support rebels in nicaragua. the power of the purse, continue the joint select committee, this was a bipartisan report, but it was written at a time when we had democratic congress. the power of the purse which the framers investigated in congress has long been recognized as the most important simple curb in the constitution on presidential power. the framers were determined not to combine the power of the purse and the mile an hour of the sword in the same branch of government. the constitutional process that lodges control of government expenditures ex cluesively in congress is the anti-deficiency act which prohibits an officer of the united states from authorizing an expenditure that has not been the you know suj of appropriation or exceeds the amount of any applicable appropriation. thus, the anti-deficiency act provides an officer or employee of the united states government may not make or authorize an

expenditure or obligation exceeding an amount available in a fund for the appropriate expenditure or obligation, or involve the government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law. mr. president, i ask consent to include following my remarks these excerpts from the joint committee's report, article 1, section 8, article 1, section 9 of the united states constitution which says no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of an appropriation made by law. and then two other things. one is the purported authority that the secretary's spokesman is citing for her actions in raising money. i haven't seen the authority for raising money from people she regulates, but 42 u.s.c. section 300-u-1-a talks about grants and contracts for

research programs and says the secretary is authorized to conduct and support by grant or contract, parentheses, and encourage others to support, research and health information and health promotion, preventive health services and education in the appropriate use of health care applications for grants and contracts under this section shall be subject to appropriate peer review. close quote. man, this small section relates to contracts for represent and information programs in the form of grants or contracts. the parenthetical language "encourage others to support" has to be read as encouraging others to support such programs. it is far-fetched to say that it gives the secretary authority to encourage third parties to give money to nonprofits providing obamacare information that the department of health and human services cannot fund directly because congress has refused to

appropriate. this small section and the words titution of the united invalida. this cannot superside the antideficiency act. according to the language of the bipartisan joint policy committee, there is obviously a way, mr. president, to have appropriate public-private -- public-private contracts. we have them all throughout -- we have them all throughout government, public-private associations to try to improve our country. we do that with hiv-aids, we do it with a whole variety of things. when i was education secretary, i worked with the first president bush to set up the new american schools development

corporation, which encouraged a private corporation headed by a former new jersey governor tom kaine, which would raise money to create models for private schools. then later off president bush i asked congress to do some things in support of those schools. all of us encouraged that. but that was quite different. that was an effort that would be typical of many public-private partnerships that the federal government gets involved in. where in this case we said we want to encourage the support of model schools -- here are a private corporation that's doing that; we encourage that. congress wasn't objecting to that. congress hadn't said, you can't do that. congress hadn't been asked to vote on aan appropriation for the new development corporation, and congress had not said, you

can't t so that would be t wh dozens, maybe hundreds, of public-private partnerships between the federal government and private organizations for the same goal. what we're talking about, mr. president -- and why the analogy between what secretary sebelius is doing and what oliver north was doing in the reagan administration in the late-180's is so strong is that in each case -- the late 1980's is so strong is that in each case the money seals to be spent through private entities for a function that congress has repewsed to appropriate money for. it is not so much where the money came from. it is more where the money is going. and the constitution itself in article 1 makes is absolutely clear that no one can appropriate dollars for a federal program other than the united states congress, and a

subterfuge that goes around that, seeks to go around that by raising private money, putting it in private entities for the same purpose that congress has either refused to appropriate money for or said that you can't do, that is outside the constitution; it is not allowed by the constitution of the united states, and it is against the antideficiency act. and then there's the separate question of whether it is appropriate to raise money from people that the secretary regulates. so, mr. president, i'm deeply concerned about this. i hope the secretary will stop this action. i hope the public-private partnerships that we have throughout government will continue where they're appropriate. but we need -- we need for the executive branch of government to show proper respect to the people of this country who elect their members of congress. we are article 1.

they are article 2. the purpose of the power of appropriation is to put a curve on the executive branch. and if the congress says "no," then the executive can't spend money, nor can the executive go through a subtear a subterfugee organizations in support of the very same objective that congress has refused to approve. in this case, the secretary seems to say that the reason they're doing that is because congress has refused to appropriate more money to implement the health care law. that seems to me to be just admittinadmitting a violation oe antideficiency act, admitting a violation of the proper -- yes, congress has refused to do that. but that's the congress's privilege to do that. when the congress ds that, the

administration may not proceed to spend the money that the congress hasn't authorized. whether directly through the government or indirectly through private entities. so later this week we'll be asking the general accountability office -- the government accountability office to look into these facts, which we'll be hearing more about, and i would hope that in the meantime the secretary will stop make the phone calls, stop coordinating with private entities to do things that congress has specifically refused to do. i thank the president. i yield the floor. oh, mr. president, may i vitiate the quorum. i ask to add to the list of articles at the end of my remarks an article published july 9, 1991, "bush sets up

foundation to start model schools" as an example of an appropriate way to have a public-private partnership or a private enterprise that is encouraged by theovernment but not in a way that seeks to do something that the congress has refused to do. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

thor senator mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i ask to vitiate the quorum, and i ask consent to also include in the record the names of the -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: -- the names of the members of the iran-contra select committee. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: .

