Transcripts For CSPAN Politics Public Policy Today 20120428

only politically expedient but extremely harmful. they hit health care. health care. they refuse to end a tax break for bill oil that never should have been given in the first place. even though the big five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the fourth quarter of last year alone. this bill is shameless. it is shameful. vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentlelady from illinois continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: yes, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yold one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, in my dictionary a slush fund is defined as a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda. yet, the speaker of the house used that term, the chair of the education and labor committee used that term slush fund to describe the prevention of public health fund which has screenings for cervical cancer and birth defects and immunizations. we are the most wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. i refuse to accept the idea that to solve one problem we have to create another. the democrats propose writing the ryan budget wrong by taxing oil company profits. therefore, their suggestion that we go from a 3.4% interest to 6.8% can be paid for out of the wealth of oil companies that benefit from our country so tremendously. mr. speaker, i reject the blackmail inherent in h.r. 4628. i don't want anybody to know that it's ok to pit one group against another and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. we have to do the right thing and we have to choose both. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: yes, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: yes, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, unless college acts -- congress acts, stafford loan rates will double. i spoke to some students at san diego state university just just the other day worried about their day-to-day needs and they asked us not to play politics with this issue. new grads should have increased opportunities, not bills they can't pay. a college degree should invite calls from job recruiters, not from collection agencies. i'm glad that the majority has abruptly changed course by agreeing to stop the interest rate hike, but it is unacceptable this this bill proposes to pay for this by repealing the prevention fund. the bill creates a choice between funding cancer screening for a mother or making college more affordable for her daughter. would you want to be that mother? that sends the wrong message to the american people about our priorities. i urge my colleagues to support a more equitable solution that promotes the health of the american families and the future of our bry minds. i -- bright minds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i'd ask the gentleman, does he have more -- mr. tierney: at least five more speakers. mrs. biggert: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clarke: i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. we talk about the cost of capping student loan interest rates. well, i think we should extend the cap for longer than a year, and we don't need to cut people's health care screenings in order to do it. let's create jobs. that's how we can create the economic revenue. and one of the best ways for us to create jobs is to allow student loan borrowers the ability to pay down their loan according to their income for 10 years and then making them eligible to have the balance of their student loans if they own any, to be forgiven. that's the best economic stimulus. you know, these loans are not just for the benefit of the borrower. it also makes our country stronger. the more our people are trained and educated, we can sell the best products overseas and create the best technology. that creates jobs for this country. it's in our national interest to help pay down these debts and forgive certain student loans. let's redirect some of our money from afghanistan and iraq and use the savings to forgive student loans. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: you know, once again the republican leadership has shown it's more interested in playing political games than it is in getting things done. we're talking about student loans here. we should be putting our heads together and coming up with a better way to pay for lowering student loan rates, not eviscerating health care prevention. this is nothing more than a cynical ploy. you know, the american people want us to work together. we have an opportunity to do this. this is what we really should be doing. there are lots of loopholes that we could close. my colleagues have mentioned big oil and big gas. we could close those loopholes. we have corporations making lots of money. we could close those loopholes. but what do the republicans decide to do? they decide to hurt health benefits and prevention benefits. this is not the way we should be going. we need to put our heads together and help these students. the democrats have side time and time again that this is our priority. we have voted against republican budgets that raise the amount that students have to pay in loans. stop playing your cynical games and let's get to work for the american people. let's put our heads together. let's help these students and let's not eviscerate health prevention. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlelady continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. peters: i rise in opposition to h.r. 4628, a misguided, deeply partisan bill which would cut $6 billion from the prevention and public health fund. for months i have been proud to help lead the charge to prevent student loan rates from doubling on july 1, so please excuse my surprise when i hear the majority talk about their strong support for keeping college loans affordable. this is a position that they have repeatedly rejected. apparently republicans have no interest in trying to prevent serious diseases. surely if republicans can ram a $46 billion tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, they can find a way to pay for both education and health care. i urge my colleagues to vote for defeat of this bill, stop protecting tax giveaways to big oil and pass a possibly bill to stop the doubling of student loan rates. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to enter into the record several documents. one is from the american council on education, representing 37 education associations and they say education has never been this important to america's economy as it is now. as we are encouraged by the proposals we have seen. administration, both parties have expressed strong support for keeping the interest rate at 3.4% without cutting other forms of student aid. enter that. another one is from lewis university in illinois saying doubling the interest in the subsidized stafford loans will discourage students in need who are striving to continue their degree study during these difficult economic times. thank you for your support for these students. and finally from joliet junior college saying that the college has -- serves population of seven counties in illinois. . college students were awarded $23 million in total financial aid. because of this the institution supports h.r. 4628, legislation that would prevent the scheduled rate hike. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reference material will be entered into the record. the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. as long as we are taking unanimous consent, i would like to internear the record letters from groups opposing the republican bill, h.r. 462, the american federation of teachers, american diabetes association, american federation of county and state employees, american lung association, american public health association, campaign for america's future, campaign for tobacco free kids, national association of county and city hospitals. afl-cio. trust for america's health. ussa. young inconvincibles, campus progress, ussa, young inconvincibles, national partnership of women and families. association of state and tear torial health officials. american public health association, mr. speaker, some 760 groups that support the prevention of public health fund. thank you. with that i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, last week the republican majority was adamantly opposed to this legislation. this week we are rushing it through on the floor today. that's a good thing. we are on the same page. the majority and the minority want to preserve student interest rates at 3.4%, not let them double to 6.8%. so if that is the case, why are we selecting mutually unacceptable ways to pay for this? it's as though we are resorting to the trick bags. you raid the health fund that's so important to us, we present the oil company provision that is so unacceptable to you. what we should do is find a way to put some limits, some incentives to keep tuition increases at our below the rate of inflation. they were up 8.4%. if we work together, that would be a double win for students and parents. we could keep those interest rates low and we could start bringing down the escalation and tuition increases that are unacceptable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding and his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many other issues in education. mr. speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate on student loans to more than double. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4628. while congress must prevent the stafford loan from doubling, it is unconscionable that republican leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care. too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college degree. it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in their education and health. republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for this by gutting the prevention in public health fund, the so purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up the cost of health care in the first place. instead of sacrificing our public health to score political points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue their dreams without the burdens of a necessary cost and debt. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: is the gentleman ready to close? mr. tierney: we have one more speaker to close. does the gentlewoman have more speakers? mrs. biggert: no. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve? the gentlelady reserves her time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend from massachusetts. just a few weeks ago on this very floor our republican colleagues voted for the republican budget that called for a doubling of interest rates on student loans. on seven million american students and they voted against the democratic alternative budget which would have prevented that increase in student loan interest rates. so what's happened over the last couple weeks? well, president obama has gone to the country, gone to students, he's told the story about what the republican budget would do. so we are here today. but make no mistake, mr. speaker , our republican colleagues haven't changed their minds about this. they have changed their tactics. if they really wanted to prevent student loans from increasing, they wouldn't seek to cover the costs by by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening, by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, by cutting other women's health care measures. they wouldn't push a measure the president has already said he would veto. mr. speaker, we have a proposal, let's cover the costs by getting rid of the subsidies for big oil companies. that's the real slush fund around here. the big taxpayer subsidies go for that purpose. let's get the job done and let's not play political games. unfortunately what we are seeing here, mr. speaker, is an effort to seek political cover. let's get the job done for real. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: to close. it seems like came in and i think the first thing that i talked about here is how i hoped that we would be able to work together on a bipartisan basis. it just seems like this is so hard to do in this political time and i just -- i really think that in major legislation we really have to work together to make -- to find a solution. but it seems like the other side is always ready to tell us what we think and what we are doing and why we are doing it. we are doing this because we really want to have our students have the ability to have a quality education. it just seems like we are so different on the pay-fors. i know that everybody agrees on the program itself and how we have to do it, but we can't seem to do anything without giving us a cynical view, it bothers me. it seems like we were talking about the pay-fors, the other side of the aisle first reaction is to raise taxes for everything. and ours has always been to reduce spending. we think this is the way to go. i think we have just got to find a way to get together. i have said in my opening statement that i hope that we would be able to get together and work together. i also the senate, and i hope that when this bill goes over to the senate that there is a negotiation, that there is a conference so that we really can iron this out and make sure that there is not a raising of the -- to the 6.38%. it kind of makes you wonder it just seems like the political maneuvering certainly is continuing on the student loan issues and i guess today when we have this vote we'll see what happens, but i really hope that when we get to the senate so that we have the opportunity to do this. i know that -- i just want to go back a little bit to what happened in the education committee yesterday. mr. roby talked about and so did mr. tierney. i think that the secretary sebelius did say that there were services outside the prevention and public health fund that will remain available to individuals who seek preventive care, such as cancer prevention and care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, screenings for birth defects and develop disabilities, tobacco prevention at the c.d.c., and efforts that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity to prevent obesity. i think it's really a lot that we believe in for prevention and we heard from mr. stearns of the appropriations and how that takes care of a lot of the prevention issues. i think that the american people are really very knowledgeable now about prevention and what they need to do and have the ability to do this on their own as well. i hope that this political bickering is not what the bill is all about. what the bill is all about is to reduce to 4% the interest rates on the subsidized stafford loans. i hope that this bill will pass. i urge my colleagues to vote for it. minutes in support of her motion. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, this is the final, it's the only amendment to this bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. instead, if the house adopts this amendment we will immediately move to final passage. mr. speaker, it appears that we now all agree that we cannot let student loan rates double come this july. that's good. but i wish we were also looking for a bipartisan solution to funding the continuation of student loans. but stead the majority is engaging in other partisan attack on public health funding. funding that improves the lives of americans and the productivity of our work force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. mrs. capps: i strongloppose this position and their proposed cuts to the prevention fund. funds that will make women and children healthier and that's why i ever offered this straightforward amendment. it wouldnsure that poor policy decisions made here in congress, naly to get rid of the only dedicated funding we have for public health and prevention, that these decisions do not give insurance companies an excuse to cut benefits or increase costs of preventive serces for women and children. these services include critical access to contraception, mammograms, cancer screenings, and immunizations. whatever our strong disagreements are about the underlying bill, we surely can agree that no insurance company should use this as an excuse to hinder access to basic preventive services. the public health and prevention fund is a critical investment in both our nation's health and our economic future, especially for women and children. its value cannot be understated. a healthy mother is better able to raise a child. a healthy child will be ready and able to learn in school. and a healthy worker is more productive for american businesses. moreover, this fund is critical to bringing down health care costs. it targets the most prevalent and preventable of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. the fund has been used to ensure that our children have the vaccines they need to avoid painful and expensive ildhood illnesses. it supports programs to prevent birth defects and autism surveillance. and the fund supports critical women's health screening, 600,000 screengs will be cut with the repeal of this fund. these are not frivolous. as mothers and grandmothers, we know the importance of preventing birth defects and having access vaccines, knowing we are doing everything we possibly can to ensuring that our children have a healthy start. as a nurse i know the importance of preventing chronic diseases and early cancers catching it early. and as a taxpayer i surely kno that we cannot afford to keep ignoring the cost benefit of prevention. programs that have a five to one return on our smart investment. states and counties all over the country are realizing the portance of prevention programs. that's why they all embrace the prevention fund that this bill wipes out. it wipes it out completely. in fact, 760 nonpartisan groups across the country have signed on in support of the prevention fu. i would like to insert this list of organizations for the public record. 760 nonpartisan groups. this investment in public health has been a long time coming. to abolish it now will send us back to square one just so we can least afford to do that. now, finally, mr. speaker, the women of this country are watching. they are watching us here today. they have watched as countless bills and budget proposals have moved through this house, attacking programs that keep women healthy, their children fed, and families above water. now is the time to stand up for women. vote for this final amendment to this bill to show the women of america that we support them and we support their families and we support the services that they need to lead a happyier and healthier life. -- happier and healthier life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. without objection, the gentlelady referenced material is entered into the record. let the house be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, seek recognition? mr. -- the speaker: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the speaker: how in the world did we ever get here? think about this. a fight being picked over an issue that everyone knew was going to be resolved. a fight being picked over an ise that there is no fight over. democrats five years ago put this cliff in the law that would require student loan interest rates to more than double on july 1. i don't know why they did it, but they did it. nobody wants to see stent loan interest rates go up. especially when you got recent college graduates, 50% are either unemployed or underemployed as a result of the prident's economic policies. so, we got democrats and republicans for months who have been talking about trying to fix this problem. and while we don't yet have e solution to the long-te solution to this problem, the chairman is continuing to work on it, we believe that we shouldn't put students at risk and that we ought to make sure that their interest rates don't go up. so we developed the short-term policy to solve this problem for the next year while the committee has time to look at a long-term solution to this problem. le why do people in-- why do people insist that we have to have a political fight on something where there is no fight? there is absolutely no fight. people want to politize this because it's an election year, but my god, do we have to fight about everything? and now, now we are going have a fig over women's health. give me a break. this is the latest plank in the so-called war on women. entirely created, entirely created by my colleaguescross the aisle for political gain. now let's review the facts. let's review the facts. the president in his budget called for reductions in spending in this slushed if fund that's given to the secretary of h h.s. the president called for retux in spending. -- reduction in spending. you may have already forgotten that several months ago you voted to cut $4 billion out of this slush fund when we passed the pafrle tax bill. so to accuse us of wanting to gut women's health is absolutely not true. but why -- ladies and gentlemen, this is beneath us. this is beneath the dignity of this house and the dignity of the public trust we enjoy from our constituents. they expect us to come here and be honest with each other, to work out these issues and to pick this political fight where there is no fight is just silly. give me a break. vote no on this motion to recommit, vote yes on the final bill, let's send it over to the senate now. ups of the house went on to approve the measure. because of the offsets, which eliminate funding for preventive care established in the 2010 affordable care act, the white house has threatened to veto the measure. the senate still needs to debate and vote on their version. for more about your house and senate members, committee assignments, purchase c-span's congressional directory. you'll also find information about cabinet members, supreme court justices, and the nation's governors. it is $12.95 plus shipping and handling. you can order online. coming up tonight, president obama speech to military personnel at fort stewart army base in georgia. later, and another chance to hear today's house floor debate on extending low interest rates for federal student loans. tomorrow, on "washington journal," daniel schuman. and georgetown university law school professor debate the 10th amendment of the constitution. which clarifies states' rights. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> where is the national public radio table? you guys are still here? that is good. i cannot remember where we landed on that. >> this weekend, the 98 annual white house correspondents' dinner. president obama and jimmy kimmel headlined the event. coverage starts with the red carpet arrivals live at 6:30. watch the entire dinner only on c-span. you can also sync up your experience on mind. --lonline. -- online. it is live saturday at 6:30 on c-span. on friday, president obama signed an executive order intended to help u.s. military personnel avoid being victims of education fraud. it requires more transparency about the dead military personnel take on -- the debt military personal take on. the president spoke before signing the order at fort stewart army base in georgia. this is 40 minutes. i have a wonderful wife of seven years and four beautiful children. i joined the army in 2001. i'm assigned to the second brigade, third infantry division. in 2010, a friend of mine told me about and online university. i could earn a degree quickly. i told him i was interested. thereafter, i was contacted by this for profit university and decided to enroll. this was an awful experience. i did not feel like i was learning. furthermore, i was not being challenged in class. i never wanted to be given grades. i wanted to earn them. i called the school because i was having trouble logging in to an online course. after several weeks, i received a phone call. it turns out they were not calling me to solve my problem. they were calling to recruit my wife. they were not looking out for my education. i felt the focus was all financial. i reported to my chain of command in search of ideas. to resolve this situation. i attended an educational fair in the fall of 2011. i enrolled in central texas college. i am pleased to report that i am taking classes and have everything i need. books, necessary classes, and sincere academic advisers. i am able to attend class around my training schedule. i am thankful the president and first lady are here to address this issue. i am glad they are taking action. ♪ ♪ please join me in welcoming our first lady and the commander-in- chief, president barack obama. [applause] ♪ [applause] [applause] >> hello, fort stewart. we are beyond thrilled -- beyond thrilled -- to be with all of you today. and before i get started, there's just one thing i want to say, and that is, hooah. >> hooah. >> did i do that right? >> hooah. >> all right, good. phew. i want to start by thanking sergeant marshall for that very kind introduction and for sharing his story with us today. sharing his story with us today. and i want to thank all of you -- our men and women in uniform, our veterans and your extraordinary families. absolutely. for the families, yes. [applause] one of my greatest privileges as first lady has been meeting folks like you on bases and communities all across this country. and i always say this, but i can never say it enough -- i am in awe of you. awe of you. i'm in awe of how many of you signed up to defend our country in a time of war, serving heroically through deployment after deployment. i'm in awe of your families -- the spouses who run their households all alone, the kids who step up at home and succeed at school and stay strong through all the challenges they face. with their service, they make your service possible. and i'm also in awe of our veterans because i know that your service doesn't end when you hang up your uniform. for so many of you, your whole life is a tour of duty, and as you become leaders in our communities and continue to give back to our country, you keep serving. and like so many americans, the more i've learned about the sacrifices you all make, the more i wanted to find a way to express my gratitude, and that's -- not just with words, but with action. action. and that's why last year jill biden and i started joining forces. it's a nationwide campaign to recognize, honor and support our veterans, our troops and our military families. and i have to tell you, we had barely even finished announcing this campaign when we were inundated with offers to help. i mean, so many people wanted to step up and show their appreciation that we hardly knew where to begin. where to begin. in our first year alone, more than 1,600 businesses hired more than 60,000 veterans, and they pledged to hire at least 170,000 more in the coming years. years. national associations of doctors and nurses representing millions of health professionals are working to improve treatment for post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injuries. we've had tv shows like "extreme makeover: home edition," "sesame street," organizations like nascar and disney, they're working to share the stories of our military families with the rest of the country. and these are just a few examples out of thousands all across the country. so if i can leave you with just one message today, i want you all to know that america does have your backs. and we are just getting started. we are going to keep at this. we're going to keep on working every day to serve all of you as well as you have served this country. country. and the man who has been leading the way is standing right next to me. [applause] [applause] and ladies, i think he's kind of cute. [applause] he was fighting for all of you long before he ever became president. he's made veteran's employment a national priority, with tax breaks for businesses that hire veterans and wounded warriors. he's working to end the outrage of veteran's homelessness once and for all. he championed the post-9/11 gi bill, which has helped more than half a million veterans and military families go to college. and today, with this new effort to ensure that you all get the education you've earned, that story continues. so please join me in welcoming your strongest advocate -- your commander-in-chief and our president, my husband, barack obama. obama. [applause] >> thank you. hello, fort stewart. it is good to be here at fort stewart. first of all, how about the first lady, michelle obama? [applause] hooah. she is a tough act to follow. for the gentlemen out there who are not yet married, let me just explain to you, your goal is to improve your gene pool by marrying somebody who is superior to you. isn't that right, general? listen, and as you just heard, when it comes to all of you -- when it comes to our military, our veterans, your families -- michelle obama and jill biden have your back. they are working tirelessly to make sure that our military families are treated with the honor and respect and support that they deserve. and i could not be prouder of all the efforts that they've been making on their behalf. [applause] it's a privilege to hang out with some of america's finest. >> hooah. >> the dog face soldiers of the third infantry division. rock of the marne. we've got a lot of folks in the house. we've got the raider brigade. we've got the spartan brigade. we've got the vanguard brigade. we've got the provider brigade. and we've got the falcon brigade. let me thank major general abrams and his beautiful wife, connie, for welcoming us. abe is doing an incredible job carrying on his family's incredible tradition of service to our country. so we are grateful for him. give him a big round of applause. [applause] i want to thank command sergeant major edd watson and his beautiful wife, sharon. i want to thank someone who's made it her life's mission to stand up for the financial security of you and your families, somebody who knows a little bit about military families and military service. and actually, this is a homecoming for her because she spent over three years when they were posted down here -- holly petraeus is in the house. i want you guys to give her a big round of applause. [applause] but most importantly, i want to thank all of you. i want to thank you for your service. i want to thank you for your sacrifice. i want to thank you for your unshakeable commitment to our country. you have worn the uniform with honor. honor. you've performed heroically in some of the most dangerous places on earth. you have done everything that has been asked of you, and more. and you have earned a special place in our nation's history. future generations will speak of your achievements. they'll speak of how the third infantry division's thunder run into baghdad signaled the end of a dictatorship, and how you brought iraq back from the brink of civil war. of civil war. they'll speak of you and your service in afghanistan and in the fight against al qaeda, which you have put on the path to defeat. and to the members of the special operations forces community, while the american people may never know the full extent of your service, they will surely speak of how you kept our country safe and strong, and how you delivered justice to our enemies. so history will remember what you did, and so will we. you did, and so will we. we will remember the profound sacrifices that you've made in these wars. michelle and i just had a few moments at the warriors walk, paying tribute to 441 of your fallen comrades -- men and women who gave their last full measure of devotion to keep our nation safe. and we will remember them. we will honor them -- always. and our thoughts and prayers also go out to the troops from fort stewart who are serving so bravely right now as we speak in afghanistan. [applause] and i know many of you will be deploying there, too, so you know you're going to be in our thoughts and prayers. your generation -- the 9/11 generation -- has written one of the greatest chapters of military service that america has ever seen. but i know that for many of you, a new chapter is unfolding. the war in iraq is over. the transition in afghanistan is underway. many of our troops are coming home, back to civilian life. and as you return, i know that you're looking for new jobs and new opportunities and new ways to serve this great country of ours. and three years ago, i made your generation