or other contacts with with the mr. roseman, how would you sell cell phone contacts? were they few, many, texts? a few, many? meetings? a few, many? >> i probably met with them over the last five years about ten times or so. there were text messages that we provided as part of a investigation. >> okay. mr. chairman, he testified, again, a few times between may and october you and mr. roseman

exchanged over 100 telephone calls. don't you think that's an excessive of what you testified to? >> i don't -- through the phone call or texting over 100 messages. and then, and particular you had 21-minute telephone conversation between mr. roseman and yourself on the seventh of june, 2012. to refresh your memory, that was the night before mr. roseman sent you the request for, quote, $80 million laptop desk top acquisition. one, you testified or you just indicated you had a very few contacts contrary to over 100 contacts by phone that we have. and secondly, did you want, and finally do you comment on the

21-minute conversation with mr. roseman? >> the gentleman's time is expired. would you believe answer. >> i believe i testified i met with him ten times or so for the last five years. i didn't comment on the number. i think i stated that i believe refer to text messages that we turned over versus telephone -- mr. chairman. >> briefly. >> phone, text, and meetings. three different -- >> dually noted. >> i don't know the number of phone calls. the text message i'm aware of i met with committee staffers last week or so and we went over them. the ones we provided. i don't recall what the conversation was about on june 7th. >> mr. castillo, i know you said there wasn't a friendship. i believe you have releet peteedly said there was. you haven't been -- you have been on the opposite side of that. the texts are not unexpected in that you said you have a long relationship with mr. roseman.

>> i worked in support of the irs for about fifteen years or so. the last ten years, i mean, since -- >> since 2003 he's been what you would characterize as a friend. >> i would say a customer. i met him through my previous employer, they were good friend. we held a contract. >> customer not friend is your testimony today. >> no, sir. i at any time say that. i think i'm on record -- we have a business relationship that i believe he has friendlier friends. i'm not changing my testimony that i believe -- >> i think mr. he was trying to get the question based on the communication. because we have a within not here today who said to the irs that you are not friends. yes or no, are you friends under your definition of friends? >> yes, i would think i've been clear, or i stated that several

-- >> thank you. i want to make sure. i know, the treasury wants to understand the disparity in interpretation of friends between an individual who didn't disclose and yourself. and i'm not trying to put anyone in a spot. i think he deserves a yes or no. on that. i'm not sure if he asked if we were friends. or if i characteristickized it. i would say we have a good business relationship and consider him a friend under me diff in addition. i wish he was here to testify. small business owner of ten or so folks. i'm here willingly and actively participated. i've attended everything you've asked me to attend. we've made every employee available do you. we turned over an immense amount of documents including the text messages you referenced, and i would say we have fully cooperated. >> and t not my time, if you would be indull again for a

moment. one of the reasons for the hearing today, we believe from an irs-execution of the contract it was not appropriate and, you know, we intervened when we believed that. and obviously we have the sba here today and the veterans here today because we believe there needs to be a reform in a portion of the process under which you were given the statuses. and those are the three points here today. but i do appreciate and i want to know for the record, yes, from the get go you said i don't believe i did anything wrong. i'll cooperate and you have. mrs. norton, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. indicating by the program when

initiated in the 1997, i think, it was done without hearings republican senator from missouri, chris inserted it to an sba reauthorization and it seemed like a good idea, it seemed to bring together really some of the visions of one of my good friends, the late jack to mary his notions of market system and capitalism with the concern for the inner-city. by the time democrats took control of the congress, its chair media have aless qez was disgusted with the prament. they had hearings in the major cities showing terrible abuse by large companies. of the programs. some of us went there and said

it's a new president. give him a chance to clean it up. i don't have any evidence that the program is still like it was when those hearings were held throughout the united states. showing that big companies had a wholesalely abused the notion. but obviously -- i think the program must have been proved or else we would have more about that by this time. but i can't say the same for what i'm hearing today. i have to tell you, mr. cans mr. castillo, it hits a bit close to home. of course live in d.c. westbound that's allowed. you are from a wealthy virginia suburb. that's allowed. you rented a tiny office in chinatown, then you recruited students from catholic university to do the work after you received the contract. why didn't you go to seven and

eight, which of course is the part of the city, not going do it in your own zone, which is a part of the city where employment is high, ting classically a part of the city where you could have found people to do the work, and fully met the notion embodied in the hub zone that people who live in disadvantaged areas would have some investment in the area and can get employment. where as they couldn't before. why did you go to zone seven and eight. >> ma'am, i don't know them very well. i apologize i'm not well -- >> you know it well enough to go catholic university. >> yes. so and, ma'am, just to state, the employees we hired were

hired before -- we put together two initiatives -- >> i thought they were hired or after the awards. the purpose of the hub zone is to hire disadvantaged people. were the catholic university students disadvantaged people? >> they were residents of the hub zone that we employed. >> you say in your testimony all of our actions were taken in consultation with the sba, and never sought to deceive the government. do you believe that hiring college student go to an expensive private university is in keeping with the goal of this program? >> yes, ma'am. >> do you believe that hiring students who go to a private university, expensive one at that, is in keeping with the goal of the program?

>> thank you, representative. the an to your question is this, the hub zone program, as you have said, is design to spur investment and economic development in place-base. >> do you believe that the hiring of students in a private university meets the goals of the hub zone of the program? >> we have seen many entities throughout time that hire students i hired no employees except students from this zone. and we learned in may you did in fact hire someone who is not a catholic university student. i love catholic university. i'm trying to -- what the zone is about with the actions that were taken here. i want to know whether --

in keeping with the goal of the program. >> so long as they are resident of the community. >> as far as you know throughout the united states people are finding who are definition advantaged because they have gotten to college. most americans do not and they may be hiring college student all over the united states other than bona fide resident. you don't know the catholic university students where they were district of columbia. while they live here they are residents they live in the dorms or surrounding neighborhood. we are glad to have them. you don't know if they are resident of the city or meet the notion of disadvantaged embodieded in the hub zone i.t. >> what we know is what they certify to us. which is they are residents and planning to live in the hub zone. >> i'm going to have to ask whether or not you would be willing to ask hub zone

recipient, hub zone contract recipient whether they hire college students so we will know how wide spread this practice is. >> well, let me say this. we agree with you completely. the purpose of the program is not to focus upon college students. it's focus upon employment in these places. >> you can't say today that that isn't the practice not only of mr. castillo but many like mr. castillo across the united states. >> i can say the practice occurs in various place at various times. i do not have the data, and i can see if the data is available. exactly how many employees. >> i would appreciate you seeing if the data is available. i think a simple question is how many of the employees are college students would help us to make sure that chairman said, what we want to have the needed

reforms. there may be no sense until this case came up. that can an amount to an abuse outlook. i'm not against the college students. i'm saying if it is a systemic practice, you can see what the effect would be if the purpose was to make sure that disadvantaged people in the neighborhood were employed. so i ask you submit within thirty -- days. you indicated that something about most of the money went to the parent company or to the large company, but you made $1 million. your company made a million dollars? what is the value of your company? >> last year we reported $8 million in sales, and we lost $140 ,000 based on the sales.

>> but you just -- testified that $49 million. but your company got a million of that. >> yes, ma'am in gross profit not net profit. >> i just submit for $8 million company $1 million from one contract is very lucrative or, as you said in one of your e-mail to your wife, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i might note for the record that t a small businessman for many years, if i choose to pay myself no salary, i might make a half million dollars. if i choose to pay myself half a million dollar i might make no money. with mr. castillo and his wife as principle employees, i wanted to be clear that the balance sheet and the income statement are somewhat not the same as let's say a fortune 500 company

interpretation. >> that's why i wanted to know -- [inaudible conversations] >> yeah. you know, clearly without the contracts, it would be less. with that we got gentleman from ohio. >> you've been at the irs for twenty nine years? >> yes, sir. >> and you're deputy commissioner? >> yes. >> how many are there? >> two. >> is there anyone between the deputy commissioner and the commissioner. >> no. >> you are near the top. >> yes, sir. >> one month ago inspector general gave the committee information that he informed the irs on may 30th, 2012, that targeting of conservative political group was taking place. if we can put it on the screen. this is from the timeline he gave the committee. he said in the meeting the terms were used tea party patriot 9/1 there were people in the meeting. mr. shewelman, who is no longer with the irs. steve miller who has been fired and you. mr. shewelman testified a month

ago in the committee it was the first time he knew targeting was taking place. was that the first time you knew about the targeting at the irs? >> it was the first time i was aware of the situation, yes. >> mr. miller, as also -- we have also been informed the committee through talking with man marks an employee at thers that there was an internal investigation launched by mr. miller on in march of 2012. did you know about that internal investigation? >> no, sir. >> the result of that were mr. miller knew what was going on may 3rd, 2012. did you know the rule on may 3rd. >> no. >> the earlierest time you knew about it was mr. shulman testified on it. >> yes, sir. >> and you are familiar with the fact that mr. shulman testified in front of the ways & means committee of march of last year he said this, first, he asked give us assurance that the irs is not targeting political groups. mr. shulman said yes, i can give you assurances. we pride ourselves being

nonpolitical nontargetting organization. when you give ashiewrns there is some basis for assurance. you part of the bases for assurances that mr. shulman gave the ways & means committee in march of 2012. >> no. >> you didn't have any conversation with him before he went and testified testified in front of the ways & means committee. >> no. >> in the meeting that took place on may 30th, the meeting highlight there had on the timeline, when you learn that the targeting was taking place, what was the reaction in that meeting? was it, oh [ bleep ] we have to do something here. was it we have toker correct the record? what was the reaction when the three-top people at the irs learned that this was going on? >> so if i might, the treasury inspector general comes in once a month to meet with -- >> cut to the chase. what was the reaction. you find out there's targeting

of political groups six months before a presidential reaction. what was the reaction? >> they reported the information they were looking in to the audit, and then at that point in time irs waits for them to complete the investigation. >> that's what they told you. tea party patriot they sought in some cases they have been trying to get it for three years. you learned that may -- or excuse me, may 30th, 2012. and your reaction was let it keep going and see what they come up? >> no, sir. >> earlier when your testimony you said to the chairman you said, you know, it would be help ffl the committee would share information with us at the irs about the issue in front of committee today. well it would have been helpful if once you got the information you shared it with the committee. we would have liked to have -- we are the committee who asked for audit in the first place. we would have liked to have known six months before an election that targeting was going on. did you instruct russell george

to share the information with the house ways & means committee and the house oversight committee? >> sir. >> that's a question. did you tell mr. george this is important information. we learned today, according to your testimony this is going on. did you mr. george you might want to share it with the oversight committee since mr. issa is the one that requested the audit. >> that's not my responsibility. i have responsibility -- >> let me ask you. >> but the point is you were in the meeting. the other two guys are going. mr. shulman and miller han firing. you are at the highest ranking official you knew about it a year ago. didn't you think it was incumbent to set the record straight. your boss testified two months earlier and told congress nothing was going on. he finds out two months later it's going on. you're the highest ranking official. you didn't think it was appropriate to tell congress what was taking place? >> the tg organization does not report to me. >> why didn't you correct the