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have one unanimous consent request for a committees to meet during today's session of the it has been approved by me and the republican leader. i consent that that request be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i've been working with senator vitter today. i talked to him a short time ago. senator boxer a couple times today. we hope by noon tomorrow we can have a consent agreement finalized to do away with the cloture vote. if we can, we'll have a cloture vote tomorrow at noon. senator vitter and senator boxer worked hard to come up with a universal agreement that will include, i understand, about a dozen amendments. some of those can be accepted by voice, and we'd have to have a

number of roll call votes. i hope we can do that. if that is the occasion we can probably finish the bill tomorrow or at the latest maybe wednesday morning. mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, may 14. that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the sen bin a period of morning business until 11:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the majority would control the first half. the republicans the final half. further, following morning business the senate resume consideration of s. 601, the water resources development act. the time until noon is equally divided in the usual form. the filing deadline for all second-degree amendments to that act will be at 11:15 on tuesday. i ask consent the senate recess

from 12:30 until 2:15 tomorrow for weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask we adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

those groups were then given extra scrutiny. here's what the president had to say. >> let me take the irs situation first. i first learned about it from the same report most people learned about this. i think he was on friday. this has produced a word. if in fact irs personnel engaged in the kind of practice is better than reported non-and were intentionally targeting conservative groups, then that is outrageous and there's no place for it. they have to be held fully accountable because the irs as an independent agency requires absolute integrity and people

have to have confidence they are applying in a nonpartisan way, applying laws in a nonpartisan way. you should feel that way regardless of party. i don't care what they are democrat, republican or independent. at some point i'll be republic had, at some point democrat. but are never one to perceive to be pious and anything less than usual in terms of how they operate. so this is something people are properly concerned about. the ig is conduct in its investigation and i'm not going to comment on their specific findings prematurely, but i can tell you if you've got the irs operating any thing less than a new stroke and nonpartisan way, that is outrageous.

it is contrary to our traditions and people have to be accountable and it's got to be fixed. so we will beta and see what exactly are the details and facts are. but i've got no patience with it. i will not tolerate it and won't ma sinout exactly what happened. >> the senate finance committee chairman max baucus will look into the iris targeting conservative political groups. he said quote, these actions by the irs or a righteous abuse of power and a breach of the public trust. targeting groups based on their political views is not only inappropriate, but is intolerable. florida republican senator, marco rubio sent a letter to treasury secretary, jack lew think well, it is clear the irs cannot operate with even a shed of the american people's confidence under current leadership. i strongly urge you and president obama did many irs commissioner resignation

effective immediately. some of the latest news to "the associated press," the iris is the current acting commissioner learned about the targeting of conservative groups as early as may of last year. [inaudible conversations] what we have here is our first generation prize that essentially looks very similar to a breathalyzer. in order to start the vehicle, it has to be taught to montaner system to start the call.

[inaudible] we've created this online simulator that we bring to a fence across the country were trying to bring the message home in a state environment about difficult and dangerous it is to text and drive. >> last week, louisiana governor, bobby jindal, spoke at a fundraiser for the gop state senate action committee. isn't talked about as a possible contender in the 2016 presidential election. from manchester, this is about an hour. [applause] >> thank you are very, very much.

thank you for that generous introduction and your colleagues for the tremendous work you do. i want to thank everybody for coming to support or conservative, republican senators who make such a great difference in their state. let's give them a round of applause for the tremendous work they are doing. [applause] even before i get started, i want to thank you not only as a republican and louisiana in, but in american resending kelley ayotte to the united states senate. what a fantastic job she is doing for us every day. [applause] she's courageous, stands for principles and i want to thank you goodwin improvements in washington d.c. it would be easy to get appeared in a speech at the lot of applause on attacking president obama, talking about failed policies in all the things he's doing wrong. i'm going to assume you are denote that an agreement that. many of us work hard to try to make a one term president.

i want to talk about something different tonight. i want to talk about where d'amico is republican party? if all you do is watch the tv networks and listen to washington pundit, just like her entire republican party is in a state of public confession like we all do counseling. everybody's got their perfect solutions. we just need more consultants for silicon valley. we need to abandon principles, we need to change her views, we need to become more like the other party. i'm a little tired. yes, we lost an election we probably should've won. yes it is also to lose. on the news to your rationalizations up up to use. you see these guys on tv. we just want excimer of those who would've won the election. that's like saying of the warmer points we would've won the football game. that's true, but a construct of

that is. we lost an election. it's time to get over it. i'm tired of the public infections. the reality is we have one liberal party in america. we don't need to. we can win elections by sticking to principles, but we need to make some changes and think seriously where we go from here. i gave a speech to the rnc. i gave a speech to republican governors association itself an op-ed listing several things we need to do is a party. i listed seven items. i will share five tonight. one of those got more attention than anything else. you may have seen i said basically would we need to stop being party. i've got three young children at home here in we've got a sharper if you say about word he got to put a dollar in a jar. my little boy, i've got a night of going home. every time i come on tv he said

you've decided not heard on tv. daddy is not putting any more dollars in the chart. we're done with that. i met more than just the comments a couple candidates made here but i meant was we've got to present thoughtful policy solutions to the american people. not hoper stickers, 32nd solutions for the dutch have the courage of convictions and show them our ideas will benefit them. when you decide tacking onto the american people. it's also been a party well explored, not backwards. we are a young country at heart. we believe our best days are ahead of us, not behind us. we can't be a party that talks about the good old days. please tell americans the best days are ahead if we preserve the freedom we inherited from our parents. we need to fight for every single vote. not 53%, not 47:00 p.m. at

8100%. we need every single group. for me the confidence and courage to say our principles, our policies and beliefs help every american join the middle class. if you want voters to like us, let the democratic sturdy and special-interest love none of that. were going to treat them like that. again we've got to stop being the party. we can't be about big government, big tanks, but wall street. the democratic party pretends to be the populist party, but deeply than centralized government, they believed your cries no better than parents how to educate children. we are truly the populist party that believes empowering and trusting the american people make decisions themselves. they've been finally, we've got to be comfortable talking about ideas and issues we have not

focused on before. two examples tonight. second i want to talk about why we need to be the party that's all about growth and opportunity, not austerity. minister of education. vice education so important? to commit a practical argument was one of the most fundamental challenges and issues not only as a state of the country. if we want to be a superpower, keep kids out of jail term or reduce the number of people on welfare we want to do all these things, yet you look at statistics are pretty sobering. right now is 17th in mass, 25th and science come to 16 educational attainment across the entire world. we ranked number one when you were getting your education when it comes to attainment. renewing her 20s who ranked 16.

