second, we could pass the pending free trade agreements that are sitting there unpassed to increase exportsin the u.s. and jobs in the manufacturing sector. third, we could create the infrastructure bank so that we can start putting back to work the 1 million construction workers that are unemployed in the country. and fourth, we could pass in a bipartisan way a balanced deficit reduction package that would remove the uncertainty which is now sitting on top of the entire private sector over whether u.s. government is going to be willing to pay its bills. that's a very dangerous argument. we shouldn't be having it. we should pass a balanced plan and be done with it. >> infrastructure is something we thought the stimulus, this biggest expenditure of money so quickly in american history was really going to get started. and you're talking about 1 million people out of work in the infrastructure sector. your ideological opponents and republicans are say stimulus didn't work. and they'll even say straight-out that stimulus hurt jobs because it was the government -- government overspending getting

decision of the people's representatives, this administration and four justices would have used an unpassed bill to delay a death sentence. how extreme. they would have had the courts not allow the preferences of the american people as expressed through their elected representatives but instead their own policy preferences. how extreme. but under our system of government, the results of the democratic process are entitled to prevail unless the constitution and only the constitution clearly provides otherwise. the position of the obama administration and the four dissenting justices also is harmful to american democracy in yet another way. if the american people dislike what congress is doing, you know, it's very simple. in the next election, elect new representatives and senators. they can ask that judicial -- federal judicial nominees be stopped or that laws be passed that overturn judicial decisions made under federal law, but what are the american people to do if judges make decisions based on the views of foreign governments and international tribunals that are contrary to our very own

the department recently argued in another case that the court should rely on unpassed bills in deciding the legality of government action. this is a ridiculous argument, one which courts never accepted. the rule of law requires rulings based on actual laws, not on policy preferences. the obama administration lost that argument in that other case called the lahal case, even though four judges agreed somehow they ought to make a decision on the fact that congress might pass a law opposed to what the law actually is. neither the administration or any judge to rely on passed bill s598 arguing or deciding that the constitutionality of doma, nor should the administration or any judge accept the argument that justice department made in the case that there is any legal significance to the mere introduction of a bill even if it is strongly supported by at administration nor should any judge be of the erroneous. that this coping will pass s598. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i note in the other case you're referring to we have treaty obligations that any time we enter a treaty i