record? why didn't you come to the mr. issa and say you know what? mr. shulman. did you tell mr. shulman he should correct the record? >> no, sir, i did not. >> have you been disciplined for not correcting the record? >> no, sir, it's not my purview. >> you're deputy commissioner you're in the meeting. you learned about that day. >> mr. george told us in his routine monthly meeting that they were doing an investigation of tege. >> we understood that. all i'm asking is there's got to be some reason why you didn't feel any obligation any reason you should come forward and set the record straight. the inspector general told the irs what was going on. you didn't feel like he should tell us or you didn't feel it coming it was incumbent upon you to tell the committee? >> at the irs irs, we have two deputy commissioners that have clearly delineated. >> the gentleman's time is

expired. the gentlelady may finish. >> the a the the internal revenue service we have two deputy commissioners with clearly delineated responsibilities. i do not have responsibility for the service and enforcement programs. -- mr. chairman -- >> miss tucker. why were you in the meeting? if it has nothing to do with you. why did mr. russell george think it's important tell us you were in the meeting. >> mr. george and his deputies come to internal revenue service every month and brief on all of their investigations. some of which are service -- >> mr. chairman. the gentleman's time is expired. i'm sure we can get back to this. i would ask unanimous consent the man have thirty additional seconds. >> i don't mind the thirty seconds. i want her to be able to answer the question. [inaudible conversations] >> it's a machine gun and she can't get the answer out. >> okay. the gentle may have thirty

additional seconds. the gentlelady can answer. >> did you discuss what you're saying mr. miller had -- that was his area of jurisdiction? >> that is correct. >> did you tell mr. miller he should come forward and tell congress what was going on? >> sir, at the meeting -- >> was it discussed? >> if i could, please. the meeting they come in once a month to internal revenue service to brief the commissioner and the two deputies about their audits -- the open audit. on any given meeting they come in, they could be talking -- , i mean, there are lots of oversight investigations that have happen at internal revenue service. those meetings are typically them coming in and saying we opened an investigation on x program. we have opened an investigation on another program. if it's an issue that is under my jurisdiction, like procurement, like the irs budget, like our real estate

portfolio, then i'm the responsible party. what i am trying to convey to you, i do not have oversight responsibility for the tege programs. >> thank you. the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing is very troubling to me. this case really shows how things can go wrong. i want to support our small business owners, as much as possible. i want these set aside to be successful. but i am absolutely appalled by the advantages that have been taken of the system. i know you can discuss mr. castillo's case. you need his permission. that's why you can't answer the question earlier. my understanding, also, that the va is bound by legislation that says a certain condition has a certain disability rating, for example, below knee amputation is 40%. it just is; correct?

>> that's correct, ma'am. >> it seems like there's a an opportunity for some legislative fixes to the system. is it true that any rating, even if 5% would qualify someone for a service connected disability-owned business? >> so long as they qualify under the va's rule for service connected disability. that adequate for the self-certification. >> thank you. how are you? >> thank you for being here today. >> i'm not well, but you're welcome. >> all right. your left foot hurt? >> yeah. >> my feet hurt too. in fact, the balls of my feet burn count usely. i feel like there's a nail being hammered to the right heel right now. i can understand pain and suffering and how service connection can actually cause long-term unremitted, unyielding unstoppable pain. i'm sorry that twisting your

ankle in high school has now come back to hurt you and such a painful way. if also opportune for you to gain the status for your business as you trying to compete for contract. i also understand why, you know, something can take years to manifest themselves from when you hurt them. in fact i have a dear, dear friend who -- it took forty years, forty years for the leukemia to actually manifest itself and died six months later. i can see how military service -- while at the time you seem healthy, could forty years later result in devastating injury. can you tell me if you hurt your left foot again during your football career subsequently to twisting it in high school? >> ma'am, i don't understand the high school -- >> the gentlelady -- prep cool. post high school. >> i'm not -- >> okay. prep school.

before college. prep school. did you injury your left foot again after prep school? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> you played football in college. >> yes. >> as a quarterback. >> yes. >> did you injure that same foot again subsequently in the years since you twisted it in prep school? >> not to my recollection. >> not your recollection. okay. mr. castillo, tell the va your doctor's note was inaccurate when you knew it was? >> i don't feel that it's inaccurate, ma'am. >> okay. would you like me to address that? >> go ahead. >> yes, ma'am. one of my doctors that submitted letters, as part of the injury, you have to establish it's chronic and reoccurring. when i returned home to san diego, my doctor from san diego had also said he treated me for the foot injury i suffered on

active duty when i moved to las vegas, a couple of years later, that doctor submitted that he continued to treat me for that left foot broken foot injury. finally, when i moved to virginia, i went to a doctor and continued to hurt, and he established that so, dr. sam wilson, who ironically was stationed where i was. >> i have to cut you off. i'm running out of time. >> let me finish. so in talking to dr. wilson, who himself is a disabled veteran and very familiar with the fort and his son went there as well and played football. he actually was the one that talked to me about this may be something that is connected. i believe i told him -- >> let me -- >> i first -- >> i have to cut you off. it's not an argument. i'm talking i'm up here. do you think it's accurate to

the sacrifices you made for this nation? that the va decision is accurate in your case? >> yes, ma'am, i do. my right arm was essentially blown off and reattached. i spent a year in limb salvage with over a dozen injuries over the time period. and in fact we thought we would lose my arm. i'm still in danger of possibly losing my arm. i can't feel it. my disability rating for the arm is 20%. in your letter to a government official, i think sva attention gina. you said my family and i have made considerable sacrifices for our country. my service connected disability status should serve as a testimony to that end. i can't play with my kids because walk without pain. i take twice daily pain medication. i can work a normal day's work. these are crosses -- these are crosses that i bear

due to my service our great country. i would do it again to protect this great country. i'm so glad you would be willing to play football in prep school again to protect this great country. shame on you, mr. castillo. shame on you. you may not have broken any laws. you may are misrepresented. you broke the trust of this great nation. you broke the trust of veterans. iraq and afghanistan veterans right now are waiting an average of 237 days for an initial disability rating. it's because part-time like you who are gaming the system are adding to the backlog so young men and women who are missing limbs, cannot get the compensation and the help they need. and i'm sure you played through the pain of that foot all through college. let me tell you something, i recovered with a young man, a navy corp.man while running to ambush where the marine were

hurt had his leg knocked off. with an rpg. he put a tourniquet on himself and crawled forward. you took advantage of the system. you describe it today that other companies were using the special statuses as competitive weapons against you. you never picked up a weapon in defense of the great nation, very cynically took advantage of the system. you broke the faith with this nation. you broke the faith with the men and women who lie in hospital right now at walter reid, if the nation stops funding veteran's health care and calls in to question why veterans who serve the benefit. it's because cases like you have poisoned the publics' opinion on these programs. i hope that you think twice about the example you're setting for your children. i hope you think twice about

what you were doing the nation. this nation's veterans who are willing to die to protect this nation. twisting your angle in prep school is not defending our serving this nation. mr. chairman, you have been indull yent. i yield back. >> i thank the gentlelady. the time is well spent. can't add on to that except to make sure the record is clear since you are under oath. you said the word broken in your testimony just now, but my understanding from staff is that the x-ray taken at the time of your injury did not show a break. additionally, i want to make it clear for the record. you can clear the record up if we don't understand it correctly. if your va application and the doctor support you claim your twisted angle came from football, as the gentlelady just say. however in the tribed interview you said you slipped on a rock in -- for the record today, which one is the truth?

>> so, i believe that dr. wilson submitted that i was hurt playing football. that i told him that. and so when meeting with the committee, i told them in preparation for meeting with them, i noticed that the date of injury noted on the -- from patterson hospital was november 19th. which was after football season. so my response was it could not have happened that specific injury during football. the letter that was submitted stated that he had said that i told him -- i think i told mr. davis i would check. i did go back to colonel wilson and asked him the recollection of the conversation we had in 2005 that lead him to write the letter in support of the va application, which was to be submitted by doctors who treated me for my injury. he said to his best recollection

i told him i was hurt playing football. i believe he submitted that in truth. in preparation, i mentioned the dates didn't line up. i suffered subsequent injury, and so i believe that we had said is based on the injury i suffered it was probably a relapse or cause inningning a are aggravation of the injury. do you have others? i apologize. i i don't remember all tree of them. >> va, football, orientation. whether it was a break. you said in the testimony a few minutes ago to the gentlelady it was broken. >> yes. not tsh first and foremost. your service to this great country is well known, and -- and so just to let you know. i didn't set the 30% disability or your 20% disability. and i think that -- >> you're taking advantage of it. you went after that disability rating for the benefit of your company because you -- as you said other companies were using these statuses as a competitive weapon against you.

you said that today. >> ma'am, when i said that i meant they were using the protest process of the procurement as competitor weapons. not my disability. i apologize if i at all stated they were using my disability as a competitor weapon. i meant they were protesting the war as competitive weapons against our company. thank you for allowing me to clear it up. again, i don't set the ratings. and it was in keeping and speaking speaking with dr. wilson, who is cornel wilson retired at the hospital on forth that -- >> the decision to apply for disability rating for twisted angle from either football or orientation. you haven't answered the chairman' questions. did you break or twist it playing football? do you remember? which was it? >> to an your question, it was not a spraininged ankle.

it was a broken foot. i believe the x-ray technician wrote there was -- i'm not a doctor or lead to it. but it was in essence x-rayed and showed a sufficient change in the malformation. i forget exactly. so in speaking dwrt doctor i said can you simplify it? he said you broke your foot. >> i thank the gentlelady. i would trust that the va can take note of testimony here today and reopen the case to at least get to an accurate record and an accurate determination. we now go to a medical doctor from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a former va physician, thank you, mr. chairman. and as a former va physician and someone the privilege of treating of many our great veterans. i think one thing that is important is a good history.

when did your injury occur? >> fall, the initial injury fall of 1984. and the second injury november 19th, 1984. >> okay. in 1984, how did the first injury occur? what were you doing? what was your title? >> i believe i was at et and enlisted soldier, sir. >> okay. in prep school? how did the injury happen? >> i believe the initial injury happened playing football. >> okay. you are playing football. you got an x-ray and they told you it was broken? >> no sir, the initial injury trainers. >> okay. what was the second injury? >> november 19, 1984. >> how many months apart was it? probably not a month. >> okay a month apart. you had a second injury and you were playing football? >> no. i was hurt in the field. >> you got an x-ray at that time. >> okay. that's when they thought it was broke someone. >> yes, sir. >> so it healed in six to eight

weeks. you were put in a cast and on crutches. >> on crutches and -- well, a wrap. >> sure. [inaudible conversations] >> you were walking on it again. when did you play football again? the next year? >> yes, sir. >> how many years after that? >> four years. what about your athletic career after that. did you play any golf, sports, ten science? >> i play golf poorly but softball. >> okay. softball. do you still play golf? >>s or in. >> when was the last time you participated? sports? >> a couple of weeks ago i went out buddies. >> you can still get around on it okay. despite having a 30% disability service connect for this injury? >> yes, sir. i have a -- since you have a doctor. i have a fuse -- area that was fused. >> so 27 years later you decided it must have been from the original injury. that's what the doctors decided? >> no, sir.