it doesn't sound very american to be yelling weird number 16. the reality is, how we compete unless we have the most educated and skilled people in the entire world and throwing my money is not the solution. we've doubled even after inflation for the 1970s and scores are flat. we spent more money per student in her stomach so far behind other countries to compete with. make no mistake. we compete with singapore and japan and taiwan and brazil and countries all over the world. it's not just a practical argument. i believe there is a moral argument why we should stand as a party and conservative movement for providing a great education that every child in this state and country in the moral imperative is we are an aspirational party, people and country. we believe the circumstances don't determine your outcome as an adult.

we truly believe you don't have to be born of a zip code. doesn't matter your gender, race, family's wealth. it goes back to what every mom and dad says if you want to work hard and did a great education, there's no limit to what you can accomplish. you can grow to become president of the united states, be a notch pirner, businessman,.or, lawyer, accountant. for that to be sure we got to provide a great education at every job. there's a great story. adam of history because it makes a funny point. bobby kennedy would call monday day and told his dad his famous father he wanted to be a catholic priest. when bobby came home and told joe that is, he famously said bobby, that would be great. we've never had a poke in the kennedy family before. it would be good to have one of those. i love that confidence. as of the attitude that my job can do anything.

if are honest with ourselves, we know there's too many children in this country who don't have the opportunity to get a great education. we like to say we're about you opportunity. we need to change the way we educate our children. we know most of us will move to neighborhoods with great public schools or send archives to good private schools at the local public schools that that's what it takes. far too many kids live in neighborhoods tracked with bad local options. so what do we do? her students are fighting to do here and i'll start with a simple idea. but the dollars follow the child. don't make the child follow the dollars. what does that mean? [applause] i want to thank peter in your senators fighting so hard for charter schools to make sure you do have opportunities to provide choices to your kids, let me tell you what that means to us

in louisiana. we saw her to pass one of the most comprehensive scholarship programs for dollars follow the case because every child learns differently. some kids do great in a traditional public school. some do great in a parochial school and on my school, dual enrollment school. the point is that the moms and dad decide. another children better than anyone else. when we propose this committee choosing inside parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for kids. i can imagine anything more offensive or more in true when it comes to the educational. that's a contrast versus what we believe. governor can we make choices every day. we know the needs better than your cart and washington d.c. this isn't just theory. you look what's going on in new orleans today. 70% of our kids are now in

charter schools. the last five years we've doubled the percentage during reading and math on grade level. before 2005, over half of our kids are graduating from high school. three quarters of our kids are graduating. i can go on and on the we've got more work to do. we are moving in the right direction. we started a pilot scholarship program in 2008. on average her stunning $885 per kid in public school and spent over $5000 in scholarship schools and academic scores are better. over 95% appearance are happy to have this choice. last year with 10,000 kids apply for five dozen spots. visio 12,008,000 first-round alone. higher academic scores, saving millions of dollars for taxpayers. who could oppose this? the coalition for the status quo.

teacher unions and others don't understand it's about the kid, not the adults in the classroom. this is making sure our kids get a great education. i'm tired of people telling us just wait. give them time and will eventually improve their schools. you only have one chance. the second biggest but a great teacher in every classroom. every study shows the single most than you can do is reduce class size, build new buildings. that's low-grade. the single most important thing we can do is put a great teacher in every classroom. studies at stanford show thousands of dollars more an average in their careers for having a good teacher. one of the recent conclusions was if your fourth-grade daughter has a great teacher, more likely to go to college and less likely to become pregnant as she gets older as a teenager. just remake or a fourth-grade

teacher. so you would think we would have policies to recognize report. but what we do instead. most states reword her teachers based on how long they've been reading, not how well they do in the classroom. can you imagine if i went to small business and told you two things. after three years are basically not allowed to get rid of anything and if you've got to employees, one shows up early, works hard and is a great job and the other does the bare minimum. you have to pay them the same. if that's how we treat the teaching profession and that's why we've revamped our tenure, pay, hiring policies to say let's do something obvious and simple. finally tioga to student achievement? at the beginning of the school year, and of the school year that aren't at least a years worth of material. why don't we treat teachers like professionals. we want to pay are great

teachers more. for the first time in years worth of southern average in louisiana and want to be better transit paying teachers. flooding the dollar followed the kids. this is the right thing to do for our state, country, also for republican party. if for an aspirational party, a party that opportunity, we have to be a great education for every student. the reason i'm so passionate is not only do i see the impact of may states, 70% of the companies tell us the top concern of friends coworkers. we've revamped graphics card and then many, many things and yet our economy is doing better than the national economy. we've got two of the most skilled people. i'm also passionate for a personal reason. my dad is one of those and i know everyone has an example at

this. one of those kids that grew up in a house without electricity and running water. the only one and a sailor who got past the fifth grade. coming back from school. i heard these stories every single day of my life. my dad didn't grow up with a lot of money but when he was raising his family come here to tell my brother me i'm not going to give your famous last last name or inheritance, but it will make sure you could make great education. there's no limit to which you can do if you've got a great education. i sent in my family and you have in your family. we spent too much time last year criticizing the other side without saying what we do instead of what we were for. we stand for the middle class. we want everyone to have the american dream my dad is pursued mr. parents and grandparents pursued. they were the first in her

family and that brings me to my second final point. we need to be the party of growth, not as dirty. what does that mean? if you listen a political debate, it's all those zeros and all about austerity and spreadsheets and powerpoint presentations in tv ads. make no mistake, i believe you got to balance the budget and stop spending money we don't have. i worry about 16 to $17 trillion of debt to my children and grandchildren. we simply can't measure 6%. to balance our budget every year just like you have. we've cut the number of state employees over 20 years. record bond ratings are over 20 years. and louisiana and new hampshire, we must not become the party obsessed with government and government only. this debate is not about what we hear about. we are fighting this debate on the other party's terms.