a promise. i said that when your tour comes to an end -- when you see our flag, when you touch down on our soil -- you'll be coming home to an america that will forever fight for you, just as you fought for us. for me, as president, it's been a top priority. it's something i worked on as a senator when i served on the veterans affairs committee. it's something i continue to this day. since i took office, we've hired over 200,000 veterans to serve in the federal government. [applause] fore made it easier veterans to access all sorts of employment services. you just heard how michelle and jill have worked with businesses to secure tens of thousands of jobs for veterans and their families. and with support from democrats and republicans, we've put in place new tax credits for companies that hire veterans. we want every veteran who wants a job to get a job. that's the goal. [applause] and those of you who want to pursue a higher education and earn new skills, you deserve that opportunity as well. like general abrams' dad, my grandfather -- the man who helped raise me -- served in patton's army. and when he came home, he went to school on the gi bill, because america decided that every returning veteran of world war ii should be able to afford it. and we owe that same commitment to all of you. so as president, i've made sure to champion the post-9/11 gi bill. and with that bill -- and the tuition assistance program -- last year we supported more than 550,000 veterans and 325,000 servicemembers who are pursuing a higher education. [applause] because a higher education is the clearest path to the middle class. that's progress. but we've got more to do. we can't be satisfied with what we've already done, we've got more to do. we've got to make sure you've got every tool you need to make an informed decision when it comes to picking a school. and that's why michelle and i are here today. right now, it's not that easy. i've heard the stories. some of you guys can relate, you may have experienced it yourselves. you go online to try and find the best school for military members, or your spouses, or other family members. you end up on a website that looks official. they ask you for your email, they ask you for your phone number. they promise to link you up with a program that fits your goals. almost immediately after you've typed in all that information, your phone starts ringing. your inbox starts filling up. you've never been more popular in your life. all of these schools want you to enroll with them. and it sounds good. every school and every business should be out there competing for your skills and your talent and your leadership -- everything that you've shown in uniform. but as some of your comrades have discovered, sometimes you're dealing with folks who aren't interested in helping you. they're not interested in helping you find the best program. they are interested in getting the money. they don't care about you, they care about the cash. so they harass you into making a quick decision with all those calls and emails. and if they can't get you online, they show up on post. one of the worst examples of this is a college recruiter who had the nerve to visit a barracks at camp lejeune and enroll marines with brain injuries -- just for the money. these marines had injuries so severe some of them couldn't recall what courses the recruiter had signed them up for. that's appalling. that's disgraceful. it should never happen in america. i'm not talking about all schools. many of them -- for-profit and non-profit -- provide quality education to our servicemembers and our veterans and their families. but there are some bad actors out there. they'll say you don't have to pay a dime for your degree but once you register, they'll suddenly make you sign up for a high interest student loan. they'll say that if you transfer schools, you can transfer credits. but when you try to actually do that, you suddenly find out that you can't. they'll say they've got a job placement program when, in fact, they don't. it's not right. they're trying to swindle and hoodwink you. and today, here at fort stewart, we're going to put an end to it. we're putting an end to it. [applause] the executive order i'm about to sign will make life a whole lot more secure for you and your families and our veterans -- and a whole lot tougher for those who try to prey on you. here's what we're going to do. first, we're going to require colleges that want to enroll members of our military or veterans or your families to provide clear information about their qualifications and available financial aid. simplebe able to get a fact sheet called "know before you owe." know before you owe. [applause] and it will lay out all the information that you need to make your own choices about how best to pay for college. second, we're going to require those schools to step up their support for our students. they need to provide a lot more counseling. if you've got to move because of a deployment or a reassignment, they've got to help you come up with a plan so that you can still get your degree. [applause] number three, we're going to bring an end to the aggressive -- and sometimes dishonest -- recruiting that takes place. we're going to up our oversight of improper recruitment practices. we're going to strengthen the rules about who can come on post and talk to servicemembers. and we're going to make it a lot easier for all of you to file complaints and for us to take action when somebody is not acting right. this is about making sure you succeed -- because when you succeed, our country succeeds. it's that simple. after all, at the end of world war ii, so many americans like my grandfather came home to new opportunities. because of the original gi bill, by 1947, half of all americans who enrolled in college were veterans. veterans. and you know what, they did pretty well. they rose to become presidents and supreme court justices and nobel prize winners. they went on to become scientists and engineers, and doctors and nurses. eight million americans were educated under the original gi bill. and together, they forged the backbone of what would become the largest middle class that the world had ever seen. they built this country. they turned us into that economic superpower. and we can do it again. we face some tough times. we've gone through the worst recession since the great depression, two wars. but you know what, we've faced tough times before. tough times before. and all of you know something that america should never forget -- just as you rise or fall as one unit, we rise or fall as one nation. just as you have each other's backs, what has always made america great is that we have each other's backs. each of us is only here because somebody looked out for us. not just our parents, but our neighbors and our communities and our houses of worship and our vfw halls. each of us is here because we had a country that was willing to invest in things like community colleges and universities, and scientific research and medicine, and caring for our veterans. caring for our veterans. each of us is only here because somebody, somewhere, had our backs. this country exists because generations of americans worked together and looked out for one other. other. out of many, we are one. those are the values we've got to return to. to return to. if we do, there's nothing this country cannot achieve. there's no challenge that's too great for us. there's no destiny beyond our reach. as long as we're joined in common purpose and common resolve, better days will always lie ahead, and we will remind everybody why the united states of america is the greatest country on earth. and as i look out at this sea of incredible men and women, it gives me confidence that our best days are still ahead. god bless you. god bless our armed services. god bless the third division. god bless the united states of america. thank you very much. [applause] and now i'm going to sign this executive order. [applause] [applause] ♪ and >> at the national public ♪ radio table. you are still here. that is good. i cannot remember where you landed on that. >> this weekend on c-span, the 98th annual white house correspondents' dinner. jimmy campbell will have 90 event. cover starts with the red carpet arrival at 630. watch the entire dinner on c- span. you can watch it on line. blood and social media posts on c-span.org tomorrow on washington journal, daniel from the sunlight administration. an update on immigration reform efforts in congress. debating the 10th amendment of the constitution. live at 7:00 a.m.. >> born in a north korean work camp, but it is the only world he has ever known. his first memory around the age of four was going with his mom to replace where he grew up to watch someone gets shot. public executions at the camp were held every few weeks. there were a way of terrorizing the 20,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules. the author on his journey of north and learning about society. coinciding with the release. this multivolume biography of the 36 present this year's competition asked students across the country what part was important to them and why. host: we are going to wrap up our studentcam competition, and we are pleased to introduce to you the young man who is our national brand prior lease water. -- grand prize winner. his name is matthew. when asked people around the country about the u.s. constitution, for them to learn more about it, and tell us about one provision that interested them, and effected their lives. matthew, who is of japanese- american heritage, chose the concentration camp for his documentary. we will show you his documentary. he will be about eight minutes long. we hope you will stay with us to watch the work of this young man. you will meet him in a conversation with senator from hawaii, who as a japanese american lawmaker talks about his own field. let's begin with the documentary, "the constitution and the camps." >> this year's studentcam competition asked kids around the country part of the constitution was important and why. here is "the constitution and the camps." ♪ >> neither the army nor the war relocation authority relished the idea, so the military and civilian agencies alike, determined to do the job democracy should with real consideration for the people involved i knew that if i did not tell my story, -- involved. >> i knew if i did not tell my story, my four nieces and three children would not hear what actually happened to us. we were shocked to see covered army trucks and soldiers with bayonets on their rifles. i could not get over the notion that we were going to be taken away and shot. i could not believe what i saw. shoulders worst situated at strategic points. the area was encased in steel wire fencing, topped by three rows of wire. derricks were laid out in regimented form along the terrain. did not, citizens, because it is illegal to in prison -- they did not call a citizens because it is illegal to imprison citizens without due process. >> but they did in prison u.s. citizens without due process, over 110,000 of them. these citizens were uprooted from their home, taken away from their businesses, and sent to places like this. one of these citizens was my great uncle. uncle john was a dental student in california at the beginning of world war two. he was rounded up, along with all other japanese americans, and sent to an internment camp. i traveled to the relocation camp to learn more about my uncle's experience. the camp is over 200 miles away from los angeles. there were 10 camps like this in remote locations where japanese- americans were confined. two months after the attack on pearl harbor, president roosevelt issued executive order 9066, which authorize the removal of japanese americans from their homes, more than two- thirds of them who were american-born u.s. citizens. they brought with them only what they could carry from their homes. i wanted to understand how this happened to uncle john, and i wanted to learn what protect us from this happening again. experts have tried to explain why this took place. >> after the attack on pearl harbor, to not let anyone tell you there was not a lot of fear on the west coast. -- west coast. a japanese submarine was sighted off of santa barbara. there was fear that the japanese would also attack the west coast. the urging for the detention of the japanese came from the civilians, saying we do not have time to find out whether any of these people individually are big -- any of these individuals are disloyal. >> by 1944, one of the most interesting things was there had never been a basis for holding these people, and at the time, the man in charge knew there was no basis. he had been told that by j. edgar hoover. he told them the fbi does not want these people moved, we know who the spies are, and they are not it. >> the due process clause of the fifth amendment is supposed to balance the right of the people. substantive due process requires that the government lives up to high standards if it tries to take away fundamental rights like life, liberty, or property. procedural due process means the government cannot take away your rights without an adequate notice and a hearing before a neutral judge. the government took people to court who resisted, but those trials did not provide procedural due process because the company did not present its evidence fairly. one example is a citizen who is about my uncle's age when he was arrested. he argued that it was illegal to imprisoned him in the camps. >> in 1942, fred boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese-americans during world war two. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, he took his case all the way to the supreme court. the high court ruled against him. 39 years later, he had his conviction overturned in federal court, and powering thousands of americans, and gave him what he wanted most of all, the chance to feel like an american once again. >> he fought back and stood up for his constitutional rights. his daughter has educated. -- has dedicated her life to educating people about her father's legacy. >> the japanese americans had to be put into internment camps without any due process. there was no hearings. there were no trials. >> my father would want students to now it was a horrible experience. he thought it was in on just act, and his question was am i an american, or am i not? >> i finished my trip by visiting the memorial site that committed the lives of the liberties that were lost their. the japanese characters say this is a monument to console the souls of the dead. for the living, it is a reminder that the constitution -- we all need to be protected of our civil liberties for the time the government decides to set them aside. after two years in the camps, my uncle served in the army and became a successful dentist. fred korematsu receive the medal of freedom for his lifelong commitment to constitutional rights. these stories remind us how vital due process is for protecting our freedom. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all of the winning videos, and continue the conversation on facebook and twitter. host: our congratulations to matthew shimura, our national grand prize winner. altogether, stevens won more than $50,000. next, you will need matthew shimura -- meet matthew shimura. we taped interview with him. also involved in the interview is senator daniel inouye. here's the into the right now. host: studentcam's 2012 winner, matthew shimura and senator daniel inouye, welcome. let me begin with you, matthew, and how you came to the topic of japanese internment camps, and finding that part of the constitution that applies to that part of u.s. history? guest: i came to the topic after learning about my great uncle, and learning about him more to my family, i started researching the japanese internment through a number of books, and i became interested in the topic. host: those fed saw your documentary can see the long list of research that you went through -- articles, c-span's video library. he did a lot of research. how much time did you spend on it? guest: i think spent over 100 hours doing the whole thing by research in many books like "looking like the enemy," and looking at supreme court cases and c-span footage of supreme court justices as well as talking to one of the lawyers who represented fred korematsu. host: were people willing to talk to you to be part of your documentary? guest: people were really nice about letting me interview them, and especially the daughter of fred korematsu, karen, who had a lot to say about her father's legacy, which included standing up for our rights, and making sure we stand up when things are not right. host: what part of the constitution applies to that part of our history? guest: i talked about the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and i talked about procedural and substantive due process. procedural due process means your rights cannot be taken away without a fair judge and a jury, and substantive due process means the government cannot take away your natural rights, life, liberty, property. host: center daniel inouye, what was your reaction when you saw the documentary and the topic matthew shows? guest: it looked very professional, and to think that a young man produced this, it was very prophetic -- impressive. i later learned he was number one of 1200. that makes hawaii very proud. host: what is the reaction to a ninth grader taking that part of our u.s. history, something that have been many decades ago? guest: obviously, it was not just casual, because his family was involved. i'm certain this matter must have been discussed with his family because you can sense the personal nature of this performance and production. host: is that true, matthew, is this something you and your family discussed before you did the documentary? guest: pardon? host: is the history of the japanese-american internment something you and your family discussed before you had to do this documentary? the call i had to do a lot of research, -- guest: i had to do a lot of research, and i learned about the japanese memorial, and i was able to see the footsteps of my uncle, and how they lived their lives in the internment camps. host: during the process of this documentary, did your thoughts about the constitution or due process change at all? guest: well, i did not really know about due process and the fifth amendment as much as i did after i did my movie, but by doing the research i learned a lot more about the topic, and i became more informed about what really happened during the world war two period. host: daniel inouye, at this time, where were you? guest: i was a senior in high school, and about one month later i was shocked to learn that the government of the united states had decided to designate the number 4c to japanese citizens, which simply put means you are an enemy alien, and it meant he were not fit to put on a uniform, for one thing, as we were considered to be disloyal or not trustworthy, and many of us resented that, and we petitioned the president of the united states, and about one year after december 7, we got the word that the doors were open, if you want to volunteer, go ahead. in hawaii, 87% of the eligible men volunteered, which is a record that has not been touched since that time. however, we have no idea what was happening on the mainland, no idea that executive order 96 to six have been issued because i am from -- 9066 had been issued, because i've learned about the camps after i got to camp shelby for mice training. because i am from hawaii. all of the news was censored. you would receive papers with blank spots. i learned about the camps after my training. >> shelby, mississippi. >> yes. >> at that point you are training to go fight for this country and you learn that the japanese american encampments. what was going on for your mind? >> the way it happened was rather unusual. mainlander's came in. we would say, what does your father do. he has a shop or something like that. for action came into being because they look different. their english was much better. we got to a point where our senior officers felt that maybe the regimen should be disbanded. we connected together. however, one of the gimmicks -- i call it a gimmick because they had social hours in discussion -- they sent invitations to us. 10 per company. by coincidence all ye people. -- hawaii people. when i saw it, i was shocked. it was obvious then with machine-gun towers and bayonet rifles this was a concentration camp. >> how did the government justify it at that point? >> in the wartime if you study the history of war, you will find oftentimes stereotypes' takeover. pictures of dogtooth women and men, slant eyes and -- they put us all in that category. i am happy to say when the war was over, the regimen i served with was the most decorated in the history of the united states. there were 22 medals of honor, which is much more than most divisions. just recently the congress of the united states issued the metal. >> what do you make of how the government has reacted to that part of our history since then and the actions that have been taking? you talk about it in your documentary. the think enough has been done to make up for the part of the history? >> i think that even though the government made a mistake back then, they have done in the -- a lot to make things right, especially the clinton administration in 1998 and the $20,000 given to each japanese american family. i think the government has tried to make things right. >> do you plan to keep studying this issue? what do you think? >> i want to keep studying this issue in hawaii because there were some japanese internment camps here that were not widespread talk about. i am going to do a follow-up story on this. >> for those who have never participated in who may want to next year, what is your a price for getting involved? >> my advice to students trying to make a documentary as, choose a topic you are really interested in and the feel passionate about. do research about that. write a script and story on it. really try to give your message across. try to see what your perspective is on the topic. >> you are the grand prize winner. how much did you win and what do you plan to do with it? >> i one $5,000 for myself at $1,000 for my school. i hope to save it for college. >> where do you hope to go to college? >> i want to go to college on the east coast, may be from school so i can study to become a better documentary filmmaker. >> thank you for joining us from hawaii. thank you for your time. be very much appreciated. >> this we pose a supreme court argument on immigration law. in the bay of the house floor to extend low interest rates on loans for another year. president obama signed an executive order to protect u.s. military personnel from education fraud. tomorrow on "washington journal," danielle schuman talks about the digital accountability act in 2012 that passed the house wednesday. fawn and johnson on arizona immigration law. washington journal live at 7:00 eastern and c-span. >> what happens at the end of all of these things? you still lose. why? you are pushed back in what happens? what kind of operation occurs the place to all the federal advantages. a siege. >> from the u.s. naval academy in annapolis. professor wayne shaw examines lee and grant and the way of a war. part of "american history tv." >> the supreme court heard 80 minutes of oral argument in the case of arizona versus united states on whether an immigration law unconstitutionally conflicts with federal law or interferes with federal enforcement. the court of appeals upheld a ruling that blocked for provisions of the law including one allowing police to check the immigration status of anybody the tent or suspected of being in the country illegally. >> we'll hear argument this morning in case 11--182, arizona v. the united states. mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the state of arizona bears a disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration. in addressing those costs, arizona borrowed the federal standards as its own, and attempted to enlist state resources in the enforcement of the uniform federal immigration laws. notwithstanding that, the united states took the extraordinary step of seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the statute as impliedly preempted on its face before it took effect. the ninth circuit agreed with respect to four provisions, but only by inverting fundamental principles of federalism. the ninth circuit essentially demanded that arizona point to specific authorization in federal statute for its approach. but that gets mattersbackwards. a state does not need to point to federal authorization for its enforcement efforts. rather, the burden is on the parties seeking to preempt a duly enacted state law to point to some provision in statutory law that does the preempting. now, the united states can't really do that here, and the reason is obvious. there are multiple provisions of the federal immigration law that go out of their way to try to facilitate state and local efforts to communicate with federal immigration officials in order to ascertain the immigration status of individuals. so, for example, 1373(c) specifically requires that federal immigration officials shall respond to inquiries from state and local officials about somebody's immigration status. 1373(a) goes even further. that provision says that no federal agency or officer may prohibit or in any way restrict the ability of state and local officers to communicate with federal immigration officers to ascertain somebody's immigration status. indeed, if the dhs had -- >> mr. clement -- >> yes. >> -- could i interrupt, and turning to 2(b), could you tell me what the state's view is -- the government proposes that it should be read on its face one way, and i think the state is arguing that there's a narrower way to read it. but am i to understand that under the state's position in this action, the only time that the inquiry about the status of an individual rises is after they've had probable cause to arrest that individual for some other crime? >> that's exactly right. so this only operates when somebody's been essentially stopped for some other infraction, and then at that point, if there's reasonable suspicion to try to identify immigration status, then that can happen. of course, one of the things that -- >> can i -- can i -- >> sure. >> -- just stop you there just one moment? that's what i thought. so presumably, i think your argument is, that under any circumstance, a police officer would have the discretion to make that call. seems to me that the issue is not about whether you make the call or not, although the government is arguing that it might be, but on how long you detain theindividual, meaning -- as i understand it, when individuals are arrested and held for other crimes, often there's an immigration check that most states do without this law. and to the extent that the government wants to remove that individual, they put in a warrant of detainer. this process is different. how is it different? >> well, it's different in one important respect, and that's why i don't think that the issue that divides the parties is only the issue of how long you can detain somebody. because i think the federal government takes the rather unusual position that even though these stops and these inquiries, if done on an ad hoc basis, become preempted if they're done on a systematic basis -- >> no, i understand that's their argument. i can question them about that. >> okay. but -- so that's -- >> but i want to get to how -- assuming your position, that doing it on a -- there's nothing wrong with doing it as it's been done in the past. whenever anyone is detained, a call could be made. what i see as critical is the issue of how long, and under -- and when is the officer going to exercise discretion to release the person? >> and with respect, i don't think section 2(b) really speaks to that, which is to say, says't think section 2(b) that the systematic inquiry has to take any longer than the ad hoc inquiry. and, indeed, section 2, in one of its provisions, specifically says that it has to be implemented in a way that's consistent with federal, both immigration law and civil rights law. so, there -- what -- >> what happens if -- this is the following call -- the call to the -- to the federal government. yes, he's an illegal alien. no, we don't want to detain him. what does the law say, the arizona law say, with respect to releasing that individual? >> well, i don't know that it speaks to it in specific terms, but here's what i believe would happen, which is to say, at that point, then, the officer would ask themselves whether there's any reason to continue to detain the person for state law purposes. i mean, it could be that the original offense that the person was pulled over needs to be dealt with or something like that. >> i'm putting all of this outside of -- >> but -- but if what we're talking about is simply what happens then for purposes of the federal immigration consequences, the answer is nothing. the individual at that point is released. and that, i think, can be very well illustrated by section 6 -- i don't want to change the subject unnecessarily, but there's an arrest authority for somebody who's committed a public offense, which means that it's a crime in another state and in arizona, but the person can't be arrested for that offense, presumably because they've already served their sentence for the offense; and then there's new arrest authority given to the officer to hold that person if they are deportable for that offense. now, i think in that circumstance, it's very clear what would happen, is an inquiry would be made to the federal officials that would say, do you want us to transfer this person to your custody or hold this person until you can take custody? and if the answer is no, then that's the end of it. that individual is released, because there's no independent basis in that situation for the state officer to continue to detain the individual at all. >> but how would the state officer know if the person is removable? i mean, that's sometimes a complex inquiry. >> well, justice ginsburg, i think there's two answers to that. one is, you're right, sometimes it's a complex inquiry, sometimes it's a straightforward inquiry. it could be murder, it could be a drug crime. but i think the practical answer to the question is by hypothesis, there's going to be inquiry made to the federal immigration authorities, either the law enforcement support center or a 287(g) officer. and presumably, as a part of that inquiry, they can figure out whether or not this is a removable offense, or at least a substantially likely removable offense. >> suppose it takes 2 weeks to make that determination, can the alien be held by the state for that whole period of time -- >> oh, i don't think -- >> -- just under section 6? >> i don't think so, your honor, and i think that, you know, what -- in all of these provisions, you have the fourth amendment backing up the limits, and i think so whatever -- >> what -- what would be the standard? you're the attorney for the -- for the alien, he -- they're going to hold him for 2 weeks until they figure out whether this is a removable offense. and you say, under the fourth amendment, you cannot hold for -- what? more than a reasonable time or -- >> yes. ultimately, it's a reasonable inquiry. and i think that under these circumstances, what we know from the record here is that generally the immigration status inquiry is something that takes 10 or 11 minutes. i mean, so it's not -- we're not talking about something -- or no more than 10 if it's a 287(g) officer, and roughly 11 minutes on average if it's the law enforcement support center. >> how do they have -- well, the same question, but -- but i'm trying to think of examples. example one is the person is arrested. now, it says any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. so i wonder if they've arrested a citizen, he's hispanic-- looking, he was jogging, he has a backpack, he has water in it and pedialyte, so they think, oh, maybe this is an illegal person. it happens he's a citizen of new mexico, and so the driver's license doesn't work. and now they put him in jail. and are you -- can you represent to us -- i don't know if you can or not -- can you represent to us he will not stay in