after suffering for are twenty plus years i saw doctor and he established the broken foot and did the fusion, the three fusion exercise -- fusion surgeries. excuse me. >> i'm sure it doesn't make you feel better, but thank you for updating us on the history. at the beginning of the hearing this morning, gregory invoked the fifth amendment right and didn't testify. as the deputy commissioner of the irs, is it your expectations that an irs employee will appear before the committee to testify about a official action taken within the scope of his duty at the irs? >> sir, we expect all irs employees to cooperate with members of congress. >> but he didn't. >> he didn't. >> mrs. lerner didn't. >> each of the individuals, as he said invoked the constitutional rights. >> it's an agency for 29 years. you are proud of the agency and

despite the multiple black eyes. have they taken nidis plin their action against him or the investigation? >> sir, when i became aware from the treasure try inspector general of investigations in mid may of hard evidence they found regarding inappropriate texting by mr. roseman, i directed the procurement organization, his superiors to reassign him from a management position. >> do you agree he would be uniquely qualified to testify about what we were wanting today. >> yes. >> the fact he invoked the fifth amendment. that's his right. but the fact lo lois lerner did too. what is going on with the ?irs we have excess of spending, situations like this. i understand you want to be proud of who you work for and we

should be. how are we going to get justice? you were in on the meetings. mr. jordan asked -- what was the initial reaction. nobody has given us an reaction. you agree that targeting conservative groups was wrong? >> sir, what i was told -- >> do you agree targeting conservative groups was wrong. >> can someone in the irs? >> it was wrong? >> i think the information that was released this week by our acting commissioner shows that bolo lists were inappropriately used across multiple criteria. >> the irs screwed up. somebody needs to be held accountable. who is in charge of appointing the commissioner of the irs. >> that's a presidential appointment. >> okay. all right. somebody needs to be held responsible, do you agree? >> all of us at irs have to be

responsible for the administration of our agency. >> okay. the american people are going to be very relieved when they get this news of who might be held accountable. do you have any idea who might be held accountable? do you think you should be? >> i think the investigation that is underway, that is exactly what it's intended to do as the acting commissioner danny werfel stated number use times. we want to get to the truth. >> the american people want to get to the truth. thank you for being here today and helping us in the process. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mrs. tucker, the gentleman asked you do you think it's wrong target conservative groups? and you said it was incorrect. could you answer the gentleman's question, was it wrong? >> chairman issa, i feel compelled to make sure that everyone understand the meeting i was in when russell george and his team came in to share just their routine.

here are the audits we have underway, mr. george, at that time, basically said we are initiating an audit -- >> that's not the question. and i apologize. the doctor asked you a fairly straight forward question, which is as one of the highest career professionals in the irs, you were now aware that these bolo were used to target and delay for up to three years a legitimate answer to peoples' application based on the ideology. do you think it was wrong? >> no, sir. what i'm trying to tell you is that's not what i was told in the meeting. >> i'm not asking about the meeting. i'm asking what is now known. >> when the -- when they issued the final report, in april, early may of this year, yes, i think all of us at irs that saw the report are troubled. thus the investigation to get to the bottom of exactly what -- >> mrs. tucker i'm asking about right or wrong. that's what the doctor was

asking about. not was it incorrect. but this is virtually a simple question for almost every stot dr citizens to answer. was it right or wrong to -- right or wrong? >> sir, i -- here is what i know based on what was told -- >> i'm not going get an answer and i don't have any time. i think mr. davis -- you are next up. >> i think i am, mr. chairman. i thank you very much. i want to thank all of the witnesses. i also want to thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing. i think we have learned a great deal, for some of us reinforcement of thinking and thoughts. especially do i want to relate myself to the question and the ranking member, and that of delegate norton whose question

revealed that -- in communities that designated to benefit from program activity. there are ways to manipulate, to scheme, and get around to the point with the designation means absolutely nothing. to the community or neighborhood that is supposed to benefit, and for those who helped create hub zones and advocates for them, they look for the benefit that is to come. didn't see much benefit from this particular business transaction. so mr. child res, let me ask you about the finding in the sba desert --

desertification letter as they tried to pass off employees as contractor to skirt the hub zone rules and collect or earn million of dollars. on may 23, 2013, sba sent a desertification letter, the director of the hub zone found that mr. castillo erroneously characterized individuals as contractors rather than employees in order to maintain the 35% eligibility requirement for the hub zone program. ..

>> one to the internal revenue service a individual is a valued and key member of the management team the proposed manager in to the sba is the

independent contractor. in its view it affirms management in the program manager are not those that are not normally subcontracted out to third parties. so let me ask you, why is it important to procurement officials that they know who the proposed program manager is for a particular contract? from the procurement organization and from what they tell me as we are interacting on contracts, the project manager is indispensable to communicate with the internal revenue service to make sure whatever product

we are contacting four is delivered appropriately so it is very important with. >> high degree, you did not make the rules you did not write the regulations he did not pass the bills he did not create the opportunities that existed for you to try and do business under these arrangements but how do you explain telling the irs that someone would be the key program manager for the contract and then tell the sba backed that person is the independent contractor? >> the person is that she works in support of several companies and supported our company at that time with the aha 1099 employ all the

allies in the stand is important to does not necessarily make them an employee and a program manager can be contracted out and is often contract it out as we serve them. >> but you knew that before it was brought to your attention with the sba or the internal revenue service. you knew that as a result of your knowledge and experience, but yet you describe it to different ways. >> it is consistent as an important member of the team we gave them program manager on the job and on other jobs through other companies. >> the distinction was once

supported five other companies and the other one did not even work for us she did it as a favor to me. >> my time has expired but nevertheless you described two different ways with the procurement thank you. i yield back. >> debt chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina's democrats also want to thank my friend for yielding. also for her service to our country in the moral standing to discuss service aaron sacrifice i want to publicly thank you again for your service to our country. ms. tucker more people have

invoked there fifth amendment privilege in this job that my former job and i was a prosecutor and that says a law in two of them are courage government employees and so there is no misunderstanding they invoke the fifth amendment privilege in connection with their official duties we're not discussing narcotics or bank robberies we are discussing fair officials duties and they feel the need to invoke there fifth amendment privilege. so i want to ask you to do something for me. have you seen the text from mr. roseman? >> yesterday when that committee released the report. >> see you have seen these despicable homophobic slurs? >> yes, sir. i saw them in the committee report. >> this is what i will ask you to do. for me in frankly our fellow citizens, before the close

of business today, if you can come issued a statement on behalf of the irs as to why he is still employed and drawing a pension and. if you have seen the text that i have seen, i would like an explanation as to how you can keep your job if you say things that he said in your official capacity. can you do that? can you explain to us how you can keep your job and paycheck despite the homophobic slurs? >> as i said in my opening statement, based on the information and in the report yesterday, i am sickened. >> i appreciate that. i really do. my question is more specific. knu issued a statement by 5:00 today as to how someone

who used this way in which in their official capacity as a government employee is still the employee and drawing a paycheck? can you explain that to us by close of business today? >> if i might, sir, we are having discussions at internal revenue service to make how long do anticipate they will last? i read the text this morning and i already reach my conclusion. how long will it take? >> we are having discussions >> close of business tomorrow? >> we will do our very best to follow due process but also to make sure we do this appropriately because i think the committee is aware of the federal personnel rules. >> if this doesn't violate them than we need to change them. >> yes there. we're doing everything we can to make sure we follow

proper procedures. >> i will be anxiously awaiting an explanation how you can say with this person said in your official capacity to keep your job van paycheck i will anxiously await that explanation. mr. castillo why did mr. roseman invoke his fifth amendment privilege? >> you don't know what conduct he is worried about? >> nosair. i don't know why and i wish she was year. >> we do choose to lie will direct my questions to you. did you discuss him invoking his fifth amendment privilege with him before today? >> nosair. >> the last time you talk to him? >> february 20th. >> what criminal exposure is he concerned about? >> no sir. >> no idea? >> no sir. >> did he silicic guess? >> no. >> did you offer gives to

him? clinic is noted. >> humor me and answer me again. >> we went to a ball game around the 2005 timeframe with government acquisitions that he paid for and i gave him a receipt. >> has he discussed employment with you after the irs? >> no sir he has not. >> which you describe the nature of a relationship? >> centered on my doing business with the irs over the last 10 years. >> did you discuss contracts that you were competing for or interested in prior to the issuing of those contracts or the awarding of those contracts? >> i am not sure i am understand the question. >> dave tried to figure out if you've violated bidding procedures if he gave you an unfair advantage if you were

seeking work that other people were also seeking. >> i am not aware of any unfair advantage. >> any advantage? did his relationship with you give you an advantage? >> nosair. >> you never discussed future employment with him? >> no sir. >> this is my last question. mr. castillo have you read the text from mr. roseman? >> i provided them to the committee. >> you still say he is your friend? >> to be clear, . >> i wanted you to be clear because i just read them and i want you to be clear. you know, what is in them the homophobic slurs and in his official capacity you are still friends? >> i am deeply offended. >> i am offended if you can

appreciate he is the customer and i cannot correct what the customer does or does not say. >> is it appropriate for a government employee to say those things in their official capacity? >> no sir. >> how long would it take you to get rid of the employee that said that? >> with some that we have terminated it would not take wait until 5:00. >> you did a lot quicker for a lot less. >> if i might those that are in the room that believe the specific text message say you are referring to, we actually have not seen yet at irs. >> would you like me to walk them down to you? >> at some point* of would like to receive those but let me be clear when i said i was deeply disturbed, that was based on the text

messages already in their report. >> let me make sure that you get them before you leave because if you thought you deeply disturbed you may reach another level of disaster via. >> thank you sir. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> this committee serves two purposes of oversight and reform and i would like to get to what free-form your agencies are looking at. we have seen how to move contract to get an id vantage and want to know how we will prevent this from happening in the future. mr. chodos are they taking any steps in light of the case? >> thank you representative kelly and let me say the agency did take an immediate

step clinic roundup there is a problem december in j. larry of the end of last year that was to certify the forum -- the firm to get the correct facts so in terms of moving for the agency is always looking for opportunity to make the program more effective to identify ways to work closely with our colleagues to line and coordinate different roles of it all worked in the same direction. we have proposed rules under the job back as we speak that seek to make issues involvement of the hub zone program more straightforward to improve opportunities for oversight. >> reading the decertification letter already but asking applicants for information identified not only employees of other individuals on behalf of the company such as contractors?