this is all about the government economy, not the private sector economy. we need to remind the american people the other party, not the republican party. for the part or if of fewer jobs, low-rent, where scarcity. i do know that you, but the republican party is not the party hereto manage the slow decline of this great country. that's not our mission. that's the republican party school. yet we have fought this entire debate on the other side's terms. we need to make it clear to the american people we are all about the other. it happens far outside of washington d.c. we need to get our spending under control, but we are about freedom. make no mistake, you can have prosperity and you can't have that makes america so great without individual economic

security. world by helping others during the middle class. that includes an energy policy was washington d.c. telling us how to live our lives from the top down. it shouldn't be complicated to fill out your taxes. this means having a real debate about the size and scope of government interference in our lives. if you only remember one thing, will step in a party of austerity and be the party of growth and opportunity. be the party of the middle class. as i conclude my remarks, i sure do this. we lost a great leader when prime minister thatcher. it's important to win the next election in election after after that, what i want to remind us this is more than just winning an election. this is one in a very debate about where we go as a country. i don't know about you, but when

it thinks my dad would tell us going up every day in paris so tell you continually arise who don't appreciate until you have your own kids. everyday i tell god how sorry i am for the misery caused by parents. children and young children are revenge against every thing we did is revisited upon us. one of the things my dad would tell us what is your lucky or blessed every day. you should be blasting the angst you were born in america. when you're a kid you don't understand. i was born and raised by all life in louisiana. where else would it be? of course i'm an american. i appreciate mr. khatami. my parents didn't come here. they came from opportunity, freedom. they didn't come for a check or welfare program. they came because they knew if

you worked hard to get ahead. to give your children opportunities their parents were able to give them. every generation is more opportunity that we've inherited from parents. what's not become the first generation that marketers are children's future. we've got to win this debate and i'm tired of the apologies and public confession. freedom of man. if we are brave and courageous enough to stand for lower taxes and smaller government, following to say to the president we do trust the american people to make a decision a number of mice, we win those elections. look no further than the motto of this great state. for those wringing our hands are looking at poll numbers are worried about the last election results, i tell them free to is a principle worth fighting for. we will rally around and i hope we would do this.

i hope we rally around those candidates and leaders to stand for what is right, not just what is popular. as candidates and leaders going to take a stand for freedom to say america's greatest days are ahead of us and the genius of this country was not in washington d.c., but in the hearts and souls of the individual american people who truly make this the greatest country in the history of the entire world. thank you for letting me speak to you about today. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

.. it gets a lot harder. medicare is a bigger challenge compared to -- [inaudible] i'm a big believer in the only way you see change is -- [inaudible] so for example, louisiana not only new hampshire -- [inaudible]

but louisiana has a balance budget reform in our institution -- constitution, we have institutional we -- we're not allowed on the pension to do that. [inaudible] any actuarial thought over time. you can't add benefits unless you're going to pay for it. we have a two-thirds vote -- we have a constitutional limit on our debt and -- [inaudible] people that are in the legislature -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] so for example, we have a pension in louisiana, we know some states play games. illinois borrowed money for pensions. we didn't do that. every year we make our constitutional payment. we balance our budget. that payment goes first. we don't say how much do we want to give to the pension? we do that before we do anything else. i also passed a law the new hire -- [inaudible] i think for congress, the only

way they are going to confront the big challenges is if we make changes. -- [inaudible] along with borrow -- they'll never -- it doesn't matter who you send. it's not like sending the right person there. it has -- if i think you have to make the structure changes, that's going to be -- [inaudible] we have to say, all right, we have to balance our budget. we can't create new liability most people pay them. otherwise what happens the changes that happen in louisiana, for years they kept promising benefits and they knew that -- [inaudible conversations] and they knew that nobody would ever stop unless they -- california is the -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

and so i think this is a not a problem unique to the federal government. i think it's a problem that can only get solved in the state -- generally either constitutional or other requirements to refund to -- [inaudible] to avoid the long-term. the message i gave congress, if we don't fix this, what it means we won't have any money for roads, schools -- that's the -- [inaudible] it's not free. we have to get that. t not free, we're taking to the next generation. the big thing is we have to have a a structure base. we fool ourselves thinking -- [] [inaudible conversations] i think if you do that, again, if you do the grant on our --

[inaudible] to have a five or ten year perspective. they put band aid after band aid they never get . >> i appreciate your time. >> i told you i saw you. >> okay. >> okay. >> they do great work. they are great people. >> thank you for meeting you. thank you for your time. nice to meet you. >> hey, guys. >> governor. >> how are you? >> governor -- the union leader. thank you for coming out. is can you ru president? >> i'll say the same thing. anybody thinking about 2016 need to have their head examined. we have to win the debate.

we have to win the debate by idea. we don't have to be -- [inaudible] or thinking about the 2016 election. we just had a presidential election many thought we should have won based on the -- the reality is we spent talking about -- i'm the head of the rga, in terms of politics is making sure that we win the governor's race in new jersey and virginia. getting ready for next year. we have 36 races coming in. i'll be the vice chairman next year. we want to have great candidates including in new hampshire. we want to make sure we have our funds and spending our income and a full-time day job working in louisiana making sure we grow our economy. continue to make sure that we're performing the national southern economy. my focus is helping our party win the debate of ideas. the run for anybody -- [inaudible] >> i'm thinking about that, why are you in new hampshire? >> i was thrilled to get the invitation to help the senator

republicans. as you know, there are thirteen this years. they are -- charter schools in successful in louisiana. they asked me to come up here. it was a quick trip. i go back tomorrow morning getting back to my state. i'm happy to help do it. it's great for the men and women. they thought i would be helpful to help them. . >> you talk about the ideas for the party on senator rubio's proposal for citizenship? >> several things. i haven't had a chance to read the 800-plus page. one, the immigration is broken. i believe we need a dramatically increase the number of people coming here legally. [inaudible] i think it's absolutely foolish for -- [inaudible] start new businesses and help create the businesses new businesses here.