jail, in detention, for a significantly longer period of time than he would have stayed in the absence of section 2(b)? do you want to represent that or not? >> i don't want to represent that. what i do want to represent -- >> all right. now, if you cannot represent that -- and i'm not surprised you don't want to -- i mean, i don't know -- >> sure, sure. but what i can represent -- >> what? >> -- is that he's not going to be detained any longer than the fourth amendment allows. >> oh, fine. >> and -- but, well -- >> but the fourth amendment -- for -- i mean, that's another question. i don't know how long the fourth amendment allows. i don't know on that. there probably is a range of things. but we do know that a person ordinarily, for this crime, x, would have been released after a day. oh, you know, the fourth amendment would have allowed more. so now what i want to know is what in practice will happen? from your representation, i think that there will be a significant number of people -- some of whom won't be arrested; it takes 11 minutes for some. for citizens, it might take 2 hours, it might take 2 days. okay. there'll be a significant number of people who will be detained at the stop, or in prison, for a significantly longer period of time than in the absence of 2(b). is that a fair conclusion? >> i don't think it is, and here's why it's not. because even though there certainly are situations where state authorities will arrest somebody and then release them relatively rapidly, they generally don't release somebody until they can nail down their identity, and whether or not they are likely to come to a court hearing at a subsequent event -- >> anyway, if this is a problem, is it an immigration law problem? >> it -- >> or is it a fourth amendment problem? >> justice scalia, it is neither -- >> is the government's attack on this that it violates the fourth amendment? >> no. of course, the federal government, that also has a lot of immigration arrests that are subject to the fourth amendment, is not making a fourth amendment claim here. and it's neither an immigration law concern or something that should be the basis for striking down a statute on its face -- >> that's a different argument -- >> but i do want to -- but i do want to be responsive and make the point that i think the factual premise that this is going to -- 2(b) is going to lead to the elongation of a lot of arrests is not true. >> all right. can i make the following statement in the opinion, and you will say that's okay? imagine -- this is imaginary. "we interpret" -- imagine -- "we interpret section 2(b) as not authorizing or requiring the detention of any individual under 2(b), either at the stop or in prison, for a significantly longer period of time than that person would have been detained in the absence of 2(b)." can i make that statement in an opinion, and you'll say, that's right? >> i think what you could say -- >> can i say that? >> i don't think you can say just that. >> no. >> i think you can say something similar, though. i think you probably could say, look, this is a facial challenge. the statute's never gone into effect. we don't anticipate that section 2(b) would elongate in a significant number of cases the detention or the arrest. i think you could say that. and the reason is, as i indicated, it's something that happens even without this law that, when you arrest somebody, and there are some offenses that are -- you can arrest and release under state law, but before you release the individual, you generally want to ascertain that that individual is going to show up at the hearing. and that's what really distinguishes those cases where there's arrest and release from those cases where there's arrest and you book somebody. now, here's the other reason why i don't think factually, this is going to elongate things. because already in a significant number of booking facilities in arizona, you already have the process that people are systematically run through immigration checks when they are booked as part of the booking process. that's reflected in the record here in the maricopa county system, that that's done by a 287(g) officer as a matter of routine. the federal government doesn't like this statute, but they're very proud of their secure communities program. and their secure communities program also makes clear that everybody that's booked at participating facilities is -- eventually has their immigration status checked. and so i don't think that this immigration status check is likely to lead to a substantial elongation of the stops or the detentions. now, obviously -- >> i want to make sure that i get a clear representation from you. if at a call to the federal agency, the agency says, we don't want to detain this alien, that alien will be released or -- unless it's under 6, is what you're telling me. or under 6, 3, or some -- one other of arizona's immigration clauses. >> exactly. obviously, if thisis somebody who was going, you know, 60 miles an hour in a 20-mile-an- hour school zone or something, they may decide wholly apart from the immigration issue that this is somebody they want to bring back to the station. but for the purposes of once they make the contact with federal immigration officials, if the federal immigration officials say, look, we have no interest in removing this person, we have no interest in prosecuting this person under the federal criminal provisions, then that's the end of the federal case of the -- >> all right. then tell me -- >> so you'll -- you'll concede that the -- that the state has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the federal government has no interest in removing? >> no, i don't accept that, justice scalia, but -- >> that's all the statute -- and you call up the federal government, and the federal -- yes, he's an illegal immigrant, but that's okay with us. >> well -- >> and the state has no powerto close its borders to people who have no right to be there? >> well, here -- justice scalia, here's my response, which is all of this discussion, at least as i've understood it, has been about 2(b), and to a lesser extent 6. now, section 3 of the statute does provide an authority under state law to penalize somebody who has violated essentially the federal registration requirement. so if that's -- as to that provision, there would be a state authority, even under these hypotheticals, to take action with respect to the individual -- >> i think -- >> -- but not with respect to the federal -- >> i think justice scalia's question was the -- was the broader one, just as a theoretical matter. can we say, or do you take the position, that a state must accept within its borders a person who is illegally present under federal law? >> well, and i think the -- >> and that is by reason of his alien issues -- >> and i think my answer to thatis no. i think the reason my answer is no has more to do with our defense of section 3 and other provisions than it does with respect to the inquiry and arrest authority provisions, 2(b) and 6. >> well, before you move on to the registration requirement, could i take you back to an example that's similar to the one that >> was referring to. let's someone -- let's say someone who is a citizen and a resident of new mexico, has a new mexico driver's license, drives across the border, is stopped for speeding, not 60 miles an hour in a 20--mile zone, but 10 miles over the speed limit on an interstate. and the officer, for some reason, thinks that this person may be an illegal alien. how would that work out? if you do the records check, you're not going to get anything back, right, because the person is a citizen. so what -- where would the officer take it from there? >> well, if i can just kind of work back for a second. i mean, obviously, it's a pretty unusual circumstance where somebody produces an out-- of--state driver's license, and that doesn't dispel reasonable suspicion for the officer. but, i'll take the hypo that -- >> why would it dispel reasonable suspicion if it's -- if the officer knows it's a state that issues drivers' licenses to aliens who are not lawfully -- >> and that might be a situation where that's the case, and then -- then it wouldn't dispel the reasonable suspicion. but, say, in the average case, i think it would. they would then go further. and then they would then make the inquiry to the federal officials. and then if -- because of the fact that the individual actually is a citizen or something like that, then what would happen is at some point, you'd get to the end of a permissible terry stop, and the officer would release the individual. now, it might not be the end of the matter, because, of course, you know, they still have the name, they still have the ability to collect that information and try to continue the check as they move forward, taking down the information on the new mexico driver's license. but i think the important thing is that, you know, this statute doesn't authorize them to detain the individual, certainly beyond the -- the fourth amendment limits. and it really doesn't authorize them to do anything that the official couldn't do on an ad hoc basis without the statute. now, it does do -- >> that may be the case, and i would like to ask general verrilli about that. but, under the fourth amendment, presumably, if the officer can arrest, the state officer can arrest a person simply on the ground that the person is removable, which is what the office of legal counsel opined some years ago, then presumably the officer could continue to detain that individual that i mentioned until they reached a point where the terry stop becomes an arrest, at which time, they would have to have probable cause. but if they had probable cause to believe the person was removable, then they could hold the person, presumably, until the -- the person's status was completely verified. isn't that correct? >> i think that's correct, your honor. now, as we read section 6, because there's a pre--existing definition of "public offense" in arizona law, we don't think this is kind of the full office of legal counsel situation, where you have broad arrest authority for removable individuals. this is a relatively narrow slice of additional arrest authority that happens to give arrest authority for people that seem to fit the federal government's priority, because it really is going to apply to criminal aliens. but i don't -- i don't take any issue with what you're saying. i do think, though, it's important to understand that 2(b) really doesn't give the officer an authority he didn't otherwise have. it does do one thing that's very important, though, which it does have the effect of overriding local policies that actually forbade some officers from making those communications and -- because that's one of the primary effects of 2(b). it just shows how difficult the government's preemption argument is here, because those kind of local policies are expressly forbidden by federal statute. 1373(a) and 8 u.s.c. 1644 basically say that localities can't have those kind of sanctuary laws. and so one effect that 2(b) has is on a state level, it basically says, look, you can't have local officers telling you not to make those inquiries, you must have those inquiries. >> counsel, could -- does section 6 permit an officer to arrest an individual who has overstayed a visitor's visa by a day? they're removable, correct? >> they are removable. have't think they would committed a public offense -- absent a very unusual situation, i don't think they would have committed a public offense under arizona law. so i don't think there actually would be arrest authority in that circumstance, as justice alito's question has -- has -- >> what is the definition of public offense? >> a public offense definition -- it's actually -- it's a petition appendix -- well, i'm sorry. the definition is basically that it's something that is a crime in another jurisdiction and also a crime in arizona. and so what makes this kind of anomalous is normally, if something is a crime in arizona, there's arrest authority for that directly. so what this really captures is people who have committed a crime are no longer arrestable for the crime because they have served their sentence or some other peculiarity, but they're nonetheless removable because of the crime. >> counsel, maybe it's a good time to talk about some of the other sections, in particular, section 5(c). now, that does seem to expand beyond the federal government's determination about the types of sanctions that should govern the employment relationship. you talk about supply and demand. the federal government, of course, prohibits the employment, but it also imposes sanctions with respect to application for work. and the state of arizona, in this case, is imposing some significantly greater sanctions. >> well, it's certainly imposing different sanctions. i mean, you know, it's a little bit -- kind of hard to weigh the difference between removability, which is obviously a pretty significant sanction for an alien, and the relatively modest penalties imposed by section 5(c). but i take the premise that 5(c) does something that there's no direct analog in federal law. but i -- but that's not enough to get you to preemption, obviously. and one of the things that makes 5(c), it seems to us, a weak case for preemption is that it only targets employment that is expressly forbidden by federal law. and so then we look at, you know, essentially, the government is reduced to arguing that because in 1986 when congress passed irca, it only focused on the employer's side of the equation and didn't, generally speaking, impose restrictions on employees, that somehow they're going to draw a preemptive inference from that. >> counsel -- >> would you agree that -- would you accept as a working hypothesis that we can begin with the general principle that the hines v. davidowitz language controls here, and we're going to ask -- our principal -- our primary function is to determine whether, under the circumstances of this particular case, arizona's law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of congress? is that an acceptable test from your standpoint? >> i think it's an acceptable test. test. i mean, justice kennedy, you know, there obviously have been subsequent cases, including decanas and whiting, that give additional shape and color to that test, but i don't have any -- i don't have any real quarrel with that test. and here's why i don't think that -- >> but then the government on this section is going to come and say, well, there maybe -- this must be -- this -- the enforcement of this statute, as arizona describes it, will be in considerable tension with our -- with our basic approach. isn't that what i'm going to hear from the government? >> it may be what you're going to hear, justice kennedy, but i don't think you just take the federal government for its word on these things. you know, it's interesting, in decanas itself, the sg said that that california statute was preempted. and in decanas, this court didn't say, well, you know, we've got this language from hines, and we have the sg tell us it's preempted, that's good enough for us. they went beyond that, and they looked hard. and what they did is they established that this is an area where the presumption against preemption applies. so that seems one strike in our favor. we have here a situation where there is an express preemption provision, and it -- it only addresses the employer's side of the ledger. so the express preemption provision clearly doesn't apply here. so the only thing they have is this inference -- >> well, for those of us for whom legislative history has some importance, there seems to be quite a bit of legislative history that the -- that the idea of punishing employees was raised, discussed and explicitly rejected. >> sure. >> the preemption language would be geared to what was decided to be punished. it seems odd to think that the federal government is deciding on employment sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees. >> but, there's a big difference between congress deciding not as a matter of federal law to address employees with an additional criminal prohibition, and saying that that decision itself has preemptive effect. that's a rather remarkable additional step. and here's why i think, if you consider the legislative history -- for those who do, it really supports us -- because here's what congress confronted. i mean, they started thinking about this problem in 1971. they passed irca in 1986. at that point, here's the state of the world. it's already unlawful, as a matter of federal law, for the employee to get -- to have this unlawful work. and if they seek this unlawful work, they are subject to removal for doing it. in addition, congress was told that most of the aliens who get this unlawful work are already here -- they illegally entered, so they're already subject to an independent criminal offense. so at that point, congress is facing a world where the employee is already subject to multiple prohibitions. the employer is completely scot--free as a matter of federal law. and so at that point, in 1986, they address the employer's side of the equation, they have an express preemption provision that says nothing about any intent of preempting the employee's side of the ledger. and in that, i don't think -- >> but they did provide -- i mean, your position was the federal legislation regulates the supply side. that leaves the demand side open. but there is regulation, and the question is whether anything beyond that is inconsistent with the federal -- it's not just that the person is removable, but if they use false documents in seeking work, that's a federal crime. so we have the -- what you call the supply side is -- is regulated, but you want to regulate it more. >> two quick responses, and then i'd like to save time for rebuttal, justice ginsburg.the first is that if you look at what they regulate on the employee's side, it's really things that actually assist in regulating the employer's side. because what they're worried about is a fraudulent document that then is used essentially to trick the employer into employing somebody who shouldn't be employed. the second thing is, the more that you view irca as actually regulating part of the employee's side, then i think the more persuasive it is that the express preemption provision doesn't reach the employee's side of the equation. >> we'll give you plenty of rebuttal time, but i'd like to hear what you have to say about section 3 before you sit down. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i appreciate the opportunity to do that. i do think as to section 3, the question is really -- it's a provision that is parallel to the federal requirements, and imposes the same punishments as the federal requirement. so it's generally not a fertile ground for preemption. but of course, there are cases that find preemption even in those analogous circumstances. they're the cases that the government is forced to rely on. cases like buckman, cases like -- >> would double prosecutions be -- suppose that an alien were prosecuted under federal law for violating basically the terms of 3, could the states then prosecute him as well? >> i think they could under general double jeopardy principles and the dual sovereignty doctrine. obviously, if that was of particular concern to you, that might be the basis for an as-- applied challenge if somebody was already prosecuted under federal law. but, of course, this court has confronted exactly that argument in california v. zook, where you had the statute of california that prohibited somebody operating as an interstate carrier without the icc license. it was raised -- well, you know, you have to let just the feds enforce that law. therwise, there's possibility of duplicative punishment, duplicative prosecution. and this court rejected that argument there. >> mr. clement, it seems that the -- i would think the largest hurdle for you is hines, which said the registration scheme -- congress enacted a complete registration scheme which the states cannot complement or impose even auxiliary regulations. so i don't see the alien registration as a question of obstacle preemption, but appeal preemption that alien -- we don't want competing registration schemes. we want the registration scheme to be wholly federal. >> well, justice ginsburg, i think that's part of the reason why i accepted justice kennedy's characterization of the relevant language in hines, because although there's some general discussion there of field preemption, when the court actually states what its holding is, it does state it in terms of obstacle preemption. and here's where i think there's a critical difference between what the court had before it in hines and what you have before you here. in hines, pennsylvania passed its statute before congress passed the alien registration statute. so not surprisingly, you know, they weren't -- they weren't soothsayers in pennsylvania. they couldn't predict the future. so when it got up here, there was a conflict between the provisions of the pennsylvania registration law and the federal registration law. and this court struck it down on that preemption basis. here, it's quite different. arizona had before it the federal statute. it looked at the preciseprovisions in the federal statute. it adopted those standards as its own, and then it imposed parallel penalties for the violation of the state equivalent. and so i think the right analysis is really the analysis that this court laid out in its whiting decision, which says that in these kinds of cases, what you look for is whether or not the state scheme directly interferes with the operation of the federal scheme. >> can i ask you something? >> well, in that instance -- >> justice alito. >> in that regard, we are told that there are some important categories of aliens who can't obtain registration, cannot obtain federal registration, and yet they're people that nobody would think should be removed. i think someone with a pending asylum application would fall into that category. how would section 3 apply there? >> i think it probably wouldn't apply. there's two provisions that might make it inapplicable. the first question you'd ask is whether that individual in that category would be subject to prosecution under 1304 and 1306. and if i understand, you know, the government's position, there are certain people where, you know, they can't really get a registration document because of the narrow class that they're in. and as i understand it, it is not a violation of either 1304 or 1306 to not get a registration document when you're somebody who can't get one. so you're not liable for the willful failure to get a registration document, and when you don't have a registration document to carry, you don't run afoul of 1306 on the carry -- >> well, of course, if you've entered the country illegally, you can't get a registration. >> well, sure. >> but -- >> but that's not the narrow class we were talking about. >> no, i understand that. i didn't understand the distinction you were drawing, that you can't be prosecuted for lack of a registration if you couldn't have gotten a registration. >> well, if you're in -- no, if you're in the country lawfully, i mean, you can try to register. and so somebody who enters illegally -- i mean, they're already guilty of one federal misdemeanor by the illegal entry. >> right. >> but at the point that they stay 30 days and don't try to register, then that's an independent violation. so maybe i need to fix what i said and say, look, if you're somebody who -- if you did go to register, would be told: you're fine, but we can't give you a registration document, then that individual's not subject to prosecution under the federal statute, therefore wouldn't be subject to prosecution under the state statute. >> thank you, mr. clement. general verrilli. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: >> before you get into what the case is about, i'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about. no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it? i saw none of that in your brief. >> that's correct. >> okay. so this is not a case about ethnic profiling. >> we're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case. mr. clement is working hard this morning to portray s.b. 1070 as an aid to federal immigration enforcement. but the very first provision of the statute declares that arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement, and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the state. that is something arizona cannot do, because the constitution vests exclusive -- >> general, could you answer justice scalia's earlier question to your adversary? he asked whether it would be the government's position that arizona doesn't have the power to exclude or remove -- to exclude from its borders a person who's here illegally. >> that is our position, your honor. it is our position because the constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government. >> well, all that means, it gives authority over naturalization, which we've expanded to immigration. but all that means is that the government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. but if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in arizona, arizona has -- has no power? what -- what does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders? >> your honor, the framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration because they understood that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is a vital aspect of our foreign relations. the national government, and not an individual state -- >> but it's still up to the national government. arizona is not trying to kick out anybody that the federal government has not already said do not belong here. and -- look, the constitution provides -- even -- even with respect to the commerce clause -- "no state shall without the consent of congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports except," it says, "what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." the constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as state borders, and the states can police their borders, even to the point of inspecting incoming shipments to exclude diseased material. >> but they cannot do what arizona is seeking to do here, your honor, which is to elevate one consideration above all others. arizona is pursuing a policy that maximizes the apprehension of unlawfully present aliens so they can be jailed as criminals in arizona unless the federal government agrees to direct its enforcement resources to remove the people that arizona has identified. >> well, if that state does -- well, that's a question of enforcement priorities. well, let's say that the government had a different set of enforcement priorities, and their objective was to protect to the maximum extent possible the borders. and so anyone who is here illegally, they want to know about and they want to do something about. in other words, different than the current policy. does that mean in that situation, the arizona law would not be preemptive? >> i think the mandatory character of the arizona law and the mandatory character of the obligations it imposes, especially as backed by this extraordinary provision in section 2(h), which imposes civil penalties of up to $5000 a day on any official in the state of arizona who is not following section 2 or, as we read it, the rest of s.b. 1070, to the maximum extent possible, does create a conflict. but i do think the most fundamental point about section 2 is to understand its relationship to the other provisions in the statute. section 2 is in the statute to identify the class of people who arizona is then committed to prosecute under section 3, and if they are employed, also under section 5. >> well, i have the same question as the chief justice. suppose that the federal government changed its priorities tomorrow, and it said -- they threw out the ones they have now, and they said the new policy is maximum enforcement. we want to know about every person who's stopped or arrested, we want to -- we want their immigration status verified. would the arizona law then be un--preemptive? >> no, i think it's still a problem, your honor. these decisions have to be made at the national level because it's the national government and not -- it's the whole country and not an individual state that pays the price -- >> do you have any example where -- where enforcement discretion has the effect of preempting state action? >> well, i think we should think about section 3 of the law, your honor. i think it will help illustrate the point -- >> i'll point out another case of ours where we've said that essentially the preemption of state law can occur, not by virtue of the congress preempting, but because the executive doesn't want this law enforced so -- so rigorously, and that preempts the state from enforcing it vigorously. do we have any cases -- >> i think the preemption here -- focusing for a moment on section 3 -- the preemption here flows from judgments of congress, from the registration system that congress set up in sections 1301 through 1306, from the decision of congress in section 1103 in the law to vest the secretary of dhs and the attorney general with the authority to make the judgments about how this law is going to be enforced -- >> well, they do that with all -- all federal criminal statutes. and you acknowledge that as a general matter, states can enforce federal criminal law, which is always entrusted to the attorney general. >> they can make -- they can engage in detention in support of the enforcement offederal law. that's what the olc opinion from 2002 says. it does not say that they can prosecute under federal law and make their own decisions. that's a far different matter. and it really goes to the heart, i think, of what's wrong with section 3 of this act, in that -- >> well, but you say that the federal government has to have control over who to prosecute, but i don't see how section 2(b) says anything about that at all. all it does is notify the federal government, here's someone who is here illegally, here's someone who is removable. the discretion to prosecute for federal immigration offenses rests entirely with the attorney general. >> that's correct, but with respect to -- and i will -- but let me address something fundamental about section 2. that is true, but i think it doesn't get at the heart of the problem here. section 1 of this statute says that sections 2 and 3 and 5 are supposed to work together to achieve this policy of attrition through enforcement. and so what section 2 does is identify a population that the state of arizona is going to prosecute under section 3 and section 5. >> right. so apartfrom section 3 and section 5, take those off the table, you have no objection to section 2. >> we do, your honor; but, before i take 3 and 5 off the table, if i could make one more point about 3 and 5, please. the -- i think -- because i think it's important to understand the dilemma that this puts the federal government in. arizona has got this population, and they've -- and they're by law committed to maximum enforcement. and so the federal government's got to decide, are we going to take our resources, which we deploy for removal, and are we going to use them to deal with this population, even if it is to the detriment of our priorities -- >> exactly. and the federal government has to decide where it's going to use its resources. and what the state is saying, here are people who are here in violation of federal law, you make the decision. and if your decision is you don't want to prosecute those people, fine, that's entirely up to you. that's why i don't see the problem with section 2(b). >> here's the other half -- here's the other half of the equation, mr. chief justice, which is that they say if you're not going to remove them, we are going to prosecute them. and that means that the -- and i think this does get at the heart of why this needs to be an exclusive national power -- >> only under section 3 and section 5. >> yes, but those are -- but what you're talking about is taking somebody whose only offense is being unlawfully present in the country and putting them in jail for up to 6 months, or somebody who -- >> well, let's say you're worried about -- >> -- or like 30 days, forgive me; 6 months for employment. >> there you go. right. for the notification, what