. . reemphasizing but the positions we hold an ethics is

of the utmost importance. i can give you the personal assurance that our training programs will be significantly enhanced. >> is there any other action you are taking the you would like to share? >> the findings regarding what i believe are totally inappropriate relationships between one of our procurement employees and mr. castillo relied i believe that the court that the men and women in the return of operation are with the highest ethics and integrity every day. i know that one bad actor can cast disparities on our organization. and so as a result we are doing a top to bottom review of the organization and just reassuring

ourselves we are following proper policies and procedures. i've also asked the treasury department, procurement executives they do some routine reviews and i've asked them to launch an independent review. in addition i think that the focus that we are going to be putting on more routine briefings we do a quarterly performance review in the organization. i think all of our existing internal controls we need to double down and to reassure ourselves that this type of behavior is not prevalent and i have no reason to believe that it exists beyond what the unfortunate situation. >> how about anything to add?

>> we are working to make sure if the need to be strengthened in any particular areas in light of some of the questions that came out of the committees. >> in my particular area the investors benefits i don't have a lot about the better known small businesses but i would be glad to take any questions. >> we would make improvements to get the public trust back. >> thank you. >> thank you. some of the testimony you've given recently is in a direct conflict with testimony that we have heard in this room so with that to make sure we have a continuity one to yield some time back to mr. jordan at this particular time so why yield to

the gentleman from ohio. >> you learned from the inspector general that they are taking place. you know the number 12 months prior to that testified in front of congress to just the opposite. you told me in the first round of questioning that because it didn't fall under your jurisdiction to didn't feel obligated to set the record straight? how does that encourage whistleblowers to come forward if you are the career professional irs and you don't set the record straight? >> mabey i am not making myself clear, the meeting that i was in, what they told to the best of my recollection in the meeting is that his team was opening and all audit on the organization and that part of

that is they were looking at the list. did the best of my recollection until mr. george issued the report in april where he revealed that inappropriate targeting appeared to have taken place on the list so that was the first time that i actually had seen the results of his investigation. >> if i could, this is from the hearing. the chairman asked the inspector general on may 30th to brief the deputy commission specifically the patriots and other words were used in reviewing applications for tax review and there was your notes. the response, yes that is correct. so it was very specific yet you

didn't feel compelled to do anything. >> mr. george was briefing on the start to my recollection of the audit and obviously as he talked about they were looking at these words being used. >> that is in direct conflict with what mr. george said sitting on the handwriting on the may 30 of meeting. he went over preliminary results of the investigation and let you and mr. miller know it wasn't the start of an audit it was the preliminary results where the targeting happened. you don't recall that? because i'm finding a lot of members of the irs have great detail recalling things at certain times and they lack the memory. so you don't recall that he said

that? >> i recall the monthly meetings that we had with mr. george and his team. >> there was nothing unusual about this meeting. there was nothing unusual there was the usual routine update he saw fit to go for days later to the chief counsel to let them know about it that was mr. george's testimony. your testimony and his or not matching up. >> i do not recollect. i have to keep going back to this. in our monthly meetings with his team, they cover a whole host. >> so there was nothing unusual about this particular time. in that meeting there was nothing unusual about that? this was just a normal routine update that you get every month? >> obviously when he conveyed to the internal revenue service that in the course of their investigation or other object

that they were looking into. >> it was preliminary results where the targeting was. >> based on the testimony that i have seen from mr. miller falling back discussion to the best of my recollection is my he took action to ask for an independent review. >> did that happen before clacks you early on said that this committee needs to continue to give you information yet you are the one that's paid for managing this whole organization. we have oversight yet what we are finding is we are having to discover and manage the process which you are getting paid for

triet >> musette eight times let me be clear that the internal investigation at the irs happened before may 30th. it was concluded in the first part of may. it was the day after he gave testimony to the ways and means committee saying that he could give assurances that there was no targeting and you started the very next day so your time lines don't match up. yet again they can trust. >> i am trying to share with you the truth from what i know and what programs i have responsibility for. the irs is an organization of 100,000 people in multiple

programs. i am that he commissioner for the operation support. i do not have response ability for oversight and administration of the service and enforcement programs. >> i think the gentlelady. we go to the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman. i might say to my colleagues that if we are going to face the testimony of the inspector general, i would say that the question and answer period between the inspector general and myself which i ask the inspector general whether the progress of groups could also have been targeted in the unidentified organizations that were looked at, and his answer in light of recent facts is at best elusive, and i think if we want to cite the inspector general he should come back to both as he was the data we had him and allow him to clarify his

answers because they certainly look strange to some. >> would the gentleman yield? if you could answer what are you asking to have them come back? >> i would ask the clock to stop >> the request is there is now serious confusion about the answer they gave to my direct questioning of whether he knew that in fact progressive groups, not just conservative groups were also. did he know that when he answered my question? because he inferred from his answer that he did not. but those for all unidentified. we know that is not true to the did he know that and did he know when he testified under oath in this committee? >> we will look at how we can do that. >> will lead gentleman yield?

>> i'm afraid my time is running out. but i think my colleagues. during the course of the committee's investigation, it's become clear the task provided in the act of information that the sba at multiple locations. mr. castillo, the letter is certifying strong castle the company provided inaccurate payroll records for the two employees. the decision stated, and i quote, admitted the records were false and inaccurate. is that correct? >> they were inaccurate, yes. >> and the decision goes on to explain they confirmed the one instance identified and identified another few they were only made with conflicting evidence by the sba. strong castle's -- i guess this

is your wife, that when she discovered there was in the payroll record, she didn't look to see whether there were additional errors on the other months. when she was asked how do you know there weren't, she replied i don't pity is that the kind of record keeping that you can't get your company? >> i don't know what the testimony. that is what i am aware of, the two that you're talking about where a student work and transcribed in that week and that student employee had written he worked eight hours on monday when he bent the other day. so i am aware of those committed and we have steps in place including the person he mentioned, my wife reciting from the company to that i had taken over that and we have steps in place to ensure we have tighter record keeping around that.

>> including assigning people on a day-to-day basis that the hourly report and supervised hours. >> thank you triet how can the base certification decisions and payroll records from companies when they can't verify actual employment by their own the mission? >> the companies have the duty to provide accurate information to the sba because of course the need act of information on an ongoing basis in order to originally certified and then to decide if the company is still in compliance. >> is there an honor system for them to verify and tell the truth? >> we always expect folks to act in an honorable way what they require that they provide accurate information on an ongoing basis. so this is a regulatory requirement, not just a trust system. >> in this case, the

certification provided previously was the 35% residency requirement, is that right? >> i'm sorry? >> the information provided by the former employees michele castillo meant that strong castle made the difference with a 35% residency requirement, is that correct? >> yes. >> so this wasn't just an error. >> this went to two issues whether the status of employees and whether the employees were spending their time at the principal location as represented. >> is sba looking into the issue of fraud? >> they are continuing to receive information and they have had a number of communications with the committee and welcomes all information on the topic since

at least march the sba has been in regular communications with the inspector general and shared all the information to us so it is an ongoing process of evaluating information as it becomes available. >> thank you mr. chairman. members of congress or elected by the american people. we are expected to answer to our constituents to the every two years they have the ability. the american tax payers do not have the ability to do this with all irs officials who have repeatedly let them down. we saw this with the targeting tax-exempt groups, with the agreed just a waste of taxpayer dollars on conference spending and now again the discovery of an improper relationship between

a procurement official and the contractor. it isn't very common for the witnesses to usurp their privileges but today again we have an irs official who has refused to answer questions about actions he took and his official capacity. this is the second time in the last month that an irs official has refused the answer on the committee's questions. how many more of irs officials are going to come before the committee and refused this answer to the american people. we are not learning the necessary facts because of the refusal to testify. this problem is and just about strong castle and their refusal to testify today. this problem is bigger than strong castle. this problem is about irs mismanagement. the agency's failure to the american people and the refusal to answer for what has done and

the american people deserve better. i served in iraq and vietnam and i am 50% disabled for a neck injury that i suffered in iraq. mr. castillo and going to ask one simple question. mr. castillo i understand that you had produced text messages between yourself that you have access to. however there are text messages the you stated were lost in the iphone migration to the disconnected you work in an attempt to recover these messages? >> yes, and i have. >> thank you. >> with the gentleman yield?

i want to sort of dwell on the veterans standing. in it transcribed interviews which we will make available to the va, mr. castillo has a little bit of confusion in the statement, but essentially -- and i will paraphrase, that he was aware that the doctor's view that this was a football injury was an accurate but didn't think it was material. if we provided that transcript to you, does that and how were you to review and get access to the dhaka accurate to the original filing so you can make an assessment as to whether or

not the sequence of events, the injury and the doctor's opinion was of for all. >> we would certainly be willing to look at anything you might want to share with us. nothing would make a difference as i said earlier in my testimony and written in a statement if a veteran's affairs and injury regardless what type of injury or what caused it as long as it wasn't willful misconduct. >> understand the line of duty. she looked at a 30% and 500,000 or so. whether or not so many severe injuries, and she was severely injured in her line of duty, whether or not the assessment.

there's a lot of veterans to see a 30 percent disability for. in light of the testimony and the confusion that the va would reopen, and reevaluate and then make a second accurate assessment based on, if you will, we evaluate the doctor's statement watch was an accurate -- inaccurate. i'm very aware that for better or worse we have a hearing loss or something. most people who served as veterans are in fact to some small extent, and the gentleman from michigan is to a fairly large extent from a serious accident in iraq service

connected disabled and the was the point we were making with. if something occurs and you are in a criminal relationship or you are in the line of duty and in fact that this service connected eligible. we are not asking you to rewrite the law. but we do think that getting it right as to the percentages are important so many veterans who essentially say i can't work but i also often find them far below 50%. >> as i stated we would be glad to look at anything and certainly we will make you aware >> we will go to the other gentleman. >> i think the chairman -- responding to one of our colleagues who questioned whether we would be getting

information from the ig on targeting, we have come to realize there are targeting dealing with conservative and religious groups and also progressives. the difference is that certifications. they are approved to be the the issue with the targeting of them on progressive, supposedly the conservative and religious organizations were still waiting for approvals. >> does the certification affect the contract currently in place with the organization? >> as far as i mentioned earlier the irs is in the process of separating ourselves from strong castle. >> so you plan to end the contract? >> it is our intention to begin the proceedings to separate

ourselves, yes. >> would keep you with separating from strong castle? >> i'm not aware of anything that would prohibit us. that is what our council organization are reviewing today. >> so you can expect a separation. >> to separate ourselves from a relationship to strong council. schenectady you stop ordering from the two entered 66 million i began contract awarded to strong castle in december of 2012? >> as i mentioned earlier, the question it was never placed on that when we have any reason to do so. and our team has already begun the process to separate ourselves the relationship on the contract as well. >> will any of the dollar is

obligated to count towards the small business goals? >> i believe my colleague indicated earlier the only time in the system the goal is if they are awarded to the contract. so i'm looking for my colleagues and it's my understanding that based on the fact that stone castle has been decertified and this is just my understanding so i'm going to need some help that they would not count towards a small business award. >> so ordinarily decertifications our perspective from the date of the certification no further contract options, the contracts which have already been awarded or are being performed will be

unless there is an independent review if it was before the certification. spinnaker that occurs when of wrongdoing comes to our attention. ordinarily those actions are perspective. >> the treasury department recently realized strong castle as the 25 business contractor of the year. in light of recent of the elements should this award be reconsidered? just for the record. >> so come the recognition was given by the department of treasury. strong castle was not nominated by the internal revenue service. but i believe -- this is my personal opinion because i cannot speak for the treasury -- i do think what has been revealed does cast doubt in my

mind. >> with these hearings that are in the culture of the moral vacuum going on, it's just another example of the big government and what we can expect to go on lack. when we see the government so large that it's willing to allow these things to happen and in fact foster things like this come foster friendships or otherwise we have seen in the most recent supreme court decision we think more about the personal desire than we do about the best good for children or taxpayers or the best good for our economy. we deal with promoting entities like this and this is a perfect example of the case that can go on with big government.