third, i think security is absolutely important. i was disappointed to hear the president say that in a couple of different remarks that he doesn't think border security is a -- [inaudible] today here illegally. that's wrong. i think border secure city critical. [inaudible] finally, look, the country -- [inaudible] [inaudible] i think we can find a compassional solution. i think one of the things that has to be done, -- i'm talking about millions. i'm talking about incremental changes. make it dramatically increase a dramatic increase in the number of people that -- [inaudible] if it's good for them. they want to improve their quality of life. they want to work hard, they want to get a quality

education. we should do it because we are compassional. nate. it's goo -- they're going to contribute to our economy and improve our equipment of life. i think we have a young country. i think it's an absolutely critical part. it's immigration debate that doesn't get a lot of focus. >> are you excited on the pathway to citizenship -- . >> i haven't read the specific bill. but i in terms of -- i think border security is a critical component -- [inaudible] we have to -- what -- [inaudible] i walked in a little late. i was stuck by a train. >> i hope you didn't get hit by a train. [laughter] >> you talked about education and how important it was in your life and how important you feel it is. i heard something on the radio the other day talking about a study during the reagan administration. talking about where the schools had -- it was thirty years ago

and how many administrations in between. what do you see as the -- [inaudible] >> three things. one, i think we are the wrong of the problem. that's not the answer. certainly you need resources, we have doubled what we spent -- [inaudible] i also don't think -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] i believe in accountability. i think you have to make sure our kids are learning and the potential promotion. we have done that in louisiana with a standard itsed, normalized testing. and in louisiana what i believe works elsewhere -- or two simple thicks. let the dollars fall on the kids so you have choice in compensation. and measure and reward the great teachers. we have -- [inaudible] we measure the performance at the beginning and the end. -- [inaudible] you can show cra draymatic in

the short period of time. in your number there were 78% of the kids in charter schools. the percentage of kids in reading and math is great. the graduation rate in new orleans is just over half. it's over three quarterses -- quarters a wide. we have seen it six point in the last five years. the highest rates it's ever been. [inaudible conversations] my point being you can make progress quickly. anybody tells you you have to make incremental progress -- [inaudible] for too long the solutions have been same old same old. it's not complicatedded. it's great -- [inaudible conversations] it means rewarding great teaching. [inaudible conversations]

thank you. >> next question. you understand any time you show up here or in iowa in the next two years. we're going ask you about the presidency. >> the reality is anybody thinking about 2016 needs to have the head examined. we have to win the debate. we just finished a presidential election. this country doesn't need another four years presidential election. we have important work to do to provide a positive message and vision. we spent too much last year criticizing the president and pointing out where his policies didn't work. and not doing enough to show the american people the conservative ideas can help join the middle class. education is a great example of that. energy policies, drawing the tax code. i'm the head of rga. i'm focused on helping our

candidates win. we have governors and candidates in thirty six states up next year. that's my political focus on governing our state and in term of our growing and continue and continue to cut our tax. we don't need to be focused on 2016. let's focus and win the debate. the majority of the american people think the federal government should be doing less. they voted for president obama. it shows we don't want -- ?awbl as a party. >> and thank you, the question -- [inaudible] >> i appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] thank you very much. thank you for coming. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we have eddie lambert in the state house. and -- [inaudible] ran for governor. he was a democratic nominee for

governor. so the commission on floor. still very active attorney. [inaudible] >> good to see the name is carried on. i love -- [inaudible] >> great. [inaudible conversations] hi, governor nice to meet you. this is my wife, susan. >> governor, again, -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> if your parents come to new hampshire? >> no. nox. -- new york city.

>> they got off the plane. they didn't know anyone. -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> isn't that a great american story? >> it is. >> my mom was pregnant with me. -- [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] my dad didn't have a job. same kind of story. can you imagine taking your pregnant wife going halfway across the world. don't know a soul. not allowed to bring a lot of money with you. you get there and just have the complete confidence. lsu put them in up in a -- housing. they had to move out. they ran out of money. it was too expensive. they don't drive. no driver's license. they had to find a commuter apartment to live. he to find a job. the confidence that you're going to work. -- [inaudible] they did. they got a job. and it all worked out great. it was great. we bounced around from student apartment to student apartment

in those days. we finally bought a house. when i look back, there were always working hard. they were always happy and confident. there was no limit to what you can do. i remember that. you know? kids pick up it on. if the parents are living the life. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] the most ambition, risk-taking people off every country in the last -- [inaudible] i don't know how we get there. we somehow need to a little bit. -- [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

they show up saying it's not -- [inaudible] my kids need a great education. as it works, parent look back and go wait a minute. i didn't -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] it's not like a lost fight. >> how many kids if your parents have? you have a older sister? >> i'm the youngest -- [inaudible] we grew up in new york city, staten island, new york. the other is in indianapolis. i came up here. i went to law school in boston, met my husband, came up here and been here since '92. >> oh. >> the legal could counsel --

[inaudible] >> you all get together? >> from time to time. we have one cousin graduating in a few weeks. we are hope everyone can . >> my mom and sister scattered. it's like michigan. it's a big wedding it gives you an excuse. >> where? michigan? >> the youngest sister in -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] twelve weeks next year. june 6th -- [inaudible] constitutionally they can't -- [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] it used to be every other year.

this year is a short session. they can do five nonfiscal bills per member. the reality is that's a enough. they can do most of them. -- [inaudible conversations] >> very knit -- nice visiting you. >> thank you. >> thank you, governor. >> nice meeting you. thank you for coming. >> thank you. governor, i want to make sure you have a bottle of maple super. they say it's better than cane syrup.