could possibly be wrong if arizona arrests someone, let's say for drunk driving, and their policy is you're going to stay in jail overnight no matter what, okay? what's wrong during that period by having the arizona arresting officer say, i'm going to call the federal agency and find out if this person is here illegally, because the federal law says the federal agency has to answer my question? it seems an odd argument to say the federal agency has to answer the state's question, but the state can't ask it. >> well, we're not saying the state can't ask it in any individual case. we recognize that section -- >> you think there are individual cases in which the state can call the federal government and say: is this person here illegally? >> yes, certainly. but that doesn't make -- >> okay. so doesn't that defeat the facial challenge to the act? >> no. i don't think so, mr. chief justice, because the -- i think the problem here is in that -- is in every circumstance as a result of section 2(b) of the law, backed by the penalties of section 2(h), the state official must pursue the priorities that the state has set, irrespective of whether they are helpful to or in conflict with the federal priorities. and so -- >> well, suppose that every -- suppose every law enforcement officer in arizona saw things exactly the same way as the arizona legislature. and so, without any direction from the legislature, they all took it upon themselves to make these inquiries every time they stopped somebody or arrested somebody. would that be a violation of federal law? >> no, it wouldn't be, your honor, because in that situation, they would be free to be responsive to federal priorities, if the federal officials came back to them and said, look, we need to focus on gangs, we need to focus on this drug problem at the border -- >> but what if they said, well, we don't care what your priorities are; we have our priorities, and our priority is maximum enforcement, and we're going to call you in every case? it was all done on an individual basis, all the officers were individually doing it -- >> yes, well -- >> -- that would be okay? >> well, if there's a -- if there's a state policy locked into law by statute, locked into law by regulation, then we have a problem. if it's not -- >> general -- >> -- i mean, the line is mandatory versus discretionary -- >> that's what i can't understand because your argument -- you seem to be saying that what's wrong with the arizona law is that the arizona legislature is trying to control what its employees are doing, and they have to be free to disregard the desires of the arizona legislature, for whom they work, and follow the priorities of the federal government, for whom they don't work. >> but they -- but with respect to immigration enforcement, and to the extent all they're doing is bringing people to the federal government's attention, they are cooperating in the enforcement of federal law -- >> but the hypothetical is that that's all the legislature is doing. >> well, except i think, justice kennedy, the problem is that it's not cooperation if in every instance, the officers in the state must respond to the priorities set by the state government and are not free to respond to the priorities of the federal officials who are trying to enforce the law in the most effective manner possible. >> i'm sorry. i'm a little confused. general, i'm terribly confused by your answer. okay? and -- and i don't know that you're focusing in on what i believe my colleagues are trying to get to. making the -- 2(b) has two components, as i see it. every person that's suspected of being an alien who's arrested for another crime -- that's what mr. clement says the statute means -- the officer has to pick up the phone and call -- and call the agency to find out if it's an illegal alien or not. he tells me that unless there's another reason to arrest the person -- and that's 3 and 6, or any of the other provisions -- but putting those aside, we're going to stay just in 2(b), if the government says, we don't want to detain the person, they have to be released for being simply an illegal alien, what's wrong with that? >> well -- >> taking out the other provisions, taking out any independent state -- created basis of liability for being an illegal alien. >> i think there are three. the first is the -- the hines problem of harassment. now, we are not making an allegation of racial profiling. nevertheless, there are already tens of thousands of stops that result in inquiries in arizona, even in the absence of s.b. 1070. it stands to reason that the legislature thought that that wasn't sufficient and there needed to be more. and given that you have a population in arizona of 2 million latinos, of whom only 400,000 at most are there unlawfully -- >> sounds like racial profiling to me. >> and they're -- and given that what we are talking about is the status of being unlawfully present -- >> do you have the statistics as to how many arrests there are and how many -- and what the -- percentage of calls before the statute? >> there is some evidence in the record, your honor. it's the -- the palmatier declaration, which is in the joint appendix, was the -- he was the fellow who used the run the law enforcement support center, which answers the inquiries. that -- that declaration indicates that in fiscal year 2009, there were 80,000 inquiries and -- >> what does this have to do with federal immigration law? i mean, it may have to dowith racial harassment, but i thought you weren't relying on that. >> the -- >> are you objecting to harassing the -- the people who have no business being here? is that -- surely you're not concerned about harassing them. and've been stopped anyway, all you're doing is calling up to see if they're illegal immigrants or not. so you must be talking about other people who have nothing to do with -- with our immigration laws. okay? citizens and -- and other people, right? >> and other -- and other people lawfully present in the country, certainly, but this is -- >> but that has nothing to do with the immigration law -- >> hines is -- >> -- which is what you're asserting preempts all of this activity. >> hines identified this problem as harassment as -- as a central feature of preemption under the immigration laws because of the concern that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is fundamental to our foreign relations. and this is a -- >> well, let's -- let me just go back, because i think -- i'm trying to get focused the question i think others are asking, and one way to focus it is the same question i asked mr. clement. think of 2(b), the first sentence. all right? now, i can think -- i'm not saying they're right, but if that means you're going to hold an individual longer than you would have otherwise, i can think of some arguments that it is preempted, and some replies. so keep that out of it. suppose that we were to say, that sentence, as we understand it, does not raise a constitutional problem as long as it is interpreted to mean that the policeman, irrespective of what answer he gets from ice, cannot detain the person for longer than he would have done in the absence of this provision. now, in your view, is there any preemption exemption -- argument against -- any preemption argument against that sentence as i have just interpreted it? i don't know what your answer is, and that's why i'm asking. >> yes. we would think it would ameliorate -- >> and if so, what? >> -- it would ameliorate the practical problem; but, there's still a structural problem here in that this is an effort to enforce federal law. and the -- under the constitution, it's the president and the executive branch that are responsible for the enforcement of federal law -- >> it is -- >> -- and -- >> it is not an effort to enforce federal law. it is an effort to let you know about violations of federal law. whether or not to enforce them is still entirely up to you. if you don't want to do this, you just tell the person at lesc -- if that's the right -- is that the right acronym? >> it is, mr. chief justice. >> -- lesc, look, when somebody from arizona calls, answer their question, and don't even bother to write it down. okay? i stopped somebody else, is he legal or illegal, let me check -- it's, oh, he's illegal. okay, thanks, good--bye. i mean, why -- it is still your decision. and if you don't want to know who is in this country illegally, you don't have to. >> that's correct. but the process of -- the process of cooperating to enforce the federal immigration law starts earlier, and it starts with the process of making the decisions about who to -- who to stop, who to apprehend, who to check on. and the problem -- the structural problem we have is that those decisions -- in the making of those decisions, arizona officials are not free -- >> under 2(b), the person is already stopped for some other reason. he's stopped for going 60 in a 20. he's stopped for drunk driving. so that decision to stop the individual has nothing to do with immigration law at all. all that has to do with immigration law is the -- whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you. it seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally or not. >> no, i -- i don't think that's right. i think we want to be able to cooperate and focus on our priorities. and one thing that's instructive in that regard, mr. chief justice, are the declarations put into the record by the police chiefs from phoenix and tucson, both of whom i think explain effectively why s.b. -- the section 2(b) obligation gets in the way of the mutual effort to -- to focus on the priorities of identifying serious criminals so that they can be removed from the country. >> anyway, what -- what's wrong about the states enforcing federal law? there's a federal law against robbing federal banks. can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? i think it is. >> i think it could, but i think that's quite -- >> but does the attorney general come in and say, you know, we might really only want to go after the professional bank robbers? if it's just an amateur bank robber, you know, we're -- we're going to let it go. and the state's interfering with our -- with our whole scheme here because it's prosecuting all these bank robbers. >> well, of course, no one would -- >> now, would anybody listen to that argument? >> of course not. >> of course not. >> but this argument is quite different, justice scalia, because here what we are talking about is that federal registration requirement in an area of dominant federal concern, exclusive federal concern with respect to immigration: who can be in the country, under what circumstances, and what obligations they have -- >> now, are you talking about now or -- >> yes. >> -- or does this argument relate to 2 as well? >> this is an argument about section 3. >> well, could i ask you this about 2, before you move on to that? how is a -- this is just a matter of information. how can a state officer who stops somebody or who arrests somebody for a nonimmigration offense tell whether that person falls within the federal removal priorities without making an inquiry to the federal government? for example, i understand one of the priorities is people who have previously been removed, then that might be somebody who you would want to arrest and -- and remove. but how can you determine that without making the -- the inquiry in the first place? >> well, in any individual case, that's correct. you -- you would need to make the inquiry in the first place. it won't always be correct, if you're arresting somebody based on probable cause that they've committed a serious crime, and they -- and they -- the inquiry into whether -- into their status will be enough to identify that person for priority -- >> well, what if they just, they stop somebody for a >> well, what if they just, they stop somebody for a traffic violation, but they want to know whether this is a person who previously was removed and has come back, or somebody who's just -- just within the last few hours possibly come -- well, let's just -- somebody who's previously been removed? how can you know that without making an inquiry? >> well, i think -- i think it's correct that you can't, but there's a -- there's a difference, justice alito, i think, between the question of any individual circumstance and a mandatory policy backed by this civil fine, that you've got to make the inquiry in every case. i mean, i think it's as though -- if i can use an analogy, if you ask one of your law clerks to bring you the most important preemption cases from the last 10 years, and they rolled in the last -- the last hundred volumes of the u.s. reports and said, well, they're in there. that -- that doesn't make it -- >>what if they just rolled in whiting? (laughter.) >> that's a pretty good one. >> look, in the federal statute, it says in 1373 that nobody can prohibit or restrict any government entity from making this inquiry of the federal government. and then it says that the federal government has -- any agency -- and then it says the federal government has an obligation to respond. now, assuming the statute were limited as i say, so nothing happened to this individual, nothing happened to the person who's stopped that wouldn't have happened anyway, all that happens is the person -- the policeman makes a phone call. now that's what i'm trying to get at. if that were the situation, and we said it had to be the situation, then what in the federal statute would that conflict with, where we have two provisions that say any policeman can call? >> so -- >> what's the -- that's --that's where i'm trying to push you. >> yes. notecause in my mind, i'm clear what your answer is to that. >> i understand the question. and i think the answer is this: 1373 was enacted in 1996, along with 1357. and 1357 is the provision that sets forth the powers and authorities of federal immigration officials. it contains 1357(g), which effectively says that federal -- that the federal government, the attorney general, can deputize state officials, so long as they're -- they obtain adequate training and they're subject to the direction and control of the attorney general in carrying out immigration functions. then the last provision, (g)(10), says that nothing that we've said so far should be read to preclude informal cooperation, communication or other informal cooperation in the apprehension, detention and removal of unlawfully present persons. but it's the focus on cooperation. and i think you have to -- so i don't think you can read into 1373 the -- the conclusion that what congress was intending to do was to shift from the federal government to the states the authority to set enforcement priorities, because i think the cooperation in this context is cooperation in the service of the federal enforcement. >> can i get to a different question? i think even i or someone else cut you off when you said there were three reasons why -- 2(b). putting aside your argument that this -- that a systematic cooperation is wrong -- you can see it's not selling very well -- why don't you try to come up with something else? because i, frankly -- as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. you don't have to take the person into custody. so what's left of your argument? >> so let me just summarize what i think the three are, and then maybe i can move on to sections 3 and 5. with respect to -- with respect to 2, we think the harassment argument -- we think this is a more significant harassment problem than was present in hines -- >> please move more -- >> with respect to -- in addition, we do think that there is a structural accountability problem in that they are enforcing federal law but not answerable to the federal officials. and third, we do think there are practical impediments, in that the -- the result of this is to deliver to the federal system a -- a volume of inquiries that makes it harder and not easier to identify who the priority persons are for removal. so those are the three reasons. >> general, you have been trying valiantly to get us to focus on section 3, so maybe we should let you do that now. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. the -- i do think the key thing about section 3 is that we -- is that section 3 is purporting to enforce a federal registration requirement. that's a relationship between the alien and the united states government that's exclusively a federal relationship. it's governed by the terms of 1301 through 1306. and the way in which those terms are enforced does have very significant federal interest at its heart, and there is no state police power interest in that federal registration relationship. and i do think -- i think it's a very important -- justice alito raised the question of these categories of people. i think it's -- it is quite important to get clarity on that. the -- if you are -- if you have come into the country unlawfully, but you have a pending application for asylum, a pending application for temporary protective status because you would have to be removed to a country to which you can't be removed because of the conditions in the country, if you have a valid claim for relief under the violence against women act based on your treatment, if you have a valid claim for relief because you are a victim of human trafficking, if you have a valid claim for relief because you are the victim of a crime or a witness to a crime, all of those persons are in technical violation of 1306(a). and -- and it seems to me they -- they are in violation of 1306(a), so my friend, mr. clement, just is not correct in saying that those are people who aren't in violation of 1306(a) and, therefore, aren't in violation of -- of section 3. they are in violation. >> well, maybe 1306(a) ought to be amended, then. i mean, we have statutes out there, that there a lot of people in violation of it and -- well, the attorney general will take care of it. is that how we write our criminal laws? >> but it's a situation in which no reasonable person would think that the individual ought to be prosecuted, and yet, very often, the states aren't even going to know. in fact, about asylum status, they can't know because there are regulations that require that to be kept private to avoid retaliation against the person making the application. and so, this is -- so this is -- this is, i think, a very strong illustration of why the enforcement discretion over section 3 needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government. >> again, i ask you, do you have any other case in which the basis for preemption has been you are interfering with -- with the attorney general's enforcement discretion? >> well, this is -- >> i think that's an extraordinary basis for saying that the state is preempted. >> i think what's extraordinary about this, actually, justice scalia, is the state's decision to enact a statute purporting to criminalize the violation of a federal registration obligation. and i think that's the problem here. and they're doing it for a reason -- >> it's not criminalizing anything that isn't criminal under federal law. >> but -- but what -- >> it's the bank. it's the federal bank example -- >> well, no. >> -- a state law which criminalizes the same thing that the federal law does. >> i think it's quite different. what they're doing here is using 1306(a) to get at the status of unlawful presence. the only people who can be prosecuted under section 3 are people who are unlawfully present in the country. that's what the statute says. and they're using it to get at that category of people, to essentially use their state criminal law to perform an immigration function. and the immigration function is to try to -- to prosecute these people. and, by the way, you can prosecute somebody, they can be put in jail for 30 days here, but under federal law, a violation of 1306(a) is a continuing offense. so the day they get out of jail for that 30 days, they can be arrested again, and this can happen over and over again. and the point of this provision is to drive unlawfully present people out of the state of arizona. >> suppose --suppose -- well, assume these are two hypothetical -- two hypothetical instances. first, the federal government has said we simply don't have the money or the resources to enforce our immigration laws the way we wish. we wish we could do so, but we don't have the money or the resources. that's the first -- just hypothetical. >> you said that in your brief, didn't you? >> also hypothetical is that the state of arizona has -- has a massive emergency, with social disruption, economic disruption, residents leaving the state because of flood of immigrants. let's just assume those two things. does that give the state of arizona any powers or authority or legitimate concerns that any other state wouldn't have? >> of course, they have legitimate concerns in that situation. and, justice kennedy -- >> and can they go to their legislature and say, we're concerned about this, and ask the legislature to enact laws to correct this problem? >> they -- they certainly can enact laws of general application. they can enforce the laws of general application that are on the books. they already -- as a result of 8 u.s.c. 1621, it's clear that they are under no obligation to provide any state benefits to the population. but i think, most importantly, they can -- and -- not most importantly, but as importantly, they can engage in cooperative efforts with the federal government --excuse me. i see my -- >> no, keep going. >> they can -- they can engage in cooperative efforts with the federal government, of which there are many going on in arizona and around the country, in order to address these problems. >> general, didn't you say in your brief -- i forget where it was -- i thought you said that the -- the justice department doesn't get nearly enough money to enforce our immigration laws? didn't you say that? >> of course, we have to set priorities. there are only -- >> exactly. okay.so the state says, well, that may be your priorities, but most of these people that you're not going after, or an inordinate percentage of them, are here in our state, and we don't like it. they're causing all sorts of problems. so we're going to help you enforce federal law. we're not going to do anything else. we're just enforcing federal law. >> well, what i think they're going to do in arizona is something quite extraordinary, that has significant real and practical foreign relations effects. and that's the problem, and it's the reason why this power needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government. what they're going to do is engage, effectively, in mass incarceration, because the obligation under section 2(h), of course, is not merely to enforce section 2 to the fullest possible extent at the -- at the risk of civil fine, but to enforce federal immigration law, which is what they claim they are doing in section 3 and in section 5. to so -- so you're going have a situation of mass incarceration of people who are unlawfully present. that is going to raise -- poses a very serious risk of raising significant foreign relations problems. and these problems are real. that is the problem of reciprocal treatment of united states citizens in other countries. >> so you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws? >> no. we have a legitimate interest in enforcing the law, of course, but it needs to be -- but these -- this court has said over and over again, has recognized that the -- the balance of interest that has to be achieved in enforcing the -- the immigration laws is exceedingly delicate and complex, and it involves consideration of foreign relations. it involves humanitarian concerns, and it also involves public order and public safety. >> general, when --when -- i know in your brief, you had -- you said that there are some illegal aliens who have a right to remain here. id i'm just realizing that don't really know what happens when the arizona police call the federal agency. they give the federal agency a name, correct? >> i assume so, yes. >> you don't really have knowledge of what -- >> well, they -- i mean, it can come in lots of different ways, but generally, they'll get a name and some other identifying information. >> all right. and what does the computer have? what information does your system have? >> yes. so the way this works is there's a system for -- for incoming inquiries. and then there's a person at a computer terminal. and that person searches a number of different databases. there are eight or ten different databases. and that person will check the name against this one, check the name against that one, check the name against the other one, to see if there are any hits. >> well, how does that database tell you that someone is illegal as opposed to a citizen? today, if you use the name sonia sotomayor, they'd probably figure out i was a citizen. but let's assume it's john doe, who lives in grand rapids. so they're legal. is there a citizen database? >> the citizen problem is actually a significant problem. there isn't a citizen database. if you -- >> i'm sorry, there is or there isn't? >> there is not. if you have a passport, there's a database if you look "passports." so you could be discovered that way. but otherwise, there is no reliable way in the database to verify that you are a citizen unless you're in the passport database. so you have lots of circumstances in which people who are citizens are going to come up no match. there's no -- there's nothing suggesting in the databases that they have an immigration problem of any kind, but there's nothing to -- >> so if you run out of your house without your driver's license or identification and you walk into a park that's closed and you're arrested, you -- they make the call to this agency. you could sit there forever while they -- >> yes, and i -- >> -- figure out if you're -- >> while i'm at it, there is a factual point i think i'd like to correct. mr. clement suggested that it takes 10 minutes to process these calls. that's true, but you're in a queue for 60 minutes before it takes the 10 minutes to process the call. so the average time is 70 minutes, not 10 minutes. >> i had a little -- wasn't sure about your answer to justice kennedy. is the reason that the government is not focused on people who are here illegally as opposed to the other categories you were talking about because of prioritization or because of lack of resources? you suggested that if the -- every illegal alien that you identify is either removed or prosecuted, that that would cause tensions with other governments. so i -- i don't understand if it's because you don't have enough resources or because you don't want to prosecute the people who are simply here illegally as opposed to something else. >> well, it's a little more complicated than that. i think the point is this, that with respect to persons who are unlawfully present, there are some who are going to fall in our priority categories, there are those who have committed serious offenses, there are those who have been removed and have come back, and there are other priority categories. because we have resource constraints and there are only so many beds in the detention centers and only so many immigration judges, we want to focus on those priority categories. find them, remove them. there's a second category, and that is individuals who are here in violation, technically of 1306(a), but who have a valid asylum application or application for temporary protected status or other -- and with respect to those persons that we think would -- it's affirmatively harmful to think that they ought to be prosecuted. and then there is an additional category of people who are not in the second category and not priorities, and the form -- and we think there, the idea that an individual state will engage in a process of mass incarceration of that population, which we do think is what section 2(h) commits arizona to do under section 3, raises a significant foreign relations problem. >> well, can't you avoid that particular foreign relations problem by simply deporting these people? look, free them from the jails -- >> i really think -- >> and send them back to the countries that are -- that are objecting. >> this is a -- >> what's the problem with that? >> well, a couple of things. first is, i don't think it's realistic to assume that the aggressive enforcement of sections 3 and 5 in arizona is going to lead to a mass migration back to countries of origin. it seems a far more likely outcome it's going to be migration to other states. and that's a significant problem. that's part of the reason why this problem needs to be managed on a national basis. beyond that, i do think, you know, the -- it's worth bearing in mind here that the country of mexico is in a central role in this situation. between 60 and 70 percent of the people that we remove every year, we remove to mexico. and in addition, we have to have the cooperation of the mexicans. and i think as the court knows from other cases, the cooperation of the country to whom we are -- to which we are removing people who are unlawfully present is vital to be able to make removal work. in addition, we have very significant issues on the border with mexico. and in fact, they're the very issues that arizona's complaining about in that -- >> so we have to -- we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please mexico. is that what you're saying? >> no, your honor, but what it does -- no, your honor, i'm not saying that -- >> it sounded like what you were saying. >> no, but what i am saying is that this points up why the framers made this power an exclusive national power. it's because the entire country feels the effects of a decision -- conduct by an individual state. and that's why the power needs to be exercised at the national level and not the state level. >> and your concern is the problems that would arise in bilateral relations if you remove all of these people, or a significant percentage or a greater percentage than you are now. nothing in the law requires you to do that. all it does is lets you know where -- that an illegal alien has been arrested, and you can decide, we are not going to initiate removal proceedings against that individual. it doesn't require you to remove one more person than you would like to remove under your priorities. >> right, but the problem i'm focused on -- we're focused on, mr. chief justice, is not our removal decisions, but arizona's decision to incarcerate, and the foreign relations problem that that raises. that's why this power has got to be exercised at the national level. >> and that arises under 3 and 5. >> correct. >> but not 2. >> well, 2 identifies the population that's going to be prosecuted under 3 and 5. i haven't -- i've been up here a long time. i haven't said anything about section 5 yet. and i don't want to tax the court's patience, but if i could spend a minute on section 5. >> section 5. >> the -- i do think the fundamental point about section 5 here is that in 1986, congress fundamentally changed the landscape. congress made a decision in 1986 to make the employment of aliens a central concern of national immigration policy. and this court has described the 1986 law as a comprehensive regime. now, what my friend, mr. clement, says, is that it may be a comprehensive regime for employers; it's not a comprehensive regime for employees. and therefore, it's -- there ought not be any inference here that the states are precluded from criminalizing efforts to seek or obtain employment in arizona. but i really think that's not right. the -- employment is one problem. and congress tackled the problem of employment and made a decision, a comprehensive decision, about the sanctions it thought were appropriate to govern. and congress did, as justice ginsburg suggested, make judgments with respect to the circumstances under which employees could be held criminally liable, as well as the circumstances under which employers could be held liable. and i think it is useful in thinking about the judgments congress actually made -- >> you think field preemption; is that your argument with respect to -- >> it's both. i think we're making both a field and a conflict preemption argument here, justice scalia. and the -- i think it's worth examining the specific judgments congress made in 1986. on the employer's side -- and, after all, this is a situation in which the concern here is that the employer is in a position of being the exploiter and the alien of being the exploited -- on the employer's side, congress said that states may not impose criminal sanctions, and even -- and the federal government will not impose criminal sanctions for the hiring of employees unless there's a pattern or practice. it seems quite incongruous to think that congress, having made that judgment and imposed those restrictions on the employer's side, would have left states free to impose criminal liability on employees merely for seeking work, for doing what you i think would expect most otherwise law--abiding people to do, which is to find a job so they can feed their families. so i think that's a significant problem. in addition, congress made clear in the law that the i--9 form could not be used for any other purpose than prosecutions for violation of the federal antifraud requirements. and if congress wanted to leave states free to impose criminal sanctions on employees for seeking work, they wouldn't have done that, it seems to me. so that i think there are strong indicators in the text that congress did make a judgment, and the judgment was this far and no farther. and it's reasonable that congress would have done so, for the same kinds of foreign relations concerns that i was discussing with respect to section 3. it would be an extraordinary thing to put someone in jail merely for seeking work. and yet that's what arizona proposes to do under section 5 of its law. now, of course, there is an express preemption provision, but the express preemption provision, as this court has said many times, does not operate to the exclusion of implied preemption, field or conflict. so we do think those principles apply here. we think there's a reason why the express preemption provision was limited to the employer's side, which is that after decanas laws had been enacted on the employer's side, and with -- congress was making clear that those were preemptive, there were no laws on the employee's side at the time. and therefore, no reason for preemption. >> thank you, general. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. >> mr. clement, 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: i'd like to start briefly with the enforcement issues and then talk about the other provisions. the last thing i'll say about the enforcement provision, since i do think that the government's rather unusual theory that something that's okay when done ad hoc becomes preempted when it's systematic, i think that theory largely refutes itself. but i will say one thing, which is to just echo that there's no interference with enforcement priorities by simply giving the federal government information on which to bring their enforcement priorities to bear. and this is really illustrated by a point this court made in its florence decision earlier this month, which is that sometimes you pull somebody over for the most innocuous of infractions, and they turn out to be the most serious of offenders. and so if you preclude officers, as happened in phoenix, from communicating with the federal government, the federal government will not be able to identify the worst of the worst. and if you want an example of this, look at the declaration of officer brett glidewell at joint appendix 183 to 186. he pulled somebody over in a routine traffic stop and was shot by the individual. now, the individual it turns out was wanted for attempted murder in el salvador and was also guilty of illegal reentry into the united states. he was stopped on three previous occasions, and his status was not verified. now, if it had been, he certainly would have been apprehended. in at least two of the stops, his immigration status wasn't checked because of a city policy, city of phoenix. now, if the state, i submit, can do anything, it can at the state level override those kind of local policies and say, that's not what we want. community policing is all well and good, but we want to maximize communication with the federal authorities. so i think the enforcement policy and priorities argument simply doesn't work. as to section 3, two points about that. one is, i respectfully disagree with the solicitor general as to whether the various things that he led off -- read off -- the litany of situations where somebody is -- technically doesn't have registration would be a violation of 1306(a). and the reason i take that position is that provision says "a willful failure to register." now, maybe the prosecutors take the view that there's willfulness in those circumstances, but i don't think many judges would. i think they would say that if you've been told by the federal government that you're perfectly fine here and you don't need to register, that that would be good enough to defeat a finding of willfulness. so i don't think 1306(a) covers this case. >> but you're inviting -- you're inviting the very sort of conflict that he's talking about. because what's going to happen now is that if there's no statement by the federal agency of legality, the person is arrested, and now we're going to have federal resources spent on trying to figure out whether they have an asylum application, whether they have this, whether they have that, whether they are exempted under this reason, whether the failure to carry was accidental or not -- i mean, you are involving the federal government in your prosecution. >> well -- >> now, you may say we're not, because all we're going to show is -- what? that we got a federal call -- we got a federal answer that the person wasn't registered? >> no, we're going to say that we communicated with the federal immigration officials, and they told us this is somebody who's perfectly fine and doesn't have to register. >> no -- no confrontation -- no confrontation clause problem with that? with relying on a call to a federal agency and the police officer says, you're arrested, you're charged, it's not an illegal alien -- or it is an illegal alien. >> my supposition, is that they would use that call to not bring the prosecution, so the issue wouldn't even arise. but i do want to be clear about -- >> no, no, no. how about -- how about they get a response, yes, it's an illegal alien? >> and they bring a prosecution under section 3 -- >> so how -- where do they get the records that show that this person is an illegal alien that's not authorized to be here? >> i -- >> who do they get it from? >> i think they would get it from the federal authorities. i think it would be admitted. there might be a challenge in that case. i mean, you know, this is a facial challenge. i'm not going to try to address that potential sixth amendment issue. what i would like to say is two things. one, if there's some sloppiness in the way the federal government keeps its records so that there's lots of people that really should be registered but aren't, i can't imagine that sloppiness has a preemptive effect. the second thing i would say is that i do think, in thinking about section 3 in particular, the analogy is not the fraud on the fda claim in buckman, it's really the state tort law that says that it's a violation of state tort law to not even seek the approval that's needed under the fda for a device. now, states impose tort law for people that market a device without getting the necessary approval, and nobody thinks that's preempted, because it serves the federal interest. it doesn't have a deluge of information. it forces people to get fda approval. and in the same way, this state law will force people to register, which is what the federal government's supposed to want in the first place, so there's no preemption there. there's no conflict. as to the employment provision, i do think it's important to recognize that -- >> finish your sentence. >> -- before 1986, the government was not agnostic about unlawful employment by aliens. the employees were already covered, and they were subject to deportation. so the government said, we're going to cover the employers for the first time. i can't imagine why that would have preemptive effect. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, mr. clement, general verrilli. well argued on both sides. thank you. the case is submitted. >> coming up, a house floor debate. then president obama in the georgia where he signed in -- an executive order to protect u.s. military personnel, veterans and their families from education fraud. later, the former white house budget director testifies about long- maintain medicare's term solvency. >> born in a north korean war camp, it is the only world he ever knew. he is the only one to ever escape. >> his first memory at the age of four was going with his mother to replace near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot. public executions in the camp were held every few weeks. and they were a way of punishing people who violated camp rules. and of terrorizing the 20,000 or 40,000 people who lived in the camp to obey the rules from then on. >> sunday, on his journey out of north korea and learning about society and civilization. may 6, look for our interview with robert caro that coincides with the release of the passage of power, of volume for in the lyric -- the years of lyndon johnson carri. >> he fights in the overlying campaign but what happens at the end? >> you still lose. why, what happens? your pushed back. what kind of operation occurs that plays to the federal advantages? a siege. >> this weekend from the u.s. naval academy, lectures in history. the professor and examines lee and grant and their american way of 4, saturday night at 6:00 and 10:00 eastern. this weekend on c-span 3. >> tomorrow on washington journal, daniel schuman talks about the data act of 2012. fawn johnson has an update on immigration reform efforts in congress. louis michael of the cato institute debate the 10th amendment of the constitution which glorifies state rights. live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span, "washington journal. the house voted to extend low interest rates on federal student loans. without the extension, the rates would go up to 6.8% on july 1. the lower rate was originally passed in 2007 under president bush. republicans and democrats support extending the measure but they disagree on how to pay for it. the republican bill passed today with an offset costs by eliminating part of the 2010 health-care law that provides funding. because of this offset, the white house has issued a veto threat. the bill still awaits action in the senate. here is a look from we look at today's the day from the house floor. economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it once did. our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are moving back home after college only to find washington's tax and spend policies have made it even harder to find a job. in fact, according to a recent associated press report, at least half of recent graduates are unemployed or underemployed. that's unacceptable. under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only gets worse as interest rates on subsidized stafford student loans are set to spike from 3.4% to 6.8% on july 1 of this year. that's why i've introduced h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act, a bill that would avert this interest rate increase because the last thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it much -- that much harder to afford a high-quality education. unfortunately, that's exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in a bipartisan way to pay for this critical instant rate fix. under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the president earlier this year. just three months ago, members on both sides of the aisle came together and the president signed a bill that extended unemployment benefits in the payroll tax cut. the legislation i offer today would use as an offset the exact same source that we all agreed to use just three months ago. the bill would eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called prevention and public health fund, which in truth is nothing more than an open-ended fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. at best this fund serves only to sir cuck vent congress' annual appropriations responsibilities by granting in perpetuity the secretary of health and human services' unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the loose label of prevention programs. i should note that the president himself acknowledged the prevention fund is -- when he requested a $4 billion cut to the program in his f.y. 2013 budget. by reclaiming a portion of the administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of this blank check program, the legislation would extend lower rates for college loans, granting relief to our young people without raising taxes on their potential employees -- employers. it's a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. i ask my colleagues to step forward today and show the american people that we can solve this problem immediately without the drama of a last-minute ondeadline fix. it's my hope that our colleagues in the senate as well will work with us to send it to the president immediately. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the instant rate -- interest rate reduction act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. tierney: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's nice to have our republican friends finally agree the interest rates will be a problem if they rise and doubled. since 2007 when the rates were first reduced when the democrats were in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the republican side. resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and this has been raised to a degree where students and families started to really get involved and engaged that our friends on the other side of the aisle decided, well, they don't want the rates to go up either. but cynically, some might say, the only way they can find a pay-for is to attack women's health and children's health. women don't want this bill that way. children -- students don't want the bill this way. public health groups don't want the bill this way. the senate said they won't accept the bill this way. it's dead on arrival. and the white house sees it this way. if we want to set aside partisanship, let's pick a pay-for that the american people can get behind and we can all agree on. let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games and do the right thing. let's make sure the interest rates stay at 3.4%. let's make sure that 177,000 students in massachusetts and seven million nationwide have affordable access to college and be able to pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. let's start doing the right thing. last week our republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge fund managers in a tax cut, to give to donald trump. his trump tower leasing company. to give to other people that already had millions of dollars and didn't pay for it. this week they finally get around to the issue trying to help students and come up with a cynical aspect of paying for it by once again attacking women's health, adding children on. immunization, screenings for breast cancer and birth defects. this is ridiculous. we should move forward and do the right thing. the fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little bit in the last two times, as the speaker mentioned on that, but left largely intact. this one would wipe out the entire fund. twice the amount necessary in order to fund what they're purporting to do because they are ideologically going after the health care bill. we need to make sure that women's health care and children's health care is protected. we need to make sure the interest rates stay low. we are certain we can do that. it won't be done by doing it this way. and members of the senate will have to work in conference to make sure we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense. 250 tax expenditures in the tax code. $1.3 trillion. we can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction here and do it in a way that all of america can get behind and both parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this direction. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 43, providing for a condition adjournment or recess of the senate and adjournment of the house of representatives in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the gentleman from new jersey that we also for prevention, but we have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of what we do and not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person who is not -- when there is no oversight by congress. and with that i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan for two minutes. and a member of our education and work force committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, just a bit of history lesson. we hear a lot of demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land about the unwillingness for republicans to help our students, our college students receive the education that they need by having the loans that they deserve. going back to 2006, as part of the democrats' six in 2006 campaign agenda, the democrats promised to cut student loans interest in half. when they took the majority and i sat on the house education and labor committee at the time, they gained control of congress, all of a sudden they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do so they put in place, against our opposition, saying that the private sector still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it fluctuate and flow at a variable rate with the market, ultimately reducing the overall cost of interest over the course of time for our students. they chose not to do that. they put in a place the plan that we have right now, a democrat plan that said in fact we will go to 6.8% in july of 2012. after dropping it back because they knew they couldn't afford it. they did it at a short-term process and ultimately it comes to fruition now that we are at a cost problem. and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. it is their plan that we're dealing with. it is their mess that we're asked to fix at this point in time. the college cost reduction access act incrementally reduced to 3.4% that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place of what we're looking at. as the expiration date crept closer, democrats did nothing in the 111th congress, despite knowing this would take place, and now we have a problem. mr. speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation garb and on one of the top of the motor boards it says, hire me. that's the issue we're talking about, an economy that doesn't offer jobs. and so what we ought to be looking at here is growing economy, not on obamacare fix that will cost reasonable programs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. biggert: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. walberg: we ought to be looking for ways for growing an economy that gives the opportunity for students to get jobs, pay off loans at whatever rate it will be and there is a much better way to do it than the way it's been done. we ought to be growing a economy for job providers as opposed to what the senate sent over to us, their solution to whack at more job providers, make it more difficult to find stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply the opportunity to be hired. i thank the speaker and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield -- reminding the gentleman in 2007 the bill was paid for. in fact it was paid for with 77 members of the republican party agreeing to it and now it's time to pay for it in an intelligent and correct manner. i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the fix that the republicans are in and after a week ago you almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4% interest rate to students and in adopting the ryan republican budget agreeing to let it go out to 6.8%. in fact, they used that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy that they anticipate in their budget, so they took students' money and the families and the savings they were made out of this, almost $16 billion over the last four years, and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8%. president obama went on the road for three days and all of a sudden the republicans have decided that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4%. you can say all of this is cynical. i believe it is on their part because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. they see their position in being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer. to attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects. to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. so now on the cover of being for student health -- i mean, for student loans, they are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion. you know, every now and then in this place where it's terribly partisan, it can be very cynical as we see with this action today, with this bill, a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and understanding, and we see today that we have statements by almost all of the major student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4% but we do not want kept it at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parent's health, our mother's health, our sister's health, our friend's health. i ask for one minute. so we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a time-out and say, find another way to pay for this but don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants, don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease, don't it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer where the difference can mean life or death for those women. don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the backs of our students. don't do it in our name. in our name, don't do this legislation. vote no against this. we'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. that's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, charlie bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for two minutes. mr. bass: i thank the speaker and i thank my colleague from illinois for recognizing me. there's a little disagreement between republicans and democrats over the need to extend the subsidized interest rates for student loans for at least another year. student loan debt now in america exceeds $1 trillion which i believe is more than the entire nation's credit card debt. it's a very serious national priority that needs to be addressed and should be resolved into a bipartisan fashion. as you can tell from the tenor of the debate this morning, it is the issue how we are going to come up with the money to pay for this. first of all i think it's a miracle we are debating that. prior administration in this congress wouldn't even have brought the subject up how to pay for it. at least the democrats now want to pay for it by raising prices on gasoline through higher taxes on oil companies, and i believe that taxation of oil companies should be on the table in tax reform not an education bill. we have a proposal that would reduce the funding in the prevention to public health fund account, and of course our friends on the other side of the aisle are right on message on their national message of tying everything that republicans want to do to be some sort of a battle against women. let me just point out that i believe there is already about $119 million in f.y. 2011 for the c.d.c.'s earlry breast and cervical cancer and early detection program. i know my friend from illinois will probably enumerate on this further. i would point out that the program or the funds that the democrats are trying to protect actually is providing money for early detection, but it's for free spaying and neutering for dogs and cats around the country. this money comes out of communities work campaign and that's receiving money from health and human services secretary slush fund. i would also point out to my friends that this fund has already been reduced in order to pay for the payroll tax deduction. it's not setting a precedent. i would suggest that a fund that's funded at $17.75 -- can i get 30 seconds? i would suggest a fund that's funded at $17.75 billion for the first 10 years and then automatically advance appropriated for $2 billion a year, i never heard of that in the congress. that means that we are turning over our authority to raise and appropriate money to the tune of $2 billion a year to the health and human services secretary with no oversight from congress at all. i want student loans to remain at their lower rate and i want to do it in a fiscally responsible fashion. that's what this bill does. i yield back to my friend from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: address the fact that the elimination of the need is on an annual basis, $326,000 fewer women will be screened for breast cancer. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. terny -- tierney. you want to first of all recognize your leadership and george miller's leadership back in 2007 when we passed the college cost reduction act which reduced an interest rate of 67.8% -- 6.8% which was set as a result of a republican congress in 2002 which passed a budget reconciliation act locking in that higher rate. it has saved 15 million students in this country higher debt levels because we cut that rate from 3.4%. sadly the speaker of the house, john boehner, voted against that measure. sadly my good friend from men mb, the chairman of the house education and work force committee, voted against that measure in 2007. it was well understood it had a five-year sunset, like a lot of programs in tax policies in this congress. people were complaining about the clip we created. how about the bush tax cuts? that's got a $4 trillion cliff on december 31 because the majority party when they enacted the tax cuts sunset that measure. here we are today, 64 days away, and we are now suddenly seeing the majority party nudging on this subject. as mr. miller pointed out, the ryan budget, which the republicans lined up as a party to pass two or three weeks ago. they locked in the higher rate, built into the ryan budget. in addition in doubled down on higher education affordability by cutting the pell grant award from $6,000 to $5,000. that is the republican higher education platform. thankfully we have a president who stood on the platform on january 24 and challenged this congress to protect that lower rate and because we did not get a healing, we didn't get a will, we didn't get a markup, we got no flicker of action by the leadership of this chamber, he went on the road and talked to the people of this country like presidents before him, like harry truman and others, because that was the only way you are going to turn this body around was with external pressure to make sure that middle class families knew what the heck was going on. which was nothing. i started this countdown clock at 110 days when we were waiting for this debt level to go up. and there was a reason for that, because 130,000 petition signatures were dropped off at the speaker's office at day 110. we heard nothing from that date when again overwhelming college campus signatures arrived at this congress and now today we are down to day 64. they are feeling the political heat. good for you, mr. president, for raising this issue and forcing this body to address one of the biggest challenges our nation faces. and they come up with a pay for that is a disgraceful, grotesque pay for that goes after women and children in the name of protecting student loans. as mr. miller said thank goodness the student leaders who have been leading fight to protect this lower rate have stood up and said, no way. 30 seconds more? i would just--mr. tierney: another 15 seconds. mr. courtney: i would just say that the president responded to that call a few minutes ago by indicating that this measure is dead. it will be vetoed. it's not going anywhere. let's get back to work and come up with a real fix and solve this crisis for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to remind the gentleman from connecticut that he was one of 157 -- 47 members on that side of the aisle voting for taking money out of this -- out of the protection of -- for health care. i would now yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, our esteemed chairman of the education. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding the time and for introducing this legislation. i rise in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. we seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we've got an economy in shambles. we've got unemployment rate above 8% now for over three years. we got college graduates who graduate from college and can't get a job. after of them can't get a job or get the right job. they are underemployed or unemployed. and we've got by law the interest rate on subsidized stafford student loans going from 3.4% to 6.8%, by law. a law drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. it was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this was going to happen. we were going to get to the point where interest rates were going to double. nevertheless, it's the law. and so what do we do about it? it seems to me, and i think we get some agreement on this, we ought to have a long-term fix so we are not doing this again next year and the next year, and the next year. make it a decision, we need a long-term fix. so today we are trying to stop up -- step up and address the immediate concerns of our students, our graduates that go into this shaky economy. so we are moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4% for one more year. and i look at this as the opportunity for them -- us to get together and make a long-term fix. a fix that is much more driven by the market rather than the politics of the day or the year. by election year, we need a long-term fix. this will give us the opportunity to do that. our students deserve -- another 30 seconds if i could. mrs. biggert cloverpb another 30 seconds. -- mrs. biggert: another 30 seconds. mr. kline: we have got proposals from the other side of the aisle from friends in the senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very time when our economy is in touch trouble. and there are other proposals that says let's tax all companies. let's drive up the price of gas. we can talk about cynicism. what we are talking about is using a slush fund that is provided to the secretary to spend as she sees fit. that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. what a surprise in this election year. another 30 seconds, please. there are multiple, multiple sources of funding, of programs that can address women's needs. i think it is cynical to suggest that we are somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly give. the president himself has already proposed taking $4 billion from the slush fund. this is the way to go. let's address the immediate needs of our students and work together on a long-term solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: the republicans' long-term fix was voted on a couple weeks in their budget which allowed the rates to go up to 6.8% an took away the in-school subsidy for interest rates, driving students' costs further up. that's why we are here today. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: a college student sits in the financial aid office worried about her interest rate doubling on july 1. a woman sits in the waiting room of a health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. and a corporate executive sits in the boardroom of an oil company waiting to get his tax break from the federal government. everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid the loan increase. the bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the interest rate increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic and deny her the cancer screening. we say the way to do it is to go to the corporate executive and the oil company boardroom and deny him his tax give away from the federal treasury. the way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down health for the women of this country. the way to pay for it is to shut down the give away of taxpayer dollars for the oil industry of this country. that's the way to fix the problem and that's the way we eventually will. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. buerkle, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: good morning, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan initiative that will save our country's future leaders billions of dollars. economists have resoundingly predicted that a student loan crisis may soon end america's fragile, and i stress fragile, factor into shambles if it is not soon addressed. the new york federal reserve has reported that student loans are the leading cause of this debt. with $870 billion last month alone. this tops even credit card debt. my friend in illinois has proposed a commonsense solution to halt an increase in federal loan rates that everyone agrees is needless. but, mr. speaker, i must say to you, i was stunned to hear that leaders on the other side of the aisle, our good friends on the other side, were attempting to take this issue hostage. our sons and daughters' pursuits have been hydrogened -- hijacked for political gamesmanship. let me be clear, mr. speaker, the fund which is offsetting this looming rate hike is nothing more than a slush fund. the h.h.s. secretary has authority to use it without congressional discretion. . it was giving to an unelected bureaucrat that used things for bike paths, lobbying efforts. i am a woman who has worked for years as a woman's health care practitioners and on behalf of women's health care patients. i will tell you for the other side, mr. speaker, to manipulate this issue does nothing to advance women's interests but in fact demeans the accomplishments made in women's health over the past decade. mr. speaker, i implore my colleagues who are playing games with this critical issue to grow up. this is not kindergarten. this is the reality of crushing debt college costs. this bill will help our future by making colleges more affordable by leaving them with a country that is not unindated in debt. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: thank you. before i yield any further i am going to take 15 seconds and yield to myself, mr. speaker. this supposed slush fund that people are talk about is a fund giving the appropriations committee the authority to designate where it will be spent. that authority was advocated by our friends on the other side. and the secretary specified every year where it will be spent. 326,000 screenings for breast cancer, 284,000 cervical cancer screenings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tierney: and so on down the line. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority -- minority leader of the house from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in july and to pay for that by cutting subsidies to big oil instead, as the republicans do, making it -- continuing their all-out assault on women's health. so much of the time we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to america's working families that are struggling to make ends meet. imagine them around their kitchen table as we talk about this, that and the other things seems disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. what we're talking about today directly relates to what keeps people up at night -- their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families. the list goes on. some of those -- some of those are addressed in this legislation. i think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children. imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family as we are and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college we're not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventive care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, the list goes on and on, for your mom or any other preventive care for men and women in our family. it just would be wrong. who are we as a nation than to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family? it's just not right. especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over again. will you tell me put it in context. in 2007 the democratic majority in the house, working in a bipartisan fashion with our republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the interest rates to 3.4%. we were very proud of that legislation, passing with 77 members of the republican vote -- voting with the democratic party. the bill was signed by then president george w bush and we all celebrated -- george w. bush and we all celebrated that legislation. if no action is taken, those interest rates at 3.4% will go back to the level of 6.8%. we had been making that argument over and over again that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way that enables them to acquire higher education, should they desire and be qualified to do so. that's in their family and their family's priorities. the republicans have grown impatient, they said, with hearing about student loans. don't look at us. until the president went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, that in the republican budget, the ryan republican tea party budget, there was -- it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. and our house budget, house democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4%. a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table. and you have a college-age child. it's about the children and the debt they incur and the families and the debt they incur. because the president took the issue to the american people, he made the issue too hot to handle, so the republicans this week are doing an about face for what they did last week which was to vote overwhelmingly for their budget which will allow the student loans, the stafford loans to double. an about face. what do they do? they say, ok, we won't allow it to double, but we're going to take the money from women's health. should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing assault on women's health, and this is in their budget and this is just a continuation of that. but i think it's important to note the following -- that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the from rate at 3.4%, they say while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. let's eliminate the entire fund for prevention, for the immunization, for the screening and the rest, for the c.d.c. to do its public health work. let's eliminate it. that should tell you something about where their priorities are that they're saying, we stand here once again handmaidens of the oil industry, protecting subsidies for big oil, and instead we want mom and the children to pay the price with their health. that's just not right. it's just not right. the president made it clear to the public the difference in our approach on the student loan issue. now he has made it clear that ell veto this bill -- that he will veto this bill if it contains this pay-for. unfortunately, rather than finding common ground and a way to pay for this critical policy, the statement of administration policy says, this bill includes an attempt to repeal the prevention in public health fund created to help prevent disease detected early and manage conditions before they become severe. women in particular will benefit from this prevention fund which would provide for hundreds of thousands of screenings for breast and cervical cancer. this is already happening. this would have to stop under this bill. so let's back up for a moment and say we all want the most educated population in our country so people can reach their self-fulfillment, whatever they decide it is, so we can be competitive in world markets, so we can have an informed electorate. in the spirit of the g.i. bill, which educated the -- our soldiers when they came home, created a middle class in our country which is the backbone of our democracy, and in a global economy even more necessary for us to be able to have the skills and trained work force in order to compete. let's also recognize that nothing brings more money to the treasury than the education of the american people, whether it's early childhood, k-12, higher education, postgrad, lifetime learning, nothing brings more money to the treasury. so it will be a false economy to deter people from seeking more education and it's adding insult to injury to say now that we finally had to fold on the issue and agree with the democrats that we should keep the interest rates at 3.4% instead of doubling at 6.8%, we will put women and children first as those who will pay for that. that's just not right. i congratulate the president for his message to the american people, for the message of his administration and statement of administration policy that a veto would be recommended. i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: three minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. i apologize. mr. woodall: i rise in reluctant opposition to this bill. we got caught up in politician today. i am so angry i could spit. i am trying to bring my blood pressure around. i am the key note speaker tonight for the georgia college republicans statewide convention, and i'm going to go down there and proudly tell them i voted no on this bill today that is pandering on their interest, not because i don't love people in education, it's because i love young people in education. we are paying for a piece of legislation, every oil industry tax you want to raise, every millionaire tax you want to raise, you know, that could be paying down the deficit that we're borrowing from these young people that you purport to -- that you support here today. every new piece of obamacare that we want to abolish and should be aabolished, we could put that money toward the $1 trillion we're borrowing from our children and asking them to pay back. i am not embarrassed what we do to serve our young people. congratulations on our subsidies for our young people. we've now driven our student loan debt higher than the credit card debt in this country. congratulations. congratulations that we now have a 3.4% so one out of two people who come out of college and can't find a job can default on those loans at a lower rate instead of a higher rate. congratulations. what about focusing on the jobs? what about focusing on our children's future? what about focusing on the better tomorrow that we owe to these young people? there's a choice of two futures here. a choice of two futures. and the committee, as everyone in this house knows, is working on a fermnant solution, a permanent solution. we -- permanent solution. a permanent solution. we subsidize institute loans today. 6.8%. that's below market interest rates. we subsidize student loans today with an above-the-line deduction on the 1040. everybody can take that today. already today. and here we are in the midst of the largest economic crisis in our nation's history saying once again let's spend the money instead of putting the money towards these children's future. there is no free lunch in this town. every single penny that we spend we're spending from them. you're not subsidizing these people. you are asking them to pay more with interest in their future. one out of two kids can't find a job graduating from college. student loans higher than credit card loans for the first time in american history. are we headed in the right direction? are we headed in the wrong direction? i say, focus on what this committee on labor and education is doing. look at what they are doing for a permanent fix to provide certainty. this is another short-term fix. and i know my colleagues on the left and on the right are trying their best to do what they believe in their heart that's going to serve our young people, but short-term fixes aren't the answer. there's a better answer and it's coming from the committee later on this year. i hope my colleagues will oppose this bill today and support that bill going forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. just before i yield i want to correct the gentleman. there is somebody that would get the free lunch and that is the oil companies that made $80 billion in profits last year. i recognize the gentleman from illinois for unanimous consent. mr. davis: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in opposition to robbing health and education to pay for oil. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tierney: with that, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. kildee: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to the majority's faulty attempt to extend current student loan interest rates. the ryan budget, which most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted for, allow those interest rates to expire. it was only when they started getting criticized by the press they decide to offer an alternative to our proposal. even then it took yet another shot at the health care law while keeping big oil subsidies intact. mr. speaker, this year a mammogram has saved my wife's life. they have chosen the wrong priority. at the end of the day, the american people cannot afford to see their interest rates double on their student loans. . i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in offering a legitimate source of funding that doesn't put anyone's health in jeopardy. this congress needs to find an equitable solution to this problem before july 1. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. banks offer car loans at 3.99% interest rate. banks also offer 30-year fixed mortgages on homes with an interest rate of 3.8%. student loans are currently at 3.4%, but if we don't do something it's going to jump to 6.8%. it seems to mekong can handle this and do something about it -- it seems to me that congress can handle this and do something about it. recent graduates from college are unemployed or underemployed. i received an email from a high school student today encouraging to do a commonsense thing to put the student loan rate at 3.4%. why don't we do that? student loan debt has reached $1 trillion. why would you want to strap students going into college with more debt by increasing the student loan rate in this current economic climate? you can get a car or home loan rate very low. in fact you can get some car loans with zero%, but not so with students. why is that? we should maintain low interest rates for student loans. cars and homes are important, but students going to college on investment in our future. education is important tool for our young people to be able to contribute to america's competitiveness worldwide. also the bill is paid for and some of the money that's coming out of this unconstitutional health care mandate will go to deficit reduction. we need to support our students and encourage young people to go to college. not discourage them by increasing their student loan rate because of politics. this is a commonsense idea, extend the student loan low interest rate, we should do it today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i note, mr. speaker, it was common sense about two weeks ago along with the entire republican party to let the rate go to 6.8%. it's nice to see they have found reality here. this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. following up on my friend from texas, i served on the labor health committee for 23 years. bill from kentucky used to say this, if you take care of the health of your people and invest in the education of your young people, you'll continue to be the strongest and best nation on the face of the earth. i agreed with the gentleman from kentucky then and i agree with him now. everybody says on this floor, although everybody didn't vote that way, mr. boehner voted against this reduction in interest rates, mr. cantor voted against this reduction in interest rates, and mr. kleine voted in 2007 against this reduction in interest rates. what we are saying is we need to invest, we talk about subsidies, this isn't a subsidy, this is an investment in a wetter -- better, stronger, more growing america. that's what this is. but what do we say? natcher said remember if we take care of the health of our people this undermines the health of our people. it takes away preventive assistance so that women, families, children can get preventive care which so many republicans have said is a more efficient and effective cost saving way to address the health of our country. bill natcher was right. bill natcher was right. conservative democrat from kentucky who said, if you take care of the health of your people and educate your young people, you will be the strongest nation on earth. this bill goes in the wrong direction trying to do the right thing. let us reject this bill and if in fact you are for investing in our young people and bringing these interest rates down, which is so absolutely essential, then bring back a bill you know will pass because you know this bill will not pass. the president has issued a statement of administration policy that says he will veto this bill because they do not want to undermine the health of women, family, and children while at the same time they want to invest in the college education for our country, young people, and our future. reject this bill. bring back a new bill, the courtney bill, which does in fact invest in our children and take care of the health of our people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you. mr. speaker, as we have noted before, in february congress took action to stop a payroll tax increase on working families and ensure the tax increase did not add to the deficit. the legislation cut $5 billion from the prevention fund. and the bill received the support of 149 house democrats, including democrat leaders such as ms. pelosi and mr. kildee, and mr. courtney. i guess that the democrats were in favor of raiding the slush fund before they were against it. with that i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: thank you so much. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. i have a prepared speech but in sitting here listening to the debate i really want to focus in on one specific issue. american students should not be fearful to attend college due to the crushing weight of student loans weighing them down after their graduation, but as is suggested by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this preventive care finds reduction would deny access to individuals for these health care screenings, and i had the privilege, mr. speaker, just yesterday, to have a conversation with the secretary see we'llous -- sebelius directly as it relates to this fund. i asked her very specifically, madam secretary, will the reduction in the preventive fund cause a child to be denied access to a health screening? and by her own admission she said, and i quote, absolutely not. so as i am listening to this debate and hear the comments from my friends on the other side of the aisle i'm dismayed to hear some of the things being said that quite frankly by the secretary's own admission just quite are not true. and so i stand today in support of this bill and i want to also point out that by the secretary's own admission as well she acknowledged that in fact the president of the united states himself in his own budget put reductions to this fund. the interest rate reduction act will repeal the slush fund, the $5.9 billion will be used to offset the cost of maintaining the one-year extension as we move towards a meaningful response to our young people. congress must put washington politics aside and take action. it is time to stop piecing together temporary solutions to the problems that exist in our student aid programs. i fully support the interest rate reduction act and i encourage my colleagues to join me. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. madam speaker, i note i was at that education meeting and heard the secretary say quite clearly that no child would get immunization under this program will get immunization under this program if the fund is eliminated. mr. speaker, of course taking a little bit of the money and taking that and equating it to wiping out the entire fund. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the cynicism of the debate today is why congress is held in such low repute. we hear republicans saying that a public health fund is a slush fund. this is a fund set up to keep us healthy, prevent diseases as long as possible, immunize our kids, provide mammography and pap smears to women in need, find wirt defects early on, help stop smoking, they call this a slush fund. they are not trying to reduce this fund, their proposal is to eliminate it. and the argument from the other side of the aisle is, well, we'll still get those services. i don't know whether we'll get those services if the fund is eliminated and appropriations are being squeezed down. so they call this a slush fund, but they are using it as a slush fund because they took the elimination of this fund to pay for this extension of student loan interest rates, and they eliminated this fund so they could use it for their reconciliation to the budget in order to make sure defense is adequately funded, to make sure the tax cuts are kept in place. they are using it as a slush fund and they are using the student loan issue to drive their agenda. i find that very cynical. i find that, in fact, quite repulsive. and i hope we will reject this bill. we are all for, according to the debate, making sure that we maintain the current interest rates for the 7.4 million students depending on these loans, but i don't find much sincerity when we see a proposal coming from the republican majority to pay for that by cutting out preventive services. there's got to be a better way to do it. they are not looking for a better way, they are just looking for a way to cover their rear ends. i urge people to vote against this bill. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. stearns: i thank my distinguished colleague. let me just say to the gentleman from california who just getting ready to leave the floor, when he mentioned that republicans are going to prevent tobacco prevention of our youth today, he and i both know there's a separate program in c.d.c. just for tobacco prevention. and in fact in this so-called pphf which all of us have called the slush fund which is the prevention of public health fund, there is right now $191.685 million for this spending for tobacco prevention. and after this amendment passed there would be $109 million still remaining in this for that smoking and health component of cdc. i say to the gentleman from massachusetts and mr. hoyer from maryland, i mean you're yelling fire and there's no fire. i could go through all these things to show you that your arguments are wrong. the fact that see we'llous -- sebelius, the head of the health and human services said publicly, she in fact pointed out that this so-called slush fund is not going to impact what mr. hoyer says dealing with women and families and children. and they bring up mr. hatcher. mr. hatcher says is very noble, very good. and you constantly hues that. i'm going to take you through these different areas where you say that it's going to be unable to provide supports for the family and women and children. cancer prevention and control which includes breast and cervical cancer screening, it's funded at $205 million in f.y. 2005 budget and f.y. 2013 budget goes up to $261 million. it goes up almost 60 million. no prevention funds are being used for free cancer screening. and will not be affected. let's take birth defects and developmental disabilities. in f.y. 12 the program was $138 million. it's now going to be $125 million. again, these funds would continue to receive discretionary funding, nutrition, physical, activity, obesity activity again will continue to receive funding. viral hepatitis screening. c.d.c. health care statistics and surveillance, and prevention research center. all of these things, i say to the folks on this side, are going to continue to receive base discretionary funding. and i challenge you, the gentleman from massachusetts, to point out where and each one of the ones i talked about, all these programs are going to remain in exist ens. how in the world can you -- existence. how in the world can you come to the floor and constantly say -- i'm almost ready -- the point is that you folks are not actively portraying what this bill does, so i support h.r. 4628 and i agree with secretary sebelius, the slush fund will not affect women, family, and children. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair not to others in the second person. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i would have addressed my remarks to the chair and taken the challenge anything other than an empty challenge they would have noted secretary see bell us and administration clearly those funds would have been diminished in the screenings for wrest cancer and cervical cancer would have been passed by hundreds of thousands in the administration's own analysis. i ask the chair for the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 13 minutes remaining. and the gentlelady from illinois has 514r3/4 minutes remaining. mr. tierney: with that i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. . mr. holt: think of the great moments of american public policy, creation of land grant colleges, the g.i. bill, providing student loans, all directed toward increasing access to higher education. four years ago we, the democrats, lowered interest rates for students to 3.4%, saving today's typical student borrower a couple thousand dollars. so two days ago the speaker, cornered by student outrage, said the majority always intended to keep these rates low. if the republicans were interested in keeping the student interest rates low, why did their budget double it? they voted twice to let rates double and collect $166 billion more from students so they could preserve tax giveaways for big oil. now they come and propros canceling preventive health care funding, not preventing cervical cancer, not preventing tobacco-related diseases, eviscerating the centers for disease control to preserve tax giveaways for big oil. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois reserves her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much. first, let me thank congressman tierney for yielding and for your tireless leadership on this important issue. it's clear to me the republicans are not serious about addressing the student a lot interest rate hikes with their so-called interest rate reduction act. their bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing and would permanently end the prevention in public health fund established by the affordable care act. this is the first mandatory funding stream dedicated to improving public health. it is extremely important in our fight to prevent chronic diseases, h.i.v. and aids and women's health. this is such a sad and sinister ploy. instead of pitting student loan relief against critical critical preventive health for middle and low-income families, we should be working toward real solutions. instead of paying for subsidies to big oil, we should invest in our students who are our future. this bill jeopardizes, mind you, jeopardizes the health of our nation. it uses our students as pawns, and it is morally wrong. i hope we defeat this insincere proposal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for two minutes. ms. delauro: the republican majority in this house is involved in the political shell game on this issue. they have voted to eliminate the prevention and public health fund. they voted two days ago to end it. today they want to tell you they are going to take money from it to pay for student loans. you can't end the fund and then talk about taking money to use it. in addition to that, the gentleman from california a moment ago talked about money in the appropriations bills for these health care programs. what he doesn't tell you that the majority in the committee are voting to cut the money for the centers for disease control , for the screening for breast and cervical cancer, for all these efforts. they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. this majority passed a budget that has asked families to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, slash pell grants for nearly 10 million college students, allow interest rates on student loans to double in july. and after there was an outpouring of concern about the doubling of interest rates, they switched course. this apparent moment of conscience was too good to be true. instead of ending oil subsidies, closing corporate tax loopholes, what they now have done, they eliminate, eliminate the prevention in public health fund what that fund does is -- i'll be brief in this -- it is about providing screening for breast and cervical cancer. women die every year from kembcal cancer. isn't it worth trying to prevent cervical cancer and not eliminate it? it works to prevent coronary heart disease, the leading killer of women in america. it has the potential of mitigate othio pour owe cis, arthritis, mental illness. this would disproportionately protect the women. there is a level of hypocrisy on this floor that is staggering. instead of taking the money from health care for education, a false choice, vote against this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. without objection. mr. levin: the republicans have taken a 180-degree turn on helping with student loans. the republican budget said no. in february, governor mitt romney said this, the right course for america is to make sure that we provide loans to the extent we possibly can at an interest rate that doesn't have the taxpayers having to subsidize people who want to go to college. want to go to school. now he and the republicans here have shifted. shifty indeed. now they're doing so is not only politically expedient but extremely harmful. they hit health care. health care. they refuse to end a tax break for bill oil that never should have been given in the first place. even though the big five oil companies made more than $32 billion in the fourth quarter of last year alone. this bill is shameless. it is shameful. vote no. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does the gentlelady from illinois continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: yes, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yold one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, in my dictionary a slush fund is defined as a fund for bribing public officials or carrying on corruptive propaganda. yet, the speaker of the house used that term, the chair of the education and labor committee used that term slush fund to describe the prevention of public health fund which has screenings for cervical cancer and birth defects and immunizations. we are the most wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. i refuse to accept the idea that to solve one problem we have to create another. the democrats propose writing the ryan budget wrong by taxing oil company profits. therefore, their suggestion that we go from a 3.4% interest to 6.8% can be paid for out of the wealth of oil companies that benefit from our country so tremendously. mr. speaker, i reject the blackmail inherent in h.r. 4628. i don't want anybody to know that it's ok to pit one group against another and we cannot undermine health care to pay for education. we have to do the right thing and we have to choose both. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: yes, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: yes, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: mr. speaker, unless college acts -- congress acts, stafford loan rates will double. i spoke to some students at san diego state university just just the other day worried about their day-to-day needs and they asked us not to play politics with this issue. new grads should have increased opportunities, not bills they can't pay. a college degree should invite calls from job recruiters, not from collection agencies. i'm glad that the majority has abruptly changed course by agreeing to stop the interest rate hike, but it is unacceptable this this bill proposes to pay for this by repealing the prevention fund. the bill creates a choice between funding cancer screening for a mother or making college more affordable for her daughter. would you want to be that mother? that sends the wrong message to the american people about our priorities. i urge my colleagues to support a more equitable solution that promotes the health of the american families and the future of our bry minds. i -- bright minds. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i'd ask the gentleman, does he have more -- mr. tierney: at least five more speakers. mrs. biggert: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i'd like to yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. clarke, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. clarke: i'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding me time. we talk about the cost of capping student loan interest rates. well, i think we should extend the cap for longer than a year, and we don't need to cut people's health care screenings in order to do it. let's create jobs. that's how we can create the economic revenue. and one of the best ways for us to create jobs is to allow student loan borrowers the ability to pay down their loan according to their income for 10 years and then making them eligible to have the balance of their student loans if they own any, to be forgiven. that's the best economic stimulus. you know, these loans are not just for the benefit of the borrower. it also makes our country stronger. the more our people are trained and educated, we can sell the best products overseas and create the best technology. that creates jobs for this country. it's in our national interest to help pay down these debts and forgive certain student loans. let's redirect some of our money from afghanistan and iraq and use the savings to forgive student loans. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: continue to reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: you know, once again the republican leadership has shown it's more interested in playing political games than it is in getting things done. we're talking about student loans here. we should be putting our heads together and coming up with a better way to pay for lowering student loan rates, not eviscerating health care prevention. this is nothing more than a cynical ploy. you know, the american people want us to work together. we have an opportunity to do this. this is what we really should be doing. there are lots of loopholes that we could close. my colleagues have mentioned big oil and big gas. we could close those loopholes. we have corporations making lots of money. we could close those loopholes. but what do the republicans decide to do? they decide to hurt health benefits and prevention benefits. this is not the way we should be going. we need to put our heads together and help these students. the democrats have side time and time again that this is our priority. we have voted against republican budgets that raise the amount that students have to pay in loans. stop playing your cynical games and let's get to work for the american people. let's put our heads together. let's help these students and let's not eviscerate health prevention. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentlelady continue to reserve? mrs. biggert: continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. peters: i rise in opposition to h.r. 4628, a misguided, deeply partisan bill which would cut $6 billion from the prevention and public health fund. for months i have been proud to help lead the charge to prevent student loan rates from doubling on july 1, so please excuse my surprise when i hear the majority talk about their strong support for keeping college loans affordable. this is a position that they have repeatedly rejected. apparently republicans have no interest in trying to prevent serious diseases. surely if republicans can ram a $46 billion tax cut to millionaires and billionaires, they can find a way to pay for both education and health care. i urge my colleagues to vote for defeat of this bill, stop protecting tax giveaways to big oil and pass a possibly bill to stop the doubling of student loan rates. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to enter into the record several documents. one is from the american council on education, representing 37 education associations and they say education has never been this important to america's economy as it is now. as we are encouraged by the proposals we have seen. administration, both parties have expressed strong support for keeping the interest rate at 3.4% without cutting other forms of student aid. enter that. another one is from lewis university in illinois saying doubling the interest in the subsidized stafford loans will discourage students in need who are striving to continue their degree study during these difficult economic times. thank you for your support for these students. and finally from joliet junior college saying that the college has -- serves population of seven counties in illinois. . college students were awarded $23 million in total financial aid. because of this the institution supports h.r. 4628, legislation that would prevent the scheduled rate hike. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reference material will be entered into the record. the gentlelady continues to reserve. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. speaker. as long as we are taking unanimous consent, i would like to internear the record letters from groups opposing the republican bill, h.r. 462, the american federation of teachers, american diabetes association, american federation of county and state employees, american lung association, american public health association, campaign for america's future, campaign for tobacco free kids, national association of county and city hospitals. afl-cio. trust for america's health. ussa. young inconvincibles, campus progress, ussa, young inconvincibles, national partnership of women and families. association of state and tear torial health officials. american public health association, mr. speaker, some 760 groups that support the prevention of public health fund. thank you. with that i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, last week the republican majority was adamantly opposed to this legislation. this week we are rushing it through on the floor today. that's a good thing. we are on the same page. the majority and the minority want to preserve student interest rates at 3.4%, not let them double to 6.8%. so if that is the case, why are we selecting mutually unacceptable ways to pay for this? it's as though we are resorting to the trick bags. you raid the health fund that's so important to us, we present the oil company provision that is so unacceptable to you. what we should do is find a way to put some limits, some incentives to keep tuition increases at our below the rate of inflation. they were up 8.4%. if we work together, that would be a double win for students and parents. we could keep those interest rates low and we could start bringing down the escalation and tuition increases that are unacceptable. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. langevin: i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts for yielding and his outstanding leadership on this issue and so many other issues in education. mr. speaker, we obviously absolutely cannot allow the interest rate on student loans to more than double. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4628. while congress must prevent the stafford loan from doubling, it is unconscionable that republican leadership is forcing us to choose between education and health care. too many students face unnecessary barriers to pursuing a college degree. it is our responsibility to empower them by investing in their education and health. republicans are putting us in the untenable position of paying for this by gutting the prevention in public health fund, the so purpose of which is to reduce chronic conditions that are driving up the cost of health care in the first place. instead of sacrificing our public health to score political points, we need to work together to ensure our students can pursue their dreams without the burdens of a necessary cost and debt. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: is the gentleman ready to close? mr. tierney: we have one more speaker to close. does the gentlewoman have more speakers? mrs. biggert: no. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady reserve? the gentlelady reserves her time of the the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i yield the remaining time on this side to the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. van hollen: i thank my friend from massachusetts. just a few weeks ago on this very floor our republican colleagues voted for the republican budget that called for a doubling of interest rates on student loans. on seven million american students and they voted against the democratic alternative budget which would have prevented that increase in student loan interest rates. so what's happened over the last couple weeks? well, president obama has gone to the country, gone to students, he's told the story about what the republican budget would do. so we are here today. but make no mistake, mr. speaker , our republican colleagues haven't changed their minds about this. they have changed their tactics. if they really wanted to prevent student loans from increasing, they wouldn't seek to cover the costs by by cutting funds for cervical cancer screening, by cutting funds for breast cancer screening, by cutting other women's health care measures. they wouldn't push a measure the president has already said he would veto. mr. speaker, we have a proposal, let's cover the costs by getting rid of the subsidies for big oil companies. that's the real slush fund around here. the big taxpayer subsidies go for that purpose. let's get the job done and let's not play political games. unfortunately what we are seeing here, mr. speaker, is an effort to seek political cover. let's get the job done for real. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. biggert: to close. it seems like came in and i think the first thing that i talked about here is how i hoped that we would be able to work together on a bipartisan basis. it just seems like this is so hard to do in this political time and i just -- i really think that in major legislation we really have to work together to make -- to find a solution. but it seems like the other side is always ready to tell us what we think and what we are doing and why we are doing it. we are doing this because we really want to have our students have the ability to have a quality education. it just seems like we are so different on the pay-fors. i know that everybody agrees on the program itself and how we have to do it, but we can't seem to do anything without giving us a cynical view, it bothers me. it seems like we were talking about the pay-fors, the other side of the aisle first reaction is to raise taxes for everything. and ours has always been to reduce spending. we think this is the way to go. i think we have just got to find a way to get together. i have said in my opening statement that i hope that we would be able to get together and work together. i also the senate, and i hope that when this bill goes over to the senate that there is a negotiation, that there is a conference so that we really can iron this out and make sure that there is not a raising of the -- to the 6.38%. it kind of makes you wonder it just seems like the political maneuvering certainly is continuing on the student loan issues and i guess today when we have this vote we'll see what happens, but i really hope that when we get to the senate so that we have the opportunity to do this. i know that -- i just want to go back a little bit to what happened in the education committee yesterday. mr. roby talked about and so did mr. tierney. i think that the secretary sebelius did say that there were services outside the prevention and public health fund that will remain available to individuals who seek preventive care, such as cancer prevention and care, including breast and cervical cancer screenings, screenings for birth defects and develop disabilities, tobacco prevention at the c.d.c., and efforts that promote healthy nutrition and physical activity to prevent obesity. i think it's really a lot that we believe in for prevention and we heard from mr. stearns of the appropriations and how that takes care of a lot of the prevention issues. i think that the american people are really very knowledgeable now about prevention and what they need to do and have the ability to do this on their own as well. i hope that this political bickering is not what the bill is all about. what the bill is all about is to reduce to 4% the interest rates on the subsidized stafford loans. i hope that this bill will pass. i urge my colleagues to vote for it. minutes in support of her motion. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, this is the final, it's the only amendment to this bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. instead, if the house adopts this amendment we will immediately move to final passage. mr. speaker, it appears that we now all agree that we cannot let student loan rates double come this july. that's good. but i wish we were also looking for a bipartisan solution to funding the continuation of student loans. but instead the majority is engaging in otherartisan attack on public health funding. funding that improves the lives of americans and the productivity of our work force. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. mrs. capps: i strony oppose this position and their proposed cuts to the prevention fund. funds that will make women and children healthier and that's why i ever offered this straightforward amendment. it would ensure that poor policy decisions made here in congress, namely to get rid of the only dedicated funding we have for public health and prevention, that these decisions do not give insurance companies an excuse to cut benefits or increase costs of preventive services for women and children. these services include critical access to contraception, mammograms, cancer screenings, and immunizations. whatever our strong disagreements are about the underlying bl, we surely can agree that no insurance company should use this as an excuse to hinder access to basic preventive services. the public health and prevention fund is a crital investment in both our nation's health and our economic future, especially for women and children. its value cannot be understated. a healthy mother is better able to raise a child. a healthy child will be ready and able to learn in school. and a healthy worker is more productive for american businesses. moreover, this fund is critical to bringing down health care costs. it targets the most prevalent and preventable of chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. the fund has been used to ensure that our children have the vaccines they need to avoid painful and expensive childhood illnesses. it supports programs to prevent birth defects and autism surveillance. and the fund supports critical womes health screening, 600,000 screenings will be cut with the repeal of this fund. these are not frivolous. as mothers and grandmothers, we know the importance of preventing birth defects and having access to vaccines, knowing we are doing everything we possibly can to ensuring that our children have aealthy start. as a nurse i know the importance of preventing chronic diseases and earlcancers catching it early. and as a taxpayer i surely know that we cannot afford to keep ignoring the cost benefit of prevention. programs that have a five to one return on our smart investment. states and counties all over the country are realizing the importance of prevention programs. that's why they all embrace the prevention fund that this bill wipes out. it wipes it out completely. in fact, 760 nonpartisan groups across the country have signed on in support the prevention fund. i would like to insert this list of organizations for the public record. 760 nonpartisan groups. this investment in public health has been a long time coming. to abolish it now will send us back to square one just so we can least afford to do that. now, finally, mr. speaker, the women of thicountry are watching. they are watching us here today. they have watched as countless bills and budget proposals have moved through this house, attacking programs that keep women healthy, their children fed, and families above water. now is the time to stand up for women. vote for this final amendment to this bill to show the women of america that we support them and we support their families and we support the services that they need to lead a happyier and healthier life. -- happier and healthier life. i yield back the balance of my time. the eaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. without objection, the gentlelady referenced material is entered into the record. let the house be in orr. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, the speaker of the house, seek recognition? mr. -- the speaker: i claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. the speaker: how in the world did we ever get here? think about this. a fight being picked over an issue that everyone knew was going to be resolved. fight being picked over an issue that there is no fight over. democrats five years ago put this cliff in the law that would require student loan interest rates to more than double on july 1. i don't know why they did it, but they did it. nobody wants to see student loan intere rates go up. especially when you got recent college graduates, 50% are either unemployed or deremployed as a result of the president's economic policies. so, we got democrats and republicans for months who have been talking about trying to fix this problem. and while we don't yet have the soluon to the long-term solution to this problem, the chairman is continuing to work on it, we believehat we shouldn't put students at risk and that we ought to make sure that their interest rates don't go up. so we developed the short-term policy to solve this problem for the next year while the committee has time to look at a long-term solution to this problem. le why do people in-- why do people insist that we have to have a political fight on something where there is no fight? there is absolutely no fight. people want to politicize this cause it's an election year, but my god, do we have to fight about everything? and now, now we are going to have a fig over women's health. give me a break. this i the latest plank in the so-called war on women. entirely created, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain. now let's review the facts. let's revi the facts. the president in his budget called for reductions in ending in this slushed if fund that's given to the secretary of h h.s. the president called for retux in spending. -- reduction in spending. you may have already forgotten that several months ago you voted to cut $4 billion out of this slush fund when we passed theafrle tax bill. so to accuse us of wanting to gut women's health is absolutely not true. t why -- ladies and gentlemen, this is beneath us. this is beneath the dignity of this house and the dignity of the public trust we enjoy from our constituents. they expect us to come here and be honest with each other, to work outhese issues and to pick this political fight where there is no fight is just silly. givee a break. vote no on this motion to recommit, vote yes on the final bill, let's send it over to the bill, let's send it over to the senate now. . . that is not a system that works. we need to find a positive solution, which we have been trying to put forward on our side of the aisle. i was encouraged by the tenor of your testimony and commend you for the work you have done in premium support. you mentioned your proposal differs from the ryan proposal. and when i got to that area of your testimony, one of the areas you differ is that you believe we can move to a premium support system for seniors sooner than in our proposal. >> that is correct. >> tell me why, our concern was that if we did not grandfather the grandfathers, we would not only take political heat but the challenge of moving in that direction would be too great. help me understand why we can go there sooner. >> "as we preserved traditional medicare as the default option. it is a permanent option. if you reach that age, you are in it until you opt into something else. we believe that the changes that would take place in the competitive bidding are substantial challenges but they could be met by 2018. you have experience in setting of changes by then and there is no reason not to start sooner and let everybody have a choice. you could view this as an improvement on the medicare advantage that makes the competitive bidding more accessible and better. if you do it that way, it is not such a big teo. >> i want to thank you for that. we will go back and look at our numbers. thank you for hopefully what will be in the genesis for a new opportunity to move forward and improve medicare by providing those choices that guarantee seniors have the option of remaining on the current medicare. >> i happen to be a fan of his bill to get rid of this idea. i join with tampa because it does not help anybody. you are credited forcing that and trying to change it. >> i may fall into the category of mr. ryan fis say nice things about you. we would all be in trouble. >> i want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. it is always nice to hear you. i still have a 67 chevy malibu our love to drive around. you can do your own oil change. my guess is if you ask the typical senior in medicare, they feel comfortable with the system right now and they think it is essential to the quality of their life. they do not want to see it decimated. i am one of those a dwindling breed, a moderate member of congress trying to find different pathways forward to address the challenges of our time. i cannot think of a bigger challenge than the health care system and the impact of this having on our budget. our national finances. i have been encouraged because there appears to be a lot of agreement today. a lot of the tools we put in place need time to move forward. so we have better coordinated care, reform, and this hearing is premature in some ways. i think it needs a chance to move forward to see if this stuff works before you can have a serious conversation about who is going to bear the risk. i have been interested when it comes to health care reform, better quality of care, making sure that all americans have access to that type of care in this country. until we get there, it is something we have to talk about. one of my concerns with the premium proposal is the risk and who is going to bear it? it is a parochial concern. we have been one of the lowest medicare reimbursements states in the nation. we share that with the pacific northwest. under their proposal the race will get clocked in lower or the second lowest plan in the region, which would guarantee that our providers are locked in at the lowest reimbursement rate, which said they are struggling to live under. this tells me they will have to continue to shift the inadequacy of reimbursement onto the backs of businesses. onto the -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> in a second so i can make my point. the spiral that businesses are facing with widening health care costs because of the cost shifting that is impacting them, making it harder for them to compete at home and globally. it does not make sense we go down this road. not until we find out whether payment reforms have a chance of working. i have tried to work on this committee. you pointed out is -- it is crucial for these to see if they are viable or not. every year i introduced the proposal and had an equal number of republicans and democrats. i was one of the authors on reimbursing our health care providers. every year we introduced that bill, we have fiber six members of this committee on that legislation. that turned into debt panels. our republican colleagues ran for the hills. having a conversation this typical to have. you have principles we agreed on that divide us today. we have to have a serious conversation, we need a plan. we need words on paper. i think everyone would agree that the devil is in the details on how any type of archer plan is ultimately structured. we do not have that. sometimes i feel like i am talking to two different people. what paul understands and what white and understands, sometimes they are talking past each other. until something is on paper so we can impact on what this is going to mean, all this is a theoretical. >> i will send to you and mr. thompson the plan that the senator and i co-authored. i will send it to your office. >> you testified as important these payments reforms have a chance to continue to move forward. if for some reason the supreme court decides to return everything, that will lead to a state of chaos right now and it may take a generation to recover if we go back to square one. >> i have heard, and i of said, health care reform is entitlement reform. folks on the other side have not heard that. i think that is utter nonsense. one-third of the health care bill is devoted to medicare and medicaid. it is very specific about the recommendations and those are recommendations we should be considering if we were not trying to suffocate this legislation. not only did reduce -- did it reduce costs, it also reduced costs for beneficiaries, unless you do not agree with the numbers. the majority's attempt to repeal an turn medicare -- let's not use a voucher program. i call it the more out of your own pocket program. i think that will hurt beneficiaries. there is no doubt this will mean more money out of pocket. no one has tonight that, no one. according to the cbo office, new beneficiaries will be cut by more than $2,200 per person, per year. that is what the cbo says. they support our position and we tell them they do not know what they're talking about when does not support our position. you want to talk about the future? we do not have to scrap the current system. in fact, as we're sitting here today talking about strengthen medicare, the health care reform bill is r.d. at work testing new payment and delivery systems that will lead to innovation for the entire health-care system. you are talking about competition, increasing competition in terms of medicare. we do not have competition in the health-care system. many states have two or three companies who write a health center -- health-insurance. why don't we do something about that? if we want to foster competition, let's foster competition. this is empty. these are words used back and forth. this is one upmanship. the basics of health care will be changed by the health care act for the better of americans. it will not be a socialistic system. thank god we graduated from that sense more insurance companies will be involved in order for us to gain favor. you know, we're heading back to 1964. i'm convinced that is the direction we want to go in when senior party was out the greatest since the great depression. why don't we just say that? we use a lot of pretty words. you may shake your head that i am telling you we are marking time in place while many seniors are being stopped at the door because they have medicare. that is what we should be addressing. that is what we should be saying. the health-care system is not working. the health-care system has been totally taken over by the health insurance companies of this country. you know it and i know it. we do not have competition. we have a few companies that write health insurance. this is competition? maybe next year we will have three companies. how many states have fewer companies and you want to put our seniors into that situation. that is not competition. that is a joke. you know it and i know it. i want to congratulate you on the work you have done. i know you have been at the forefront of talking about these issues. these are critical issues for all of us. i know it is not popular to try to hold down out-of-pocket expenses. i do not care whether it is or is not. you have done the right thing and i admire what you're doing. we have enough to work within the legislation to change medicare. let's not throw away everything. we want to get to a few who will profit. thank you, mr. chairman. >> this has been a nice reprieve for we get to talk about policy. i want to thank all of the panelists here today for the work you have done over many years to advance the debate and real solutions. senator, let me thank you for your many years of service to our state and country and your continued willingness to do this and to serve in a public capacity. you raised the point about competition and the fact that it is not lowering costs. i would submit that we are stuck right now between a price control the system and in perfect competition. we do not have the competition necessary in the financing arena and in the delivery system aspects of this. i think if we could get more competition, we would see the advantages of lowering costs. that is coming from somebody who has had many years practicing as a physician. i have some concerns about the tilt toward price controls, i think it is indisputable that is what we are operating under right now. the problem is we are ready have a serious shortage of physicians and nurses and if we continue on this path, we're facing cuts year after year to providers, what will this mean for access? coverage does not equate to access to high-quality care. you and i, even before i got to congress, had concerns about the trends were by, there is a heart surgeon during operations and then in the aftermath, we could not find a primary care physician to take care of the basic needs. i would have to start to big positions that i knew to take on a new patient. the cost to this practice this is not being met by reimbursement. if we can get to a system that brings us back to competition, it makes a difference. i want to complement chairman ryan. he has taken lot of the work, mr. antos, mr. aaron, and put it in a body of work to get us to that. i do not know of any alternative. would anybody comment? is there another model out there? >> the key to solving the problems you described regarding the fragmentation of care comes in some of the innovations in the affordable care act. two i would focus on. groups of providers who would be paid to ensure the health of people that in role. the second would be bundled payments so that in the event of a coronary case, the payment would be made not to just for the active surgery but the following care as well so that you, together with a primary care physician and nurse practitioner who would contact the patient to make sure he or she was taking medications, we all work together. >> one of the problem is not addressed in the act isabella -- we still have several barriers in place that prohibit physicians to integrate care with hospitals. that has not been addressed. we need statutory relief if we're going to see those innovations. >> i agree with you completely. the law may need to be amended. >> i think that congressman klein pointed this out. ryan talked about the programs. i remember when i was in congress when i wanted something to stop, i offer a memo to do a study. coping and never got completed. i think the things in the accountable can act are very important. you can do a demonstration project, if the programs works, it will improve the delivery system. then if you have premium support, they will be better competitors. that is what we're trying to bring about. i think the programs are helpful but is not an either or situation. >> in de you want to comment, doctor -- do you want to comment, doctor rivlin? >> it is a mistake to think of these are -- as alternatives. the demonstrations and the institutions set up to improve the delivery system co-head and we hope they work. we are only saying there should be another way to get to these innovations into use and that would be competition. >> i agree with that but it would also be a mistake to believe these things are going to materialize overnight. the devil is in the details. accountable care organizations are devilish. >> i yield back. >> i want to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. this has been an extremely interesting discussion, one that highlights the need for congress to act soon in order to place medicare on sound financial footing. premium support proposals like those we heard about today hold promise to improve how care is delivered, better protect beneficiaries, and utilize competition to control costs for the program as a whole. any member wishing to submit a question for the record will have 14 days to do so. if any questions are submitted, i asked the witnesses to respond in a timely manner. with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. >> today on "washington in journal," talking about the data act. johnson has an update on reformers 00 and roger pilon debase the 10th amendment of the constitution. washington journal at 70 means to -- at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> he is also the only one to have ever escape from camp 14. >> his first memory at the age of four was going with his mom to a place near where he grew up in the camp to watch somebody get shot. public executions in the camp were held every few weeks. they were aware of punishing people who violated rules and a paralyzing effect on the 20,000 people in the camp to obey the rules from then on. >> off their plane -- author blaine harden on c-span is q&a period ended may 6, look for an interview -- q&a. look for an6, interview with robert caro. >> on friday, the house voted to extend low interest rate on student loans for another year. the lower rate was originally passed in 2007 under president bush. republicans and democrats support extending the measure but they disagree on how to pay for it. the republican bill would eliminate part of the 2010 health-care law that provides funding for preventive health care. because of this, the white house has issued a veto threat. the bill still await action in the senate. here is a look at the debate from the house floor. minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for four minutes. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, when i talk to students and families, it's clear today's economy doesn't hold the same promise for young adults as it once did. our sons and daughters, many with student loan debt, are moving back home after college only to find washington's tax and spenpolicies have made it even harder to find a job. in fact, according to aecent associated press report, at least half of recent graduates are unemployed or underemployed. that's unacceptable. under current law, the outlook for some of these young adults only gets worse as interest rates on subsidized stafford student loans are set to spike from 3.4% to 6.8% on july 1 of is year. that's why i've introduced h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act, a bill that would avert this interest rate increase because the last thing we should do is to allow loan rates to double and make it much -- that much harder to afford a high-quality education. unfortunately, that's exactly what will happen if we don't set aside the rhetoric and work in a bipartisan w to pay for this critical instant rate fix. under my legislation, the $6 billion cost of the interest rate fix is offset in the same way as bipartisan legislation signed into law by the president earlier this year. just three months ago, members on both sides of the aisle came togeer and the president signed a bill that extended unemployment benefits in the payroll tax cu the legislation i offer today would use as an offset the exact same source that we all agreed to use just three months ago. the bill would eliminate the remaining $12 billion from the so-called prevention and public health fund, which in truth is nothing more than an open-ended fund that has no clear oversight or purpose. at best this fund serves only to sir cuck vent congres annual appropriations responsibilitiesy granting in perpetuity the secretary of health and human services' unabridged discretion to direct billions of taxpayer dollars under the loose label of prevention programs. i should note that the president himself acknowledged the prevention fund is -- when he requested a $4 billion cut to the program in his f.y. 2013 budget. by reclaiming a portion of the administration's misguided health care law through the elimination of this blank che program, the legislation would extend lower rates for college loans, granting relief to our yog people without raising taxes on their potential employees -- employers. it's a commonsense plan that deserves bipartisan support. i ask my colleagues to step forward today and show the american people that we can solve this problem immediately without the drama of a last-minute ondeadline fix. it's my hope that our colleagues in the senate as well will work with us to send it to the president immediately. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the instant rate -- interest rate reduction act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro mpore: the gentman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. tierney: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's nice to have our republican friends finally agree the interest rates will be a problem if they rise and doubled. since 2007 when the rates were first reduced when the democrats were in the majority, it's been resisted by our friends on the republican side. resisted in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and this has been raised to a degree where students and families started to really get involved and engaged that our friends on the other side of the aisle decided, well, they don't want the rates to go up either. but cynically, some might say, the only way they can find a pay-for is to attack women's health and children's health. women don't want this bill that way. children -- students don't want the bill this way. public health groups don't want the bill this way. thsenate said they won't accept the bill this way. it's dead on arrival. and the white house sees it this way. if we want to set aside partisanship, let's pick a pay-for that the american people can get behind and we can all agree on. let's put aside the cynicism, let's stop playing games and do the right thing. let's make sure the interest rates stay at 3.4%. let's make sure that 177,000 students in massachusetts and seven million nationwide have affordable access to college and be able to pay for that bill in a better way when they graduate on that. let's start doing the right thing. last week our republican friends found $46 billion to give to hedge fund managers in a tax cut, to give to donald trump. his trump tower leasing company. to give to other people that already had millions of dollars and didn't pay for it. this week they finally get around to the issue trying to help students and come up with a cynical aspect of paying for it by once again attacking women's heal, adding children on. immunization, screenings for breast cancer and birth defects. this is ridiculous. we should move forward and do the right thing. the fund that the bill addresses is a fund that was attacked a little bit in the last two times, as the speaker mentioned on that, but left largely intact. this one would wipe out the entire fund. twice the amount necessary in order to fund what they're purporting to do because they are ideologically going after the health care bill. we need to make sure that women's health care and children's health care is protected. we need to make sure the interest rates stay low. we are certain we can do that. it won't be done by doing it this way. and members of the senate will have to work in conference to make sure we get to a pay-for for this that makes sense. 250 tax expenditures in the tax code. $1.3 trillion. we can find a way to pay for this interest rate reduction here and do it in a way that all of america can get behind and both parties can get behind without the cynicism and without moving in this direction. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed to s.con.res. 43, providing for a condition adjournment or recess of the senate and adjournment of the house of representatives in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: t gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: let me just take a couple of seconds to remind the gentleman from new jersey that we also for prevention, but we have a whole list of appropriations, a whole list of what we do and not to leave all of this to the discretion of one person who is not -- when there is no oversight by congress. and with that i would yield two minutes the gentleman from michigan for two minutes. and a member of our education and work force committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the gentlelady. mr. speaker, just a bit of history lesson. we hear a lot of demagoguery going on right now from the highest office of the land about the unwillingness for republicans to help our students, our college students receive the education that they need by having the loans that they deserve. going back to 2006, as part of the democrats' six in 2006 campaign agenda, the democrats promised to cut student loans interest in half. when they took the majority and i sat on the house education and labor committee at the time, they gained control of congress, all of a sudden they realized it was too costly to do what they planned to do so they put in place, against our opposition, saying that the prate sector still could foster opportunities for student loans and make it fluctuate and flow at a variable rate with the market, ultimately reducing th overall cost of interest over the course of time for our students. they chose not to do that. they put in a place the plan that we have right now, a democrat plan that said in fact weill go to 6.8% in july of 2012. after dropping it back because they knew they couldn't afford it. they did it at a short-term process and ultimately it comes to fruition now that we are at a cost problem. and we are at a problem for students to gain education support. it is their plan that we're dealing with. it is their mess that we're asked to fix at this point in time. the college cost reduction access act incremenlly reduced to 3.4% that we have now, ultimately putting a cliff in place of what we're looking at. as the expiration date crept closer, democrats did nothing in the 111th congress, despite knowing this would take plac and now we have a problem. mr. speaker, this morning we see a picture of students in graduation garb and on one of the top of the motor boards it says, hire me. that's the issue we're talking about, an economy that doesn't offer jobs. and so what we ought to be looking at here is growing economy, not on obamacare fix that will cost reasonable programs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. biggert: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. walberg: we ought to be looking for ways for growing an economy that gives the opportunity for students to get jobs, pay off loans at whatever rate it will be and there is a much better way to do it than the way it's been done. we ought to be growing a economy for job providers as opposed to what the senate sent over to us, the solution to whack at more job providers, make it more difficult to find stable and secure jobs for college graduates looking for simply the opportunity to be hired. i thank the speaker and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you. at this time i'd like to yield -- reminding the gentleman in 2007 the bill was paid for. in fact it was paid for with 77 members of the republican party agreeing to it and now it's time to pay for it in an intelligent and correct manner. i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. miller, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the fix that the republicans are in and after a week ago you almost unanimously voting not to extend the 3.4% inrest rate to students and in adopting the ryan republican budget agreeing to let it go out to 6.8%. in fact, they used that to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy that they anticipate in their budget, so they took students' money and the families and the savings they were made out of this, almost $16 billion over the last four years, and they said we're going to use this to provide tax cuts for the wealthy and we assume that the rates will go to 6.8%. president obama went on the road for three days and all of a suddenhe republicans have decided that they're for keeping the interest rates at 3.4%. you can say all of this is cynical. i believe it is on their part because what they really see now is an opportunity to attack women's health. they see their position in being for student loans gives them cover to attack women's health, to attack the screening for women's health in the areas of breast cancer and cervical cancer. to attack the ability of public health agencies to screen newborn infants for birth defects. to take away the ability to make sure that young people have the immunizations they need when they start school. so now on the cover of being for student health -- i mean, for student loans, they are attacking women's health in the most cynical fashion. you know, every now and then in this place where is terribly partisan, it can be very cynical as we see with this action today, with this bill, a little ray of light comes in of idealism and hopefulness and understanding, and we see today that we have statements by almost all of the mar student organizations saying we want that interest rate kept at 3.4% but we do not want kept it at that rate at the risk of jeopardizing women's health, jeopardizing our parent's health, our mother's health, our sister's health, our friend'shealth. i ask for one minute. so we should understand that these students see this cynical match that is being played here, and they ask for a time-out and say, find another way to pay for this but don't do it at the risk of birth defects for newborn infants, don't do it at the risk of a child not being immunized against disease, don't it at the risk of young women and older women being screened for breast cancer and cervical cancer where the difference can mean life or death for tse women. don't attack and abolish and repeal women's health on the backs of our students. don't dot in our name. in our name, don't do this legislation. te no against this. we'll find another way to do this, but don't do this in the name of students. that's what they've asked with their opposition to this legislation. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new hampshire, charlie bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new hampshire is recognized for two minutes. mr. bass: i thank the speaker and i thank my colleague from illinois for recognizing me. there's a little disagreement between republicans and democrats over the need to extend the subsidized interest rates for student loans for at least another year. student loan debt now in america exceeds $1 trillion which i believe is more than the entire nation's credit card debt. it's a very serious national priority that needs to be addressed and should be resolved into a bipartisan fashion. as you can tell from the tenor of the debate this morning, it is the issue how we are going to come up with the money to pay for this. first of all i think it's a miracle we are debating that. prior administration inhis congress wouldn't even have brought the subject up how to pay for it. at least the democrats now want to pay for it by raising prices on gasoline through higher taxes on oil companies, and i believe that taxation of oil companies should be on the table in tax reform not an education bill. we have a proposal that would reduce the funding in the prevention to public health fund account, and of course our friends on the other side of the aisle are right on message on their natnal message of tying everything that republicans want to do to be some sort of a battle against women. let me just point out that i believe there is already about $119 million in f.y. 2011 for the c.d.c.'s earlry breast and cervical cancer and early detection program. i know my friend from illinois will probably enumerate on this further. i would point out that the program or the funds that the democrats are trying to protect actually is providing money for early detection, but it's for free spaying and neutering for dogs and cats around the country. this money comes out of communities work campaign and that's receiving money from health and human services secretary slush fund. i would also point out to my friends that this fund has already been reduced in order to pay for the payroll tax deduction. it's not setting a precedent. i would suggest that a fund that's funded at $17.75 -- can i get 30 seconds? i would suggest a fund that's funded at $17.75 billion for the first 10 years and then automatically advance appropriated for $2 billion a year, i never heard of that in the congress. that means that we are turning over our authority to raise and appropriate money to the tune of $2 billion a year to the health and human services secretary with no ersight from congress at all. i want student loans to remain at their low rate and i want to do it in a fiscally responsible fashion. that's what this bill does. i yield back to my friend from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: address the fact that the elimination of the need is on an annual basis, $326,000 fewer women will be screened for east cancer. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. terny -- tierney. you want to first of all recognize your leadership and george miller's leadership back in 2007 when we passed the college cost reduction act which reduced an interest rate of 67.8% -- 6.8% which was set as a result of a republican congress in 2002 which passed a budget reconciliation act locking in that higher rate. it has saved 15 million students in this country higher debt levels because we cut that rate from 3.4%. sadly the speaker of the house, john boehner, vot against that measure. sadly my good friend from men mb, the chairman of the house education and work force committee, voted against that measure in 2007. it was well understood it had a five-year sunset, like a lot of progra in tax policies in this congress. people were complaining about the clip we created. how about the bush tax cuts? that's got a $4 trillion cliff on december 31 because the majority party when they enacted the tax cuts sunset that measure. here we are today, 64 days away, and we are now suddenly seeing the majority party nudging on this subject. as mr. miller pointed out, the ryan budget, which the republicans lined up as a party to pass two or three weeks ago. th locked in the higher rate, built into the ryan budget. in addition in doubled down on higher education affordability by cutting the pell grant award from $6,000 to $5,000. that is the republican higher education platform. thankfully we have a president who stood on the platform on january 24 and challenged this congress to protect that lower rate and because we did not get a healing, we didn't get a will, we didn't get a markup, we got no flick of action by the leadership of this chamber, he went on the road a talked to the people of this country like pridents before him, like harry truman and others, because that was the only way you are going to turn this body around was with external pressure to make sure that middle class families knew what the heck was going on. which was nothing. i started this countdown clock at 110 days when we were waiting for this debt level to go up. and there was a reason for that, because 130,000 petition signatures were dropped off at the speaker's office at day 110. we heard nothing from that date when again overwhelming college campus signatures arrived at this congress and now today we are down to day 64. they are feeling the political heat. good for you, mr. president, for raising this issue and forcing this body to address one of the biggest challengesur nation faces. and they come up with a pay for that is a disgraceful, grotesque pay for that goes after women and children in the name of protecting student loans. as mr. miller said thank goodness the student leaders who have been leading fight to protect this lower rate have stood up and said, no way. 30 seconds more? i would just--mr. tierney: another 15 seconds. mr. courtney: i would just say that the president responded to that call a feminutes ago by indicating that this measure is dead. it will be vetoed. it's not going anywhere. let's get back to work and come up with a real fix and solve this crisis for the american people. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois. mrs. biggert: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just like to remind the gentleman from connecticut that he was one of 157 -- 47 members on that side of the aisle voting for taking money out of this -- out of the protection of -- for health care. i would now yield two minutes to thgentleman from minnesota, our esteemed chairman of the education. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for two minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding the time and for introducing this legislation. i rise in support of h.r. 4628, the interest rate reduction act. we seem to be in pretty strong agreement on both sides of the aisle that we've got an economy in shambles. we've got unemployment rate above 8% now for over three years. we got college graduates who graduate from college and can't get a job. after of them can't get a job or get the right job. they are underemployed or unemployed. and we've got by law the interest rate on subsidized stafford student loans goi from 3.4% to 6.8%, by law. a law drafted, crafted, passed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. it was entirely predictable when this was passed in 2007 that this was going to happen. we were going to get to the point where interest tes were going to double. nevertheless, is thlaw. and so what do we do about it? iteems to me, and i think we get some agreement on this, we ought to have a long-term fix so we are not doing this again next year and the next year, and the next year. make it a decision, we need a long-term fix. so today we are trying to stop up -- step up and address the immediate concerns of our students, our graduates that go into this shaky economy. so we are moving the interest rate in this legislation, keeping it at 3.4% for one more year. and i look at this as the opportunity for them -- us to get together and make a long-term fix. a fix that is much more driven by the market rather than the politics of the day or the year. by election year, we need a long-term fix. this will give us the opportunity to do that. our students deserve -- another 30 seconds if i could. mrs. biggert cloverpb another 30 seconds. -- mrs. biggert: another 30 seconds. mr. kline: we have got proposals from the other side of the aisle from friends in the senate that want to tax small businesses, the job creators, at the very time when our economy is in touch trble. and there are other proposals that says let's tax all companies. let's drive up the price of gas. we can talk about cynicism. what we are talking about is using a slush fund that is provided to the secretary to spend as she sees fit. that is perceived as an attack somehow on women. what a surprise in this election year. another 30 seconds, please. there are multiple, multiple sources of funng, of programs that can address women's needs. i think it is cynical to suggest that we are somehow attacking women and their health by going at a slush fund that has no control, no oversight, irresponsibly give. the presidentimself has already prosed taking $4 billion from the slush fund. this is the way to go. let's address the immediate needs of our students and work together on a long-term solution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: the republicans' long-term fix was voted on a couple weeks in their budget which allowed the rates to go up to 6.8% an took away the in-school subsidy for interest rates, driving students' costs further up. that's why we are here today. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: a college student sits in the financial aid office worried about her interest rate doubling on july 1. a woman sits in the waiting room of a health clinic waiting to get a cancer screening. and a corporate executive sits in the boardroom of an oil company waiting to get his tax break from the federal government. everybody here today says they want to help the college student avoid the loan increase. the bill says the way we'll pay for avoiding the interest rate increase is to send the woman home from the health clinic and deny her the cancer screening. we say the way to do it is to go to the corporate executive and the oil company boardroom and deny him his tax give away from the federal treasury. the way to pay for this assistance for students is not to shut down health for the women of this country. the way to pay for it is to shut down the give away of taxpayer dollars for the oil industry o this country. that's the way to fix the problem and that's the way we eventually will. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. buerkle, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. ms. buerkle: good morning, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today we have an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan initiative that will save our country's future leaders billions of llars. economists have resoundingly predicted that a student loan crisis may soon end america's fragile, and i stress fragile, factor into shambles if it is not soon addressed. the new york federal reserve has reported that student loans are the leading cause of this debt. with $870 billion last month alone. this tops even credit card debt. my friend in illinois has proposed a commonsense solution to halt an increase in federal loan rates that everyone agrees is needless. but,r. speaker, i must say to you, i was stunned to hear that leaders on the other side of the aisle, our good friends on the other side, were attempting to take this issue hostage. our sons and daughters' pursuits have been hydrogened -- hijacked for polical gamesmanship. let me be clear, mr. speaker, the fund which is offsetting this looming rate hike is nothing more than a slush fund. the h.h.s. secretary has authority to use it without congressional discretion. . it was giving to an unelected bureaucrat that used things for bike paths, lobbying efforts. i am a woman who has worked for years as a woman's health care practitioners and on behalf of women's health care patients. i will tell you for the other side, mr. speaker, to manipulate this issue does nothing to advance women's interests but in fact demeans the accomplishments made in women's health over the past decade. mr. speaker, i implore my colleagues who are playing games with this critical issue to grow up. this is not kindergarten. this is the reality of crushing debt college costs. this bill will help our future by making colleges more affordable by leaving them with a country that is not unindated in debt. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: thank you. before i yield any further i am going to take 15 seconds and yield to myself, mr. speaker. this supposed slush fund that people are talk about is a fund giving the appropriations committee the authority to designate where it will be spent. that authority was advocated by our frnds on the other side. and the secretary specified every year where it will be spent. 326,000 screenings for breast cancer, 284,000 cervical cancer screenings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. tierney: and so on down the line. at this time, mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority -- minority leader of the house from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for his leadership in presenting a commonsense piece of legislation to ensure that the interest on student loans is not doubled in july and to pay f that by cutting subsidies to big oil instead, as the republicans do, making it -- continuing their all-out assault on women's health. so much of the time we spend on this floor seems completely irrelevant to america's working families that are struggling to make ends meet. imagine them around their kitchen table as we talk about this, that and the other things ses disconnected from their emergency and urgent needs. what we're talking about today directly relates to whakeeps people up at night -- their economic security, the education of their children, the health of their families. the list goes on. some of those some of those are addressed in this legislation. i think we all agree that the greatest thing the country can do and that a family can do is to invest in the education of the next generation, the education of our children. imagine if we're sitting around that kitchen table as a family as we are and we say as a family, in order for you to go to college we're not going to be able to immunize your little brother or sister, we're not going to be able to have preventive care in terms of screening for breast cancer, cervical cancer, the list goes on and on, for your mom or any other preventive care for men and women in our family. it just would be wrong. who are we as a nation than to choose between the education of your children and the health of your family? it's just not right. especially when you have a situation where we had this fight over and over ain. will you tell me put it in context. in 2007 the democratic majority in the house, woing in a bipartisan fashion with our republican colleagues, passed a bill that ratcheted down the intere rates to 3.4%. we were very proud of that legislation, passing with 77 members of the republican vote -- voting with the democratic party. the bill was signed by then president george w bush and we all celebrated -- george w. bush and we all celebrated that legislatio if no action is taken, those interest rates at 3.4% will go back to the level of 6.8%. we had been making that argument over and over again that in our budgeting we must provide for the education of our children in a way that enables them to acquire higher education, should they desire and be qualified to do so. that's in their family and their family's priorities. the republicans have grown impatient, they said, th hearing about student loans. don't look at us. until the president went to the public and clearly spelled out the public policy debate that was going on here, that in the republican budget, the ryan republican tea party budget, there was -- it enabled the doubling of the interest rates. and our house budget, house democratic budget, we provided for keeping it at 3.4%. a big difference if you're sitting at that kitchen table. and you have a college-age child. it's about the children and the debt they incur and the families and the debt they incur. because the president took the issue to the american people, he made the issue too t to handle, so the republicans this week are doing an about face for what they did last week which was to vote overwhelmingly for their budget which will allow the student loans, the stafford loans to double. an about face. what do they do? they say, ok, we won't allow it to double, bute're going to take the money from women's health. should be no surprise to anyone because they have an ongoing assault on women's health, and this is in their budget and this is just a continuation of that. but i think it's important to note the following -- that they not only in their bill call for taking the amount of money that would cover the cost of keeping the from rate at 3.4%, they say while we're at it, let's eliminate the entire fund. let's eliminate the entire fund for prevention, for the immunization, for the screening and the rest, for the d.c. to do its public health work. let's

Related Keywords

Alabama ,United States ,Vermont ,Minnesota ,California ,Lewis University ,Illinois ,San Diego State University ,New Mexico ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Connecticut ,Mexico ,Annapolis ,Arizona ,Massachusetts ,El Salvador ,Georgetown University ,New York ,Japan ,Maricopa County ,New Hampshire ,Texas ,Afghanistan ,Kentucky ,Florida ,Rhode Island ,Georgia ,Fort Stewart ,Camp Shelby ,Mississippi ,Michigan ,Pearl Harbor ,Hawaii ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Baghdad ,Phoenix ,Pennsylvania ,Maryland ,North Korea ,Ohio ,Joliet ,Americans ,Mexicans ,America ,North Korean ,Japanese ,American ,Holly Petraeus ,Lyndon Johnson Carrie ,Danielle Schuman ,Jimmy Kimmel ,J Edgar Hoover ,Jimmy Campbell ,Daniel Inouye ,Los Angeles ,Daniel Schuman ,Santa Barbara ,Roger Pilon ,George Miller ,Louis Michael ,Harry Truman ,Jill Biden ,Wayne Shaw ,Barack Obama ,George W Bush ,Al Qaeda ,Michelle Obama ,Edd Watson ,John Boehner ,Robert Caro ,Sonia Sotomayor ,John Doe ,