i see my time is expired. >> i thank you that gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from florida. >> the past couple months the irs to me as an institution that is terminally ill. we have admission the agency abused its power by targeting the groups that silenced a substantial number of americans for the 2012 election. we had the commissioner of that time come before us when asked if he accepted responsibility for the malfeasance he said it happened on my watch but i'm not responsible people wouldn't fly in any other aspect. i am an ev guy if the captain of the ship were to say we ran aground on my watch but that's actually some e5 responsibility because he messed up. and you would be gone immediately. >> if they took the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination rather than

answering questions for the american people i think she waived her right and the committee will have something to say about the this week but she has been placed on leave but is with the agency. we have an interest in hearing in which an official was questioned about the lavish spending and conferences. they didn't know because they were in the expenses and all we got was an apology tender. if they were investigating in america and they didn't bother to keep receipts offered an apology, that probably wouldn't be the end of it. i think that they would hold them accountable and demand more. but to my knowledge we haven't gotten any accountability for this spending and waste of taxpayer funds. we need better training and this and that. so here we are another day and another indication of the fifth amendment. we see a clear example of

cronyism and tax payer money but as my colleague from south carolina pointed out, no accountability. ms. tucker you mentioned to process but where is the due process for the tax payer and why do they always have to take a backseat? why is there so little account of the in this powerful bureaucracy? it is almost as if the irs has all this power but some of their officials are held to a lower standard than we would expect in the private business or other aspects of the government such as the military command to me that is not acceptable and if that means we need to change some of the government's then we have to do it said this is a culture of arrogance and i think the american people are sick of it. with that, i yield. we have a video that i would ask

that we que appended is a follow-up of some of the questioning, the line of questioning that we had from mr. jordan and earlier. >> i think the chair and the gentleman from florida. i would now recognize the ranking member. could you pause for a moment -- i am being told -- [inaudible] if the remaining time could be given to mr. meadows and use it. >> based on the timeline you gave us. the brief to the irs commissioner's meeting. may 30th, the ig and function heads briefed the commissioner

and deputy targeting the tea party patriots for 912, another word, and other policy issues were being used. what you say on may 30th is they are targeting these groups. that's the confirmation, you reached the conclusion they are hurting using these words. may 30 if there was a there there and you briefed mr. shulman and to others. you do not agree with that testimony, so who is right.

>> i recall being at that briefing. >> what your testimony said was that this was a normal briefing talking about and all that. this was the result of what -- >> if i could, they come into the internal revenue service monthly. he believes it based on multiple topics in each of those meetings. to the best of my recollection, his discussion. it was one of the topics i recollect from that briefing. let me also be clear.

to the best of my recollection on the concern of the list he was talking about, it was then the agency response as the investigation is underway right now to say yes, use of the terms is inappropriate. that's why there's an investigation under way to get the bottom of the facts are. >> when you had an internal investigation that indicated that concluded on the first part of may so why would that be a surprise? >> hopefully i can bring a common answer here. i'm not trying to put words in your answer but i am trying to paraphrase. they said that it was in that

meeting. you saw the video. you were in the meeting. you heard it. but your testimony today seems to be primarily that regardless of that, you said to yourself, there is a process. it's going to go forward, and it is not my job because it isn't within my language. is that a fair paraphrasing of the series of questions and answers? >> yes, sir because the deputy commissioner structured the service. he was there giving feedback on an audit of the report that is about to be issued them the responsibility for the follow-up action like the report someone referenced earlier today. the purchase card audits. take a brief risk and in one of these monthly meetings said we have done an audit of the purchase card. our findings show the purchase cards used are correct but there

are some concerns. that is my take away. i own that in my role. it is my job to then follow up and make sure the corrective actions take place. >> i want to be cleared i've been sitting here watching you listening and i want you to know i believe you. i don't know what that means to you but it means a lot to me. >> it means a lot to me. >> i understand the irs if you have a top person and then to deputies and if you tried to explain ten times now you are on the night he cited and the nuts and bolts and the other side deals with things like what?

>> the tax administration, audits, collections. >> so, even when you hear this stuff regarding the exemption and stuff like that, i'm just guessing you are sitting their saying okay that is not good but i'm zeroing in on lamb said was to do. how many employees are under then you? >> 100,000. so it's not that you didn't care? >> no sir. and i am troubled if that is the impression some on the committee are taking away from this again it is a large organization.

they do multiple oversight audits for internal revenue service. they are in meetings and mr. george and his team are coming in we for weekly to the issues. based on my recollection of what was shared, mr. george was talking about an audit of tg. it was my take away the would then be taking appropriate action to deal with that, not that it was something in my responsibility to leave the room and began working with folks specie tg or others and that is sent me trying to shirk responsibilities.

>> does that answer your question or do you have a further follow-up? >> if i can i think the trend for his indulgence and appreciate that the ranking member said but the gravity of what took place if you want to set the record straight if i could i want to put up one e-mail from march 9th, 20 talf. in response to an inquiry from senator hatch about the 501c for organization and it is a copy to all these folks that it says the latest in the 501c for battle and it's important to know who was copied, nancy marks, lois lerner, and she said this isn't her area.

yet two months later she is getting the latest in the battle about the 501c4 scandal that's going on it today she says it has nothing to do with her. why is she copied in on an e-mail to much to the could two months prior to when she said she never heard about it. >> the gentle lady may answer. i think there was a question there. we copy the commissioners and deputy commissioners on the way. that is not an unusual such region. >> what is the term? >> i have no idea. >> i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. mr. castillo, must tell you that your testimony is alarming in

the concerns me as i'm sure it does other members of the meeting. like said in a joking way when i refer to michael jackson's song man in the mirror, when i read your testimony and then i listened to what you said, i've got to tell you you have to look closer in the mirror. i tell my kids whenever you are constantly complaining that people are giving you wrong i say sometimes the need to look at yourself if you consistently finding yourself in that position. but the main thing is i think we need to try to strengthen this mess out and i'm glad that you are all taking these steps.

i think we deserve a strong -- i was telling the truth and how much i admire his ability to do business and take from a small company and to make it successful. i want everybody to have those kind of opportunities to open the door what they will never get there if we abuse programs that are there to help them get their. i hope when you go back looking at all these procurements and then so that we can have that balance and actually help people achieve their dreams and not like the people of the opening statement they worked so hard,

knocking at doors and then they done so the dreams are locked up in the casket with them and i want to thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. cummings. in closing of ten a hearing is about a specific action. it appears as though a great deal will come as a result of the preparation for the hearing into the report we put velte pittard i'm going to work with the ranking member to turn it into a report. it's essentially a staff draft at this point and we will follow-up with some that we learned here today but i'm doing to include in that report or an additional series of letters a number of things that i could not help but recognize today. i think to say that the irs is an organization currently in crisis is a given.

i have confidence and a lot of hope that the new acting commissioner will in fact be able to bring that about and for the 100,000 or so career professionals that work at the irs i wish you well. it's important to the american people. this is not about you but in fact this hearing was illustrative of some problems of our government has. i believe the kennedys went be sending in number of things and we will be undoubtably working. but anytime that limited resources we need to find service connected disabled that doesn't automatically trigger defeat could trigger every american from qualifying. we need to be more consistent on whether or not and we can

legally in power you to be more accurate. she was correct that a strain or a twisted ankle 27 years ago that didn't impair the performance of somebody going through their life. if we were dealing with workers' comp we wouldn't be as generous to turn that into $6,000 a year it for the rest of the life and other benefits. there is no question this is far greater in the current dollars than the taxpayers believe what the record shows. that's not take away from legitimacy of an application. the congress has the opportunity to work with the administration to get the numbers better at the same time i know you are aware that we are dismayed at how long hour veterans are waiting to get a determination.

the fact is you have a little bit of a path here today but i must tell you i'm disturbed that the process and the numbers are such that without either the regulation changing are coming to congress with changes you need we are not accurately reflecting the zones or the benefit that is going to the people that mr. cummings and i want to see. much of it may be legislative but i would charge you to go back to your cabinet secretaries and say we owe the congress some proposed changes whether it is cost savings or the benefit being more targeted that is part of what the hearing is showing. there were violations of the rules and the incorrect statements made but even if they

were not made we would on a unanimous basis see a travesty of what was intended versus what was allowed, what was achieved versus what was scored. i hope as you go back today we will send out a minimum letters asking you to be part of the process of getting the reform. the gao is our partner in our branch and it's critical that we have your support. you are constantly bringing some of these items in high risk perhaps you will be at your organization on behalf of those of us in congress will be there for a lot of this but it's the intention of the chairman to bring to the committees of jurisdiction specific recommendations for change that

could narrow or prevent this from happening in the future. i want to thank you all for your testimony today. i will close with one thing. a message for the irs and the state department in every part of government. this committee has a consistent frustration and that is messages or received that should alert people and often that's not their job but it still bothers us that every single american worker in the federal government doesn't say we have to get the truth out there. the world is seeing this crisis right now with a suggestion that somehow it's because nobody was listening. the committee is listening and we want to hear. every federal employee io's it to the congress and the american

taxpayer to be a whistle-blower if they see something on even if it is as benign as an acting customer saying we are not targetting and then they become aware in some way that there's a likelihood that they are targeting and the congress isn't aware that they have been misled to believe it was true for ten months with fast and furious and a similar period if the irs and the targeting and i believe we are trying to get the whole truth with benghazi. those are outside of the hearing the you get the point i'm calling on every federal worker to recognize the congress passed a legislation so that we could invite people to call your congressman or come to the committees and tell us if you have some doubt. it's okay to be wrong as a whistle-blower but it's really wrong to keep a secret you think is wrong doing.

last i would be remiss if we didn't have an inspector general and the ig is the most logical report by federal workers and i hope they will always do that. i think mr. cummings and we stand adjourned.