>> thank you, governor. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

judiciary committee member senator jeff sessions spoke out today in the senate against the immigration bill being marked up in the judiciary committee this week. he's a member of the immigration subcommittee. and said work on the bill should stop until senators get better information about a legal immigrants in the u.s. and the impact on the economy. this is about half an hour.idin: >> mr. president, tomorrow wee'e continue the markup on the gange of 8 immigration bill. bill. they've been meeting with meetit business people business people and special business people and special and to agree to, they thinkslaonhe is good, didn't have anybody representing main street america, didn't have anyone

representing the law enforcement community who could explain how the system ought to work. as a result, their bill doesn't have any kind of effective improvements in our law enforcement that would do -- be really effective. but i wanted to talk today because we'll be into it tomorrow, on the fundamental question of the nature of our immigration, how much this country would be table to sustain in a healthy way for immigrants as well as american workers, and i've concerned for some time that the numbers are just too large, that we're not able to assimilate people effectively in these large numbers, but significantly, we don't have the job created sufficiently to allow us to employ them.

and it would have only a negative impact on american workers. now, you say, well, you're not very positive, sessions. you know, we're a growth oriented, we're going to grow the economy and there wl be hereeconomy and there wl be there will be plenty of jobs and be like ronald reagan. be sunny all the time. don't talk negative. worr don't worry about this. i'm looking at some numbers. andic it's wise for america to e be prudent. pnt, be smart, be careful before weee establish policies that we can't sustain before we establishstabh policies that create more picies unemployment in america and a damage our economy. that could happen.thatould i asked the sponsors of the,ed bill, how many people would be e admitted under the bill? he wouldn't say. i said, it looked like it mightt be thirty million.on. is that correct? no.ny is how many is it, senator

schumer. he didn't say.e they have yet to say how many mn people would be admitted under the biggest change in in immigration we've had since at t least 1986, and really larger ii the impact in '86. so this is an odd thing. frankly, we ought not to proceed another day in the judiciary committee until the sponsor of l the bill and great adviser that' meeting for months aided by they administration and all of the te staff that they have in homeland secu securityri immigration.w m how many people would be admitted?pany they don't do that, really. tha- i think fundamentally because they don't want you to know.se t they really don't want to t acknowledge what a huge alteration in our policies thiss will have.d i'm tal i'm talking about terms of economically and so forth.

let's just talk think about it.n we know 11 million people here illegally. some say twelve. be they would be given a legal status.all giv they would be given a legaley w status immediately.ediately be they would be immediately allowed to pursue any job they would like t to take. they would be given a legal down status. apply they could apply for the countyc government, coal mining companis companies, all companies, any, a good job out there that theyikeo would like to apply for.hat's nt that's not happening now because many of them have no no identification and aren't able to take anything other than jobj off the books.ks. some have estimated the supporters of the bill half of the people, at least working off the books in some form orr fashion. i'm just saying these numbers a

bit.rs are you have that, in addition you have of the next nine years ahe plan to legalize 4.5 mlt additional -- million additional chain migration backlog.'re they're really not backlogged in the sense that the immigration service process in the papershen fasten up.ing they are backlogged because we have how many in the category could come in and people apply to let it get to the number. it would remove the caps onust e those like that. there would be another 4.5 million that would come in. then they have a future flow flo that we are working hard on to g try to analyze. the i don't have immigration lawyers association. i don't have the chamber of commerce to come and dot work ad

for me. but we think they'll be quiter number coming in the future. the "los angeles times," i'll use their number, the numbers to that others have come up with and may be in the ballpark. they're increase the annual flol by 50% we are supposed to be a d million year. it would be considerably more. you're talking about we estimatl something like 30 million peopla will be given legal status in the next ten years when it's a law when faithfully applied it would be 10 or 11 million over the next ten years. of that thirty, about will be

those already here. ten many of those are really not effectively competing for jobs with the american worker for a large degree out of work. and needing a job. i guess i would say, first and foremost, we we are a nation of immigration. we always had a generous immigration politician. a million immigrations a year exceeds that of any other country in the world. ever. we are about to -- huge bubble of new people. fifteen million and we're going increase the flow by 50 percent. i'm ask can we handle this? that's all i'm asking at this point on the subject. we should think about that. don't woe need to -- don't we owe it to the workers to ask the questions? and let me just say this,

professor harvard himself an immigration, the most serious -- of immigration and wages and jobs in america written the book on it, number of years ago. still writes papers and contribute together debate. .. studies that increases in workers reduces wages. surprise? more workers reduces wages. it allows a business to find a worker without having to pay more money. they'd be able to get people to work for less. and they like that. that's great for them. but my democratic colleagues have been pointing out for a long time now -- and sadly

there's too much truth in their complaints -- that the average wage of the american worker over wage of the american worker over the average wage of the american worker over the last, at least since 2000 some say as far back as 1978, have not kept up with inflation. the profits doing pretty well, the worker salaries have checked up with inflation and the unemployment rate is exceedingly high today. that is a fact. and professor borjas attributes a good bit of that -- attributes a good rid of that to the large immigration that we've had over these years. this at a level that he sent years ago wrote was higher than the company ought to have done.

what is our current situation. we look at the president at the congressional budget office. they present the congress every year and nobody knows the verse two of those questions, the cbo is as good an object did not bribe the u.k. but experts say are incorrect and that is the economic growth as the united states and japan is not going to be the peaks of growth we've had in some of the cocoa areas of the past. bill gross had the biggest bond fund in the world.

he's called it the new normal, that we're going to have a lower growth to be steady, but it's going to be creating less jobs. that's what the projections are for the future. in february of this year, mr. president, the cbo projected that job growth in the ten-year budget the analysis, years 19 through 23, job growth per month, the number of jobs we've added that the employers expect to add to the work were subaverage only 75 a month. surely we can do some better than not. this is a ten-year plus plan of immigration.

