to build smarter, more resilient infrastructure that can protect our homes and businesses, and withstand more powerful storms. that means stronger seawalls, natural barriers, hardened power grids, hardened water systems, hardened fuel supplies. so the budget i sent congress includes funding to support communities that build these projects, and this plan directs federal agencies to make sure that any new project funded with taxpayer dollars is built to withstand increased flood risks. and we'll partner with communities seeking help to prepare for droughts and floods, reduce the risk of wildfires, protect the dunes and wetlands that pull double duty as green space and as natural storm barriers. and we'll also open our climate data and nasa climate imagery to the public, to make sure that cities and states assess risk under different climate

scenarios, so that we don't waste money building structures that don't withstand the next storm. so that's what my administration will do to support the work already underway across america, not only to cut carbon pollution, but also to protect ourselves from climate change. but as i think everybody here understands, no nation can solve this challenge alone -- not even one as powerful as ours. and that's why the final part of our plan calls on america to lead -- lead international efforts to combat a changing climate. [applause] and make no mistake -- the world still looks to america to lead. when i spoke to young people in turkey a few years ago, the first question i got wasn't about the challenges that part of the world faces. it was about the climate challenge that we all face, and america's role in addressing it.

and it was a fair question, because as the world's largest economy and second-largest carbon emitter, as a country with unsurpassed ability to drive innovation and scientific breakthroughs, as the country that people around the world continue to look to in times of crisis, we've got a vital role to play. we can't stand on the sidelines. we've got a unique responsibility. and the steps that i've outlined today prove that we're willing to meet that responsibility. though all america's carbon pollution fell last year, global carbon pollution rose to a record high. that's a problem. developing countries are using more and more energy, and tens of millions of people entering a global middle class naturally want to buy cars and air- conditioners of their own, just like us.

can't blame them for that. and when you have conversations with poor countries, they'll say, well, you went through these stages of development -- why can't we? but what we also have to recognize is these same countries are also more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than we are. they don't just have as much to lose, they probably have more to lose. developing nations with some of the fastest-rising levels of carbon pollution are going to have to take action to meet this challenge alongside us. they're watching what we do, but we've got to make sure that they're stepping up to the plate

as well. we compete for business with them, but we also share a planet. and we have to all shoulder the responsibility for keeping the planet habitable, or we're going to suffer the consequences -- together. so to help more countries transitioning to cleaner sources of energy and to help them do it faster, we're going to partner with our private sector to apply private sector technological know-how in countries that transition to natural gas. we've mobilized billions of dollars in private capital for clean energy projects around the world. today, i'm calling for an end of public financing for new coal plants overseas -- unless they deploy carbon-capture technologies, or there's no other viable way for the poorest countries to generate electricity. and i'm directing my administration to launch

negotiations toward global free trade in environmental goods and services, including clean energy technology, to help more countries skip past the dirty phase of development and join a global low-carbon economy. they don't have to repeat all the same mistakes that we made. we've also intensified our climate cooperation with major emerging economies like india and brazil, and china -- the world's largest emitter. so, for example, earlier this month, president xi of china and i reached an important agreement to jointly phase down our production and consumption of dangerous hydrofluorocarbons, and we intend to take more steps together in the months to come. it will make a difference. it's a significant step in the

reduction of carbon emissions. and finally, my administration will redouble our efforts to engage our international partners in reaching a new global agreement to reduce carbon pollution through concrete action. four years ago, in copenhagen, every major country agreed, for the first time, to limit carbon pollution by 2020. two years ago, we decided to forge a new agreement beyond 2020 that would apply to all countries, not just developed countries. what we need is an agreement that's ambitious -- because that's what the scale of the challenge demands. we need an inclusive agreement because every country has to play its part. and if we can come together and get this right, we can define a sustainable future for your generation. so that's my plan. [applause]

the actions i've announced today should send a strong signal to the world that america intends to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution. we will continue to lead by the power of our example, because that's what the united states of america has always done. i am convinced this is the fight america can, and will, lead in the 21st century. and i'm convinced this is a fight that america must lead. but it will require all of us to do our part. we'll need scientists to design new fuels, and we'll need farmers to grow new fuels. we'll need engineers to devise new technologies, and we'll need

businesses to make and sell those technologies. we'll need workers to operate assembly lines that hum with high-tech, zero-carbon components, but we'll also need builders to hammer into place the foundations for a new clean energy era. we're going to need to give special care to people and communities that are unsettled by this transition -- not just here in the united states but around the world. and those of us in positions of responsibility, we'll need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well- connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of posterity. because you and your children,

and your children's children, will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. as i said before, climate change has become a partisan issue, but it hasn't always been. it wasn't that long ago that republicans led the way on new and innovative policies to tackle these issues. richard nixon opened the epa. george h.w. bush declared -- first u.s. president to declare "human activities are changing the atmosphere in unexpected and unprecedented ways." someone who never shies away from a challenge, john mccain, introduced a market-based cap- and-trade bill to slow carbon pollution. the woman that i've chosen to head up the epa, gina mccarthy, she's worked -- she's terrific.