1400 monuments and markers on the battlefield and. the men that fought in the battle are getting older.

they want to make sure what they did here is remembered and they are going to do that by building monuments. in the 21st century we have other ways of commemorating things like that but back in these days is how they commemorated the service did this is monument to the soldiers and to the leaders. the monumental cost interpret and are placed on the ground. most of them are union monuments the victory in the northern state and quite honestly by the time of war ns there isn't a lot to follow to build the monuments especially in the northern state.

the senate wednesday voted to add the border amendment to the immigration bill. a number of border agents and hundreds of miles of fencing on the border. later in the day the majority leader harry reid came to the floor with a package of amendments to debate over the amendment process itself.

this portion is an hour. >> we have been working to come up with a list of amendments without this is a list we have been able to come up with. i ask unanimous consent being able to consider on block the senate proceed to vote on adoption in this package and the managed package following to be called up to modify when necessary. the amendments are 1334 come 1718, fischer 94, blumenthal,

15361563. mccaskill, 1557. johnson of wisconsin, 1380, feinstein, 1250, udall of mexico, 1218, tester 1859. >> 1574. >> white house, 1519. cruz, 1579. udall of mexico, 1591, 1583. ruda fred eiland, 1608. nelson, 1253. at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning the

senate pretty -- proceed from the vote threshold to the vote. the first vote upon the disposition of the amendment number 1634 that's the last one and the pending amendments to be withdrawn and recognize them raising points of order on the substitute amendment to be agreed to and the motion in closure with respect to the bill as amended and the senate proceeded to vote on the package of the bill as amended. a >> i ask for the floor.

>> the senator from. spend it on behalf of myself and my colleagues, on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues , i have to object. the majority party has offered an agreement from our point of view that is insufficient and clearly not serious. they offered a list of amendments that could be voted upon. we ask for the votes on 34 amendments and the 34 amendments is less than 10% of all of those amendments that are out. about 550 but now the majority wants to limit the number of amendments and limit our rights because each senator ought to

have an opportunity to put down the amendments they want to offer. it doesn't preclude the majority from offering any amount of their amendments they want to offer. it seems to me the majority wants to pick and choose the amendments the amendments they like they don't want to take tough votes so they've chosen just a few of our amendments. i have to say i feel a bit used and abused in this process for two and a half weeks we have been pushing to get votes on the amendments. we have had a measly ten votes on the amendments. remind you that there are 555 bald and that is pretty embarrassing for the majority after the promised the fair and open debate. i want to remind my colleagues about the fair and open debate. one of the group of 87 confident

the open debate is critical in helping the american people understand what is in the bill, what it means for you and what it means for the future. that senator wrote to the chairman on march 30th before the bill was brought up in the committee. i express my strong belief that the success of any major legislation depends on the acceptance and supported the american people. the careful consideration of the legislative language and an open process of amendments. the same senator wrote if the majority doesn't follow the regular order you can expect i will continue to defend the

rights of every senator, myself included to conduct this process in an opening and detailed manner. when the bill was introduced the senior senator from new york said one of the things we all agree with is that there ought to be an open process so that people who don't agree can offer their amendments. so it is clear that the gang of eight authors of the legislation calls for the robust bdy date and they called for regular order so i ask now do they think that having only a few amendments considered in this list that's just been put before us is that robust and open process, do they think that the majority party has used regular order? so after spending our couple weeks we had an important vote but the bonus had been bragging for weeks that they were going to get over 70 votes for the

legislation and somehow force the house to take up their bill and of course that won't happen if they don't get 70 votes. what i saw the shock of some that they had on their faces on their vote count fell short a couple days ago. so now what are they doing? the need to pick up some boats and have a more fair process. so after less than the vote yesterday the proponents came to me wanting to strike a deal the would give us boats on the amendment. the problem is they still want to limit our amendments, but they want to make sure that we conclude amendments the will help them pick up some votes. i happen to be a farmer, but i haven't -- i'm proud to be a farmer. i have had just fallen off the he wagon. it's pretty clear what is going on around here.

regardless of the reason for the majority trying to look like they are accommodating us i am still willing to negotiate the votes there needs to be a lot of boats. some on my side may be less charitable than i am since they understand what's going on around here. in the end we may very well not be having any more votes on the amendments. it's too bad the majority let us down aiming for the ditch and we have a fair and open process we would promise like in the committee very fair and open process but it ended up completely contrary to what the group of eight told us we were going to have when we got to the floor. in the end it is right now. we will have a vote on pledge your and final passage.

i'm telling people on my side of the aisle if you are going to be against this bill there is no sense of the beating it anymore we might as well carry our story to the other body because that's where the bill is going to be protected if it can be in a way that is going to be sent to the president and solve the problems that we have the and not make the same mistakes we made in '86. i yield the floor. >> i ask unanimous consent that i would be allowed to speak followed by the senator in ohio and new york. >> without objection. >> i am disappointed that senator from iowa didn't accept the majority leader's proposal to let us finish this bill in an orderly process. but i have watched the debate and i want to add my voice to those that come out and

complemented the enormously good work and bipartisan work with the gang of eight has put on the effort to forge a bipartisan issue that is of remarkable the importance to the country to the economic growth, to the security and to the character of the country. i look forward to voting in favor of the legislation. i will not recap of the components of how it got here suffice it to say that this critically important piece of legislation fixes our broken immigration system and ensures adequate and i might even say the gun to border security allows the 11 million undocumented individuals to earn their path to citizenship or their legal status, learning english, paying back taxes, contributing to our society has been indicated by the congressional budget office

where the legislation will decrease the deficit. as well as parts of the bill but i'm proud to work on the high skilled immigration improving upon the program making sure that the high-tech workers are making sure that as we continue to train and educate the world's best and brightest, those ph.d.'s talks about it happens to be from brazil and czechoslovakia, india. they have a job offer here and they have to stay in america because unfortunately what happens right now canada, australia, u.k. they simply don't moved home, they move across the border and take the high-paying jobs with them. the legislation will also make a stride to make sure that america's streamers oftentimes are brought here without an

ability for them to lay out individually as the parents moved here that are caught in this limbo at this point for the jurisdictions including my state sometimes don't allow them to finish the education and serve on the military. they have those of devotees and they ought to be able to get an expedited have to citizenship. bye factor in the state of the union. i was proud to invite a 19-year-old young woman who was born in bolivia and has grown up most of her life here in virginia. i was proud to invite her to be my guest at the state of the union address. i know that she will be able to contribute to her community come to virginia and to the united states and the legislation will make sure she gets the same shot in the country that i got and other americans will have.

let me also say because i know there are other senators that want to speak with this legislation is about character of the country. senator alexander from tennessee sen something the other day that i quoted him on a number of times. in the immigration debate we discussed the character of the country. if i move to china tomorrow i will not be chinese. if i move to india i will not be in the yen. if i move to france i will not the french. it's only america from anywhere around the world if the plea by the rules, accept our space rules and free enterprise system they can get a fair shot and not only can they become american put their children will be american for generations to come. that history of our nation as a nation of our american character is reflected in this legislation.

the path has been long overdue on the immigration reform is more than 20 years ago on the current system is fundamentally flawed on the voting. it's time to pass an overwhelming majority and get it to the other body and get the bill to the desk of the president for signature. so mr. president, i'm proud of the work that has been done by the members of both parties on this legislation to that i look forward to a successful conclusion tomorrow and look for where to the fact other dreamers and so many others who've lived in the shadows for so long will be able to have the right to earn that to get the same kind of fair shot that i and so many in this body have had. with that of a yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

>> [roll call] >> the senator from ohio. >> are we in the courtroom now? >> we are. >> i ask that the call be dispensed with. >> without objection. >> i rise today to talk about the immigration bill with a really important amendment that i hope to be brought up to get i've spoken on the floor about this providing great detail as to why it works to ensure that

we have employment verification at the workplace, why it's so important and the critical element i believe in the immigration reform i believe strongly that if we do not have a stronger employee verification system at the workplace, the rest of the legislation isn't going to work and we won't have the people come out of the shadows those that are proponents of the legislation would like to see significantly we aren't going to deal to curtail the flow of the immigration. people come here to work and it is that medved of employment that has drawn people to this country and if we are going to put up more fences and border patrol, which i support, we will not get the problem. first if people want to come badly enough they find a way to go under the fences. a way to go around it. that's been the story of the country every time we have enforcement at the borders now where there's double fences people still manage to find their way across and find work. second, 40% of those were here

illegally in the country we are told came here legally. they didn't come in illegally. they oversee their visa. we need to make sure we have a strong workplace verification and frankly the underlying bill must be strengthened in order for the legislature in to work the way that it promised. i believe this amendment that i am prepared to offer with senator tester, my colleague from montana, is not just bipartisan. it's not just one that has been worked through with the gang of eight and the white house and the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio and the groups we played with by the rules to put together a good amendment. but it's one that will actually ensure to the american people we can have an enforcement place but that the border and in the interior of the work place for the rest of legislation to work. >> i've made it very clear over the last several weeks i cannot support the underlying bill unless it has those enforcement guarantees because i can't go to my constituents, look them in the eye and say this is going to

work. so i agree the immigration system is broken. the legal system is broken and the legal system is obviously broken. but we have to do the right thing to fix it otherwise the promises we make our empty promises. they see everybody wants to go to heaven but not everybody is going to do the hard things to get there. this is an example of that. a lot of people don't want to see that tightening of the work place, but it has to happen and we all acknowledge that. i was part of the immigration reform, but i was on the commission that helped come up with that that we proposed the employer sanction at that time. both in terms of the legislation how was implemented and those sanctions were never put in place read that's one reason they were legalized and more of them came. this is the critical part of the legislation and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the nile let's have a vote on that. if we don't have a vote we will not send them necessary message to the house of representatives the importance of this piece of

the puzzle. people said why didn't you included in the amendment which was about the border. because it needs to be drawn out as a separate issue which we have had on the floor. i've spoken on that before. we need to ensure that yes we are willing to do the right things to get to heaven. the hard thing is to make sure this legislation actually works. that is dealing with it at the workplace which is the reason people come to this country. i would ask my colleagues on both side of the dial please let us have a vote. there is only than ten votes out of the 500 apparently that had been filed there were only ten. let us have a vote on this. we will do it in a bipartisan way and show the people was republicans and democrats we can come together to solve big problems and this is a big one and if it isn't solved it isn't going to work. the pilot program that is in the underlying bill has been tested. you know what the recent report

says? 54% of those that are illegal got through the system and got a job. more than half. why? because the verification doesn't work. our legislation strengthens it and i going to great deal detail on this and it's on the record and i share this with my colleagues who are interested and again, we have done the right thing working with both sides of the aisle, playing by the rules making sure the gang of eight isn't up on the this, but it does put in place the enforcement to ensure the legalization will not occur in the absence of enforcement which would lead not only to the people coming out of the shadows but more illegal immigration coming. it happened in 1986. the cast a long shadow on this place and we have to be sure we do not repeat the mistakes this will ensure that we do that i would urge my colleagues including the ranking member and his been terrific in the process of trying to work with us to

accept a reasonable lift and to assess time limits that are reasonable. i would say last july 4th, a year ago we were kept in session. i was captain session as was every member and i was happy to do it but frankly it was regarding what decision the was more political than it was real and it never went anywhere because it was viewed as a political exercise and both sides would agree with that. ..