is it activist to mr. elmendorf, anybody about how many jobs are actually going to need other than some of our gurus and the commerce in the bank i were cultural communities and some of those folks. that's all the people they're talking to. so what about the blue chip forecast? this is very, very much watched forecast. they make forecast on a lot of different issues. it is the average of 55 private economy -- economic forecasters. to the blue chipper is, what do they say the growth will be? they say 2.8% growth and between

2016 and 2019, dropping only 2.5% between 2020 and 2024 and it really cbo that economic growth will slow down the next 10 years and not pick up from the slow growth we are in now to any significant degree. a number of academic economists arrive at coordinate northwest and george mason argued the united states economy has entered a long period of slower economic growth that is not likely to improve dramatically anytime soon. "the wall street journal" put their latest survey of 52 economies to predict steady but slow economic growth in the near-term. slow growth and strong cautions.

it just means job caution. adjust for population growth will take nine or years to return to the pre-recession levels of unemployed growth according to the brookings institution. it will take nine more years to relate what we have now to a normal historical upon the united states. at the same time, job participation, labor force participation is a record low in the 1970s, when not many were working, we've gone not low. people are giving up looking for work. two months ago we had 88,000 jobs created in this country and one month.

88 people got employment. 486,000 left the work force. can you imagine not? one-month beard really created 88,000 jobs while 486,000 left the workforce. we checked those numbers. about a faith of those are retirements, some earlier than they intended to draw it because they find work, but a fifth, less than 400,000 dropped out, gave up, couldn't find work. so that is a troubling thing. and it's pulling down wages of american citizen who've lost their job and can't find good

work. the labor department reported earlier this month that 4.4 million americans have been out of work for more than 27 weeks in the broadest measure of unemployment, that includes part-time employment and other things, seems to 13.9%, which is really high. so first we say, do you want to tell somebody, come into america and we don't have a job for you or will only be temporary and nobody laid off. we can expect to be able to maintain a workforce. there is no doubt that those who want large and ready supplies of labor who don't want to pay my money, provide my benefits to gevapor are happy with the steady flow -- larch low coming into the country and it might

even make them have a little better profit. professor borjas makes clear, clear that i may be $1600 a year, the lower income people making 20,000 or so a year have been a regis brought not much as a result of influx of large amounts of those skilled labor. so it not helpful to immigrants who came awfully, who are looking for work and having their breeches pulled down. it's not helped over native warren who can't get on the ladder of success were you start working as a helper in one day you end up carpenter and one day you ended up as a foreman and you saved a little money and you've got a retirement plan and health care for your family. that is what we try to see happen in america. and i'm worried about those

numbers. last friday night we had a hearing. kind of hard to keep up with. this is the hearing we had -- this is another hearing. we had a hearing on high-tech workers. i just wanted to highlight the testimony of professor ron here a and he has written for the economic policy institute. that is a liberal think tank. he's been an op-ed at business week. he's presented at the brookings institution and his academic papers on the subject. so he testified before a committee in houston that he and high skilled immigration policies for more than a decade. most of the people entering into the gang of eight bill will not

be high skilled. most of them will not be in the merit-based point system that you heard about. it looks pretty clear the number of people entering on the point-based system, where you have some sort of editor process or you get extra points if you have family connections, those people entering out way represent less than 10% of the legislation. less than 10% of those who he admitted under the legislation. so this is what mr. harris says about the way high school in immigration is being operated. the u.s. policy as currently designed and in minister more harm than good. to meet the needs of the united states economy and u.s. workers, our guestworker and permanent

resident programs need immediate and substantial overall and we don't really have that kind of reform in this legislation. the principal goal of these programs is to bring in foreign workers who are supposed to complement american workers, making american workers more effective. but loopholes have made it too easy to bring in cheaper foreign workers with ordinary skill who directly substitute for her rather than complement workers already in america. instead of you heard this complementarity idea that we can bring in foreign labor that helps the american workers be more efficient and will make everybody better. according to mr. hera, the workers in broad and under the h. one b. and similar programs,

are not doing not. they are bringing in people through a loophole that actually compete for americans with americans for jobs. he says they are -- many of these have ordinary skills in a substitute or american workers. it goes on to say loopholes in these programs provide an unfair competitive advantage to companies that are specializing in offshore outsourcing. speeding up the process of shipping of high wage, high tech american jobs overseas, which is disadvantaged in the united states that higher mainly american workers. essentially, people would come from a foreign country live and

train here and then they go back to their foreign country and set up the plan a business and the u.s. company outsources the work here, costing american jobs. he's done studies on this. this isn't just a theory he came up with. he further testified the actual h1b and l1 has become antithetical to two for fundamental flaws. the permits are held by the employer come as a basically these individuals, as indentured servant and i also will be controlled in a way that gives the employer an advantage over an american worker. number two, he says that he said. as far too long for them to come and in addition to the inherent

design flaws, there's little oversight or enforcement on this paragraph. nobody's watching them. according to professor hera by closing h1b and l1 visa loopholes, congress would retain tens of thousands of high which american jobs and ensure they per market works fairly for american and foreign workers alike. i'm summarizing now. in his opinion, the following needs to be done: institute an effective labor market test. make sure we actually need these workers. pay workers true market wages if they're not being paid true market wages. limit the visa to a maximum of three years for a lot of reasons i sit just that's very important with no renewal because if you come for longer periods of time and you can renew, then you end up with somebody who's married, children are in junior high school, maybe the americans it