gina has worked for the epa in my administration, but she's also worked for five republican governors. she's got a long track record of working with industry and business leaders to forge common-sense solutions. unfortunately, she's being held up in the senate. she's been held up for months, forced to jump through hoops no cabinet nominee should ever have to -- not because she lacks qualifications, but because there are too many in the republican party right now who think that the environmental protection agency has no business protecting our environment from carbon pollution. the senate should confirm her without any further obstruction or delay. but more broadly, we've got to move beyond partisan politics on this issue. i want to be clear -- i am willing to work with anybody -- republicans, democrats, independents, libertarians, greens -- anybody -- to combat this threat on behalf of our kids. i am open to all sorts of new ideas, maybe better ideas, to make sure that we deal with climate change in a way that promotes jobs and growth.

nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but i don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. we don't have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. [applause] sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm. and ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here. our founders believed that those of us in positions of power are elected not just to serve as custodians of the present, but as caretakers of the future. and they charged us to make decisions with an eye on a longer horizon than the arc of our own political careers. that's what the american people

expect. that's what they deserve. and someday, our children, and our children's children, will look at us in the eye and they'll ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer, more stable world? and i want to be able to say, yes, we did. don't you want that? americans are not a people who look backwards; we're a people who look forward. we're not a people who fear what the future holds; we shape it. what we need in this fight are citizens who will stand up, and speak up, and compel us to do what this moment demands. understand this is not just a job for politicians. so i'm going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your

colleagues, your parents, your friends. tell them what's at stake. speak up at town halls, church groups, pta meetings. push back on misinformation. speak up for the facts. broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future. convince those in power to reduce our carbon pollution. push your own communities to adopt smarter practices. invest. divest. remind folks there's no contradiction between a sound environment and strong economic growth. and remind everyone who represents you at every level of government that sheltering

future generations against the ravages of climate change is a prerequisite for your vote. i understand the politics will be tough. the challenge we must accept will not reward us with a clear moment of victory. there's no gathering army to defeat. there's no peace treaty to sign. when president kennedy said we'd go to the moon within the decade, we knew we'd build a spaceship and we'd meet the goal. our progress here will be measured differently -- in crises averted, in a planet preserved. but can we imagine a more worthy goal? for while we may not live to see the full realization of our ambition, we will have the satisfaction of knowing that the world we leave to our children will be better off for what we did. "it makes you realize," that astronaut said all those years ago, "just what you have back there on earth." and that image in the photograph, that bright blue ball rising over the moon's surface, containing everything

we hold dear -- the laughter of children, a quiet sunset, all the hopes and dreams of posterity -- that's what's at stake. that's what we're fighting for. and if we remember that, i'm absolutely sure we'll succeed. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of [applause] forever"]and stripes ♪ [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow, representative sean duffy and representative sheila jackson-lee. of our spotlight on magazines, we will discuss "rolling stone" in the article on colorado's economy and the decision to legalize recreational marijuana. , e-mails, phone calls and tweets on the supreme court's ruling on the voters act. each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> in some ways, had there not been a sherman, lincoln would maybe have been nominated that he would not have won the election. he won a 56% of popular vote. a lot ofclellan had momentum in september.

he was writing letters to sherman and others because he expected to become president. did not say aou word. he did not say anything but smile. he went into one hole and i don't know where he is now, but he came out another, all is good. liam tecumseh sherman saved the union effort and i cannot think of anyone in the time of george thomas or sheridan who could have done it. talkstor davis hanson about five generals that he say single-handedly reversed the direction of the war to their countries favor. saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern part of book tv on c-span2. >> democratic congressman ed markey has won the special election to fill john kerry senate seat in massachusetts. withat out gabriel gomez 55% of the vote. mr. markey was elected to the house in 1974.

he spoke to supporters in boston. our coverage is courtesy of a station in boston. ♪ glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye glory days glory days ♪ yeah, all right ♪ well, there's a girl up the block she could turn allul the boy's heads ♪ >> thank you all for this evening. this victory belongs to you.

it belongs to your families. i amdeeply humbled and profoundly grateful. thank you, so much. [applause] the selection is about your hopes, your dreams, your families, your future. and i know that. i'm going to remember that. by thanking my beautiful and brilliant wife, susan. [applause] our 25th wedding anniversary, and i'm going to have to get her a very special present. [applause]

i want to thank my brothers and their families who have always believed in me, and i want to thank the dream team of a campaign that came together gallagher whok did an unbelievable job over five months. they hit the ground running and they never stopped him for five months. i want to hear a round of applause for gabriel gomez. we may disagree on the shoes, but we do agree on one thing -- we love the state of massachusetts and we love the united states of america. [applause]

america is the greatest country on earth. my father was a milk man who drove a truck. was going to be senior class president in high school, but her mother, my grandmother, died. she had to stay behind to raise her younger sisters. toas the first in my family go to college. i drove an ice cream truck to work my way through boston college as a commuter. [applause] but thanks to the opportunities this country gave me, this son of a milk man is going to serve the state of massachusetts in the united states senate. [applause]

i am a son of boston, but i do not go to occupy a seat. i go there to stand for you, to speak for you, to seek change to lift up your families and everyonere, and for in this state, regardless of how you voted. i say to you tonight, this is your seat in the united states senate. [applause] five months ago, at the ymca, we began this campaign. crisscrossed the commonwealth from boston to the berkshires, from new bedford