>> i will not speak a lot about the amendment he has laid it out but i just want to say that we have immigration problems in this country that need to be fixed in have been for some time. the gang of 8 has done a good job to come forward with a good bill that heads as to that direction and it makes a good one even better and i want to thank senator for his work in a bipartisan way that makes the bill better and makes the bill work better and i would tell you what some point* in time

there will be unanimous consent offered to get a vote and i would hope will sides agree we can get a vote on this amendment because it makes the bill better and it will pass and that is what we are here to do. lie just want to think my friend from ohio to encourage both sides to come together to get a good bill to be a better bill. thinks you mr. president. >> i think my colleague from montana on a willingness to work together. it was not an easy process. a lot of people would not like to tighten up workplace requirements sometimes it is the business community or labor unions but unless as we have strong legislation it would not work. i urge my colleagues to give us a vote to show that we

can do something that actually creates the enforcement that is needed to have the rest of this legislation were can i am urging poles sides of the aisle to work on this together to come up with a reasonable list of amendments. i am not suggesting nobody else there should be offered with there is a way to get there this important to the future of the country. with that, i yield back. >> this senator from new york. >> i think the senator from ohio with his good piece of work on legislation and i just want to talk in general about where we are. obviously this has been a long hard road a and we are on the edge of passing one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this body has passed in a very long time.

the good news is we will pass it was just about every democrat and a significant number of republicans. a.m. the reason for that is the vast majority of members realize the immigration system is broken and needs fixing. absolutely. we have a dumb system right now. we turn away people who create jobs and we let people cross the border to take away jobs from americans and america is crying out we fix this system. we have 11 million people in the shadows working force of standard wages and they bring down the wage rate for everybody else. through no fault of their own but we want to bring them to the current path to citizenship. we want to take the immigration system to limit people who will create jobs. we have shortages google

maps is now in vancouver canada an american company with american ideas but they are there because they cannot get the employees they need here they are willing to pay whatever but canada's immigration system is much better and they can get people from all over the globe to run that part of the company. we are there with agriculture, growers and the farm workers to come together on this bill, it is a large improvement over the present system. i have heard my good friend from ohio and unlike his amendment and my staff worked with him on it but make no mistake but permanent e-verify was in the bill may be it could be improved but it is point* o 1% of the bill. does that do is border security or exit entry or 11 million or future flow.

i would urge my colleagues to reconsider. of course, we want the amendment offered and many of us will support it but to say if it does it get it is now worth voting for? i've would respectfully and completely disagree with the bill and my colleague. face it there are members on his own side of the aisle that will block him from offering it. that says that all. why do they do that? because they don't want to build a path and that is a strategy. i heard very different from my what talk about we're not approving enough amendments. but people on the other side with the final numbers to not having enough votes but

the first week we wanted to move bills. we had to change old rules. it changed the number of votes it takes to pass a number of bills. we propose many amendments with painstakingly slow. that is the plea of. block votes for two weeks then complain. finally, last night we got a list of 36 amendments from the of their side. of course, we have many that is 72. because our side wants one for one that is only logical and fair a and then we heard that wasn't sufficient that they wanted more amendments than bad and furthermore, the republican steering committee, my own colleagues still be get more

amendments out there. because we want to make sure that there are so many amendments that we could never finish the bill. in fact, even with that list of 36, of the majority, not the majority but those to ask for the most amendments were professed opponents of the bill. not interested in improving the bill, the strategy was at the last hour create tactic so the bill could not be approved. look at the list. one never offered seven, another six komen two edify they're not interested in approving a. and on that list they were debated in defeated by a bipartisan boats from negative boats. the committee was an open

process. there were 300 and one committee amendments more than 130 votes and 39 republican amendments added to the bill and the leader just made a reasonable offer a and took 17 amendments from that list of 36, everyone was a republican request. he did not make them up, he added 15 democratic amendments people genuinely want to improve the bill. and of course, the other side objected. so the adn that we are not allowing amendments? please. takes the leaders offer, that is half of the amendments that you submitted last night. >> will the gentleman yield for a question?

>> five would be happy to yield to my friend from arizona. >> my understanding there for 17 amendments but from the majority leader opposed from the senator of iowa because we were not allowing votes? if i heard correctly that after a unanimous consent request 17 republican amendments one was very critical as a senator from montana and ohio because of e-verify riches fundamental to make sure those 40 percent of the people in this country illegally did not cross the border but came on a visa and it is minder standings that after those 17 votes, with 10 minutes allowed on each side by unanimous consent then we would do 17 more and 70 more

if necessary. yet the senator from iowa says we're not allowing amendments? i have got to say in all honesty i would ask the senator from new york of there was a delay of a couple of days that were unnecessary which frankly was from the other side but to somehow alleged that this side of the ideal is abridged of their rights when there is a unanimous consent request to have 17 minutes -- both right now with 10 minutes and between sova explain the logic. >> it is very hard to explain is pretzel logic and twisted and it is also present pretzel logic to delay votes for so many weeks and now to say we need hundreds and hundreds of amendments. it is not right or fair as my good friend of space

clinic come from sworn openness or disposed of in committee so he is right. one other point* i will make while my good friend from arizona is year my fellow gang member. we have a lot of disputes of this body because one side is against the other side. one side says one thing and the other side dance together to say no. we have gridlock. that is not the case here. every major vote has been bipartisan with a significant number from the other side supporting the bill. more than back, the whole process has been bipartisan that gang of 8 was four and four. we sat in that room and hagel dan had as many disputes on the democratic side as disputes on the republican side.

but we've met in the middle because we believed in this bill and the sad fact of the matter is well the vast majority of republicans support this proposal, a majority of republicans a majority of conservative republicans support the proposal, there is a group reflected in the senate that is so opposed they will go to any lengths to stop it. but the good news is we do have a bipartisan majority, that can happen. so we get the kind of logic that my good friend from arizona has pointed out, the kind of thing like houdini few ties himself in a straitjacket then complains he cannot get out. >> would reduce heat -- shield for another question?

>> i will. >> the senator from iowa may lead when he once considered the hut and the package but i would ask the senator from new york can we agree to have votes on the amendments that the senator from iowa wants? >> these are a beginning. something that we can continue to vote on as long as it takes. doing the budget we stayed up all night another great moment in the history of the senate but and again i am not saying that all amendments are not equal i ask my friend but it is clear the senator from montana and the standard -- senator from ohio, excuse me they have an important -- important an intimate to do with e-verify that we can assure the magnet disappears because of the certainty of

penalties for employers that is embodied e-verify that the senator from ohio has spent weeks and when only and birdlike the senator from ohio could come up with the absolute details and absolute comprehensive approach to e-verify of man that i admire enormously in he has to be a nerd as we know but i admire his work of this as long with the senator from montana of it is there anyone who would disagree with the senators from ohio and montana are proposing would not an approved if we could verify whether someone is in this country illegally supplying illegally? if this senator from iowa does not like phyllis that the majority leader read from why do we do the other

amendments or are we not going to do any? and also to my friend from ohio i have greatest respect for his intellect and capabilities and he knows i was just joking with my comments. as a personal aside when i was practicing for a failed run for the presidency he played my opponent and i begin to dislike the senator from ohio enormously as he did a great job. >> i think my colleague to reclaim my time i would say when you get a nerd from ohio and then someone from montana together you would get a good amendment but the bottom line is in the list the leader suggested a and every one of the 17 republican amendments was part of that list of 36.

and now hundreds, and many more amendments have ted file did just talking about the amendment, e-verify is in the bill i would not quite agree with my colleague from arizona. it will work very well without the amendment i think it will work better with the amendment. i am supportive of it by staff help to work on it but let's not say that this bill will have no internal enforcement without the amendment. restaurant for smith and it has mandatory e-verify and my good friend from alabama has been really we need mandatory e-verify for years as we work through the process the house in its wisdom of as it moves the bill we can improve things this is not the last train out of the station but i say this.

if we don't have the bill we will have no e-verify improved, not improved, so many of the things that my colleagues on the other side want will not be in the bill. again, to me, it is worth a bipartisan way and i have taken many criticisms from my side as the other to get this done and. not the gentleman from ohio he is sincerely eager to improve the bill but for those too are vehemently opposed, there is a view to delay and delay and delay it helps that they cannot move the bill. we have not been on this bill for one day but three weeks. again, most of the egyptian -- objections the vast

majority came from the of their side when we wanted to move forward so i would urge that we adopt the leader's motion, the 32 amendments a reasonable amount of time to debate 13 from the democratic class can go forward i nothing farrell be a single objection from our side. 5132 then more? that is a different story. but let me conclude on a happy note. said has been truly amazing to work with the two senators of arizona and south carolina and the senator from florida and colorado and illinois and senator from new jersey. of one of the difficult

issues of america we have strong support of momentum that increased with today's vote and increases tomorrow with the vote. please, one of the things that our citizenry objects to is that it is always easier to say no van yes. but as it is pointed out, when you say no, you keep the 11 million here under what has been called unstated amnesty and a broken system that kicks people at of the country that's create jobs them as people in to the country to take away american jobs? you are preventing the change of the immigration system to make america grow. cbo said, that gdp would grow by 3% by this decade

and 5% next decade that is the energy of immigrants rich, educated, unskilled immigrants. james madison flake to my colleague from arizona once told me about all ancestors all over the globe worked so hard and part of the secret to american success and this bill restores that energy in the towel -- fidelity. this bill is not perfect and we never claimed it would be but we'd urge my colleague and my sincere friend from ohio coming he is very smart was many great attributes to say if i did not get exactly the change that i wanted this bill is no good. that is what paralyse the nation in the last decade and an intent not only to

fix the immigration system and i pray to god we will. i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from ohio. >> there were comments made about the amendment because of what we have offered, let me be clear it is about making the underlying bill work. i do not believe it will work if we do not have strong workplace verification simply because 40 percent of the people who are here illegally did not come across the border but because they overstayed the visa and are here illegally now and those who want to come here badly enough they would go over or under or around i am for more border security. but it does not fix the problem. 54% pilot program of e-verify over half of those who are illegally getting through. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i don't think the bill will work i will not vote