has been by now. you asked them to leave even though the law was made for them to leave. it is not likely. that is how 40% of the people here illegally have come to america. this comes lately but overstayed their visas that they had. it would laminate access to additional h1b and l1 visas for any or firm dependent on these programs to maintain their basic workforce should be the ones to have their numbers reduced, not getting more and more to shine a light on the progress to institute sensible oversight, establish clear objective program and also other programs he knows they're badly in need of an overhaul and are being used to circumvent the annual

numerical limit on h1b's and regulatory controls on the l1 program. given the widespread use of h1b and l1 visas by offshore outsourcing firms, people who really move jobs out of the united states, congress should take affirmative steps to make clear that both guestworker program and permanent residents are immigration issues, not trade empowers the issues. you've heard over and over again, from my good friends and.com valley and all the great state done and we are proud of them and they've been great for america, he talks about some of them. and he can to contested the assertion by mr. brad at the microsoft, they've been aggressive in pushing this program. he pushes back and contest the

assertion that the united states does not have enough high skilled workers. you've heard that. we don't have enough high skilled workers. he says now, according to professor hera, unemployment rates for stem graduate, science technology, engineering and not mandates have been told this guy to have more and more foreign workers. but he says graduate that the unemployment rate for stem graduates is higher than that of regular college graduate. goodness. she noted in the petroleum engineering field things have gone better. wages have increased, costing an increase in the enrollment -- in such programs by american college students who almost exclusively filled the petroleum engineering job. that's the way the system is supposed to work. wages are growing up as

engineering workers start measuring and not to make a lot and find jobs. this example he says shows markets to work when they are allowed to work. but he said h1b and l1 programs are intervening and market should become accountability. i would conclude by saying i urge my colleagues, before we rush out and sign in immigration proposal that has all kinds of special interests and political interests, somebody asked the question, what is it doing to reach college graduates as well as low skilled workers? doesn't the actual statistical

data from thorough experts indicate these workers are struggling today? many are unemployed, in much need of work, abigail thurston also the commission wrote a letter to the president and the congress that said we don't have a shortage of low skilled workers in america. we have more growth skilled workers looking for jobs than we have jobs. but to read the papers, you would think just the opposite. it was this crisis with high unemployment, high numbers of people dropped out of the labor force and effect to bring in more workers to do basic american work. all i am saying is immigration policy needs to allow the right footer coming to america. it needs to be faithfully

enforce. in a stew served interest, not the special special-interest peonies to remember the dutiful workers out there lawfully enter the country through immigration are nativeborn and their interests need to be protected in this process. i now believe they are protected properly. i thank the chairman and yield the floor.

>> we are a brand-new starter company with one mission and that to present the driving i were does. what we have here is our first generation product and essentially it works very similar to a breathalyzer. in order to start the vehicle, the phone literally has to be talked and locked in our system in order to start the car. >> we have here our campaign to education and detection of driving. we created this, and simulator or bring two high schools around the country and we are trying to bring the message him in a safe environment of how difficult it dangerous it is to text and drives.

>> this morning, president obama responded to the investigation and hearings into the benghazi attack and said the focus on his administration's reaction to the attack has political motivations. here's a look. >> with respect to benghazi, we've now seen this argument that's been made by some folks primarily up on capitol hill. for months now. and i just got to say, here is what we know: americans died in benghazi. but we also know was clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protect it. the day after it happened, i

acknowledge that this was an act of terrorism. my pledge to the american people was we would find out what happened, make sure that it did not happen again and make sure we held accountable those who perpetrated this terrible crime. and that's exactly what we've been trying to do. over the last several months, there was a review board headed by two distinguished americans. mike mullen and tom pickering who investigated every element of this. and what they discovered was some pretty harsh judgments in terms of how we had were to protect consulates and embassies around the world. they gave us a whole series of recommendations. those are being implemented as we speak. the whole issue of talking

points frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow. what we have been very clear about throughout is that immediately after the event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. it happened at the same time we have seen attacks on u.s. embassies in cairo as a consequence of this bill. and nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days. the e-mails that you allude to were provided by a two congressional committees. they rebuked them several months ago, concluded that in fact there is nothing a foul in terms of the process we had used.

and suddenly, three days ago this gets spun off as if there is some pain due to this story. keep in mind by the way the so-called talking points that were prepared for susan rice five, six days after the event occurred pretty much matched the assessment is even at that time in my presidential daily briefing. keep in mind that two to three days after susan rice appeared on the sunday shows amazing talking points that have been the source of controversy, i said at the head of our national counterterrorism back to capitol hill and specifically sad is an act of terrorism.

and the extremist elements have been involved in it. so if this is some effort on our part to downplay what it happen, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that is now served as the basis for everybody recognizing this was a terrorist attack and that may have included elements planned by extremists and inside of libya. who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? so the whole thing defies logic. the fact this keeps on getting churned out frankly has a lot to do with political motivations. we've had folks who have challenged hillary clinton's integrity, susan rice integrity,

mike mullen and tom pickering's integrity, it's a given that mike is challenged by the same folks. they use it for fund-raising and frankly, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again, i am happy to get their advice and information council. but the fact of the matter is these four americans as they celebrate me when it happened to people i sent into the field and i've been very clear about taking responsibility for the fact we were not able to prevent their deaths that we are doing everything we can to make sure we prevented in part because there are still diplomats around the world who are in very dangerous difficult situations and we don't have time to be

playing these political games at washington. we should be focused on what are we doing to protect them? and that is not easy, by the way. it will require research and tough judgment calls and there's diplomats out there who know they are in harms way and threat to conquer every so often with respect to embassies and calm with. it's not just us by the way. the british had to do it the same thing i've got a whole bunch of people in the state department who say i'm willing to step up. i am willing to put myself in harms way because i think this should have been poured in terms of serving the united states and advancing our interests around the globe. so we dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political service. what happened was tragic. it is carried out by extremists inside libya.

we are out there trying to hunt down the folks who carry this out and make sure we fix the system so it doesn't happen again. .. >> guest: this is