for it if it does not have strong enforcement because people will not come out of the shadows the way they want them and i don't thank you can stop people from coming in the future. the flow just as from 1986 cannot be curtailed unless there is strong enforcement in the workplace. i yield to my colleagues from arizona. >> it is amanda standing that for literally weeks consulting industry, labor industry, labor, a consulting the most high-tech people in america has come up with the fix that all of us, no matter how we are on this issue agree which radically improve our capability to make sure that anyone in this country is a legally here before they obtained a job. may be of might be helpful for our colleagues that you could describe for a couple of minutes come if you would would you have the answer in

this process to come up with this product to make sure that this is really a system that can work. i am not sure people are aware of that. and only someone with your background and knowledge could come up with this amendment along with the senator from montana. >> and i do have some detail what is in the legislation including a the trigger is comprehensive including the ability to verify some one's identity that is now a problem by doubling the amount that goes to the states to provide the data also privacy protection to ensure we don't have a new national database with negative consequence is for all of us who care about civil liberties. we have worked for the chamber and the white house than the afl-cio is and democrats a and people of the gang of 8 it is not what

we initially drafted it was tougher but it is an amendment i believe in my heart if we can get this passed would create a system that would be strong enough to create a real deterrent and right now the incentive to work is so strong we cannot solve it at the border as you indicated. >> calving overstayed their visas. the gentleman from iowa has 34 amendments he tells me he would like to have offered. i don't know if all 34 would be offered. some are being offered by the same senator i imagine there are voice votes but there has to be a time agreement that has to be reasonable and a limit but it seems there is a way to get there. to show the american people that we don't just have 10 amendments on the floor not just to hear from our

amendments which is critical to have the bills exceed the also other members to have the right to be heard. i said it was last but i misspoke i do remember missing fourth of july even ince back home because we were voting spending time on the buffet rule. it did not go anywhere but this is more important. if we have to stay through the weekend to ensure we stay up late tonight and tomorrow night i hope we will do it to provide the ability to significantly offer an amendment that enables this to work and offer more support. i yield back. >> i have been very patient today. but i have just about had it on this.

all of this pontificating on this amendment come to this senator from ohio was offered to put this in the bill and he turned it tear down and we are spending all this time here because he has to agree? he had the opportunity to put it in the bill. so i wanted to be quiet here all day but this is see enough. the american people need to know he had the right to put it in the bill. he said no. i assume because he wants the big show out here to have a separate vote. i don't know. i have had enough. i know he is a smart man, a lot of good things and i know nothing bad about him but that is enough of this. be enough of this.

>> mr. president? >> i just want to talk about this amendment very quickly in the good senator from ohio has talked about it to explain it very well but this substantially improves privacy protection for the e-verify program and injures no federal database will be created using of a stadium be and that is a good thing in fisher said no federal government agency can access information's for e-verify is a good thing in increases privacy protection using established techniques such as requiring an individual notified when used for verification in a matter that is potentially fraudulent. that is a good thing and requires new regular reporting of suspected use of the e-verify process. it is a good amendment and it will make a good bill better i would ask unanimous consent that amendment 1634

get a purpose for the bow of the united states senate floor. >> the senator from iowa? >> i reserve the right to object but i will object. my what the members of this body to know that i very much and interested in e-verify stuff because i have legislation for mandatory e-verify and involved in 2007 as we tried to get an amendment to bill put together in 2007 and with those negotiations. it is a case of something very important and i have to support this amendment but it is one that'' of 34 others we said to give us

votes and we will not let the other side take our amendments are choose our amendments to be adopted any more than they would let us decide what democrat amendments will be offered. so that applies to the court for an amendment as well and tester is a co-sponsor. we had this set up and asked to put together amendments and it happens to be a republican senator, as someone who just spoke involved in a colloquy asked me to put together some amendments. i worked hard with a lot of dissenting republicans about how we should do the process. put together 34 amendments. and gave them to that senator and he was going to go and negotiate with the

leader. of the majority and it seems that i gave my amendments to the iroquois with no negotiation import growth so here we are where we are. also for that senator he said we could do 50 now and then maybe 50 more and then maybe 15 mar brent the unanimous consent request said after reduce those amendments w. rasta do then the bill will re-read the third time then final passage of the bill. so there would not have been a of so many in the and another charge. so here we are. even though i think it is a pretty good amendment when we were processed -- promised a free and open

process and the group of eight to promise to that from day number one that they put the bill down that this could be approved. we have had a chance to improve it by one dozen votes and that is it. so i am sorry for mr. portman and mr. chester i had to object to there amendment but i do and i think we have to and half weeks we could have been doing a lot of these things we now have to rely on the other body to get a decent bill to go to the president of the united states i yield the floor. >> mr. president? >> the senator from montana would just yield for one minute? and i think of myself as one of the calmest people around here but a lot of facts and

numbers have been passed around to getting into perspective, this bill was before the committee there were 300 amendments filed. 300. we put them on line. every single person saw hope we can have what the amendments were. we then brought them up. one from one party then another and did this day after day and tell people said we have no more amendments we want to bring up. we stopped at around 140. all but three of them were republican and democratic pros. to say nobody had a chance to amend this with nearly 140 amendments including the senator from iowa and others and myself. all but three of these 140

or so were bipartisan votes. i well remember the last night of that markup, late in the evening, i said is any senator, republican or a democrat have another amendment they want? no. there is not any more amendments. there reported out the bill. we have offered to have roll-call votes on 15 democratic amendments and 17 amendments from the republican and and another almost 30 amendments, a 29 that everybody agrees should be passed in the managers package. i know there are some, not the senator from iowa, there are some that are new to the body. i have been here 38 years i have seen great legislators

in the republican party and in the democratic party. we always talk about the hundreds of amendments we know that will get down to the finite number but then you would agree to go and you usually have a manager's packet where they agree that can be dan in the block and this is what we have done. several amendments here on the floor, 140 in committee committee, we offered 15 democratic and 17 republican and another 29 in the block. the objection did not come from the democratic side but from the republican side including some who said they would never vote for in the immigration bill whatsoever. so with the majority leader

has more patience from a the senator of vermont and i applaud him for his patience and i have not spoken on this point* and i apologize for taking the time. but it is frustrating to me to hear this one so much work has been done by both democrats and republicans on this bill to get to the point* where we are. i respect my friend senator portman but he was offered the opportunity to put his amendment in the package which was agreed to. i had an amendment i would have loved to have here is the leahy amendment and i said no i am more interested you get it passed so i played in the package to let it go through. i don't need to have my name on it to. so i think the senator from montana to let me have his time. >> thank you for i just want to get back.

since it was objected, we wonder why we have single-digit approval rating in congress but the people that i represent are democrats first, not republicans respond americans first. this amendment was subjected to by somebody who agrees with the amendment and if you were at home watching this on tv you say what is going on? people agree will make this better but it is subjected to. why? because there will be one or two more votes in the end? is that why? then that is not a good reason. we all live in this country. we all love this country to work in may want to continue to be a leader in the world. this bill makes a better i will kick it to the senator for closing comments. >> there has been a

discussion. >> without objection your recognize. >> who was complemented earlier about the way he handled this bill in committee -- committee by senator grassley to allow republicans than democrats to offer it to the majority leader and the senator from vermont, yes, we were offered the opportunity to put the legislation into the corker amendment however the idea was we had to co-sponsor that sight unseen which was 1200 pages and we chose not to do that. senator tester and die for a simple reason we wanted to have a debate and vote on this issue. i will discuss this once more because apparently the senator from nevada was not there to hear it. we believe, and i am passionate about this that if we don't fix the workplace we cannot have an immigration system that works. it is as simple as that you

cannot have a separate debate on this issue does not give us the possibility to send this to the house with a strong message to maximize the chance they will see that a strong bipartisan vote of workforce -- workplace enforcement to be part of the final package. it is that simple to be part of the border surge amendment rightfully so members from the other body and others said it is not about the workplace or e-verify but about the border and they would have been right. let's be honest. we have something very simple. give us the opportunity to have a debate. it is not about us, or politics but the substance of the legislation to make sure coming out of the shadows will happen because folks will find it more difficult to find a job if they are illegal. to make sure there's no flow

of immigration because we had the system that works and that there is bipartisan support. it is frankly not a popular part of the legislation and in 1986 it wasn't what it wasn't implemented because there was the unholy alliance of those representing labor unions or certain constituent groups to feel there may be discrimination that is why we carefully drafted the amendment to make sure we had a separate debate. by the way a five minute debate. we still hope we will get it because it makes too much since we could not believe that that could not be possible in this body the world's greatest the liberty of body could not spend 10 minutes to debate the issue to show on a bipartisan basis to show what kind of support to deal with the border and the workplace which is the critical element.

we made a mistake in 1986 by not writing the legislation properly and that is one reason over 3 million people were given amnesty and billions more came to the point* now 12 million live in the shadows we have to be sure the problem is a trust that is why legitimately we thought it would be appropriate for this body to take up that issue to have the vote and i stand by that. i think we made the right decision of the land period spurgeon now appears there may be a roadblock. let's give reasonable time limits and work through the amendments we could have done and yesterday we could do that tomorrow or over the weekend and two years ago we stayed in to talk about the buffet rule and it never went anywhere. this isn't as important? to become the law of the land and a major impact on us in the future of our

country? i ask again mr. president that republicans be reasonable and democrats be reasonable and come together and go on these amendments and let's start doing our job. >> there on a glider path to passage. . . they go home to do the fourth of july recess it is only a matter of when people who oppose the bill will give up and allow everyone to go home. it may sound trite but after this senator corker tied together this big omnibus amendment they knew that would be the last piece so now they just trier it -- they're just trying to see if there any others you may go for it to figure out a way but for the most part we are done.

>> farther any straggling amendments? face it every ready would get a chance but why don't they have an agreement yet to wrap up the amendments? >> mrs. is typical if anyone has been watching the senate for a long time when you get close to final passage you have to debate at some point* there are still some pending that people say they want and one of them that is of interest the senator from ohio has an amendment to tighten up electronic verification system because that is approved and everyone double sides. people are a little nervous that they would support it and portman has indicated he would support final passage of the legislation if it was plates and also ask for a separate vote. when you try to count down to legislation asking that is a big deal and that means

there is somebody else on the democratic side wants a separate bowl been you have somebody else to say at once a vote online. it is more procedural than policy but they are still trying to figure it out. >> you wrote electronic verification is it a central part of the bill? >> to back up a little bit is what is in the underlying bill, a mandatory electronic verification of names and birth dates and social security numbers for everyone who are being hired for a new job to check that they are who they say they are. right now there is the paper form that has led to fraud and then those that use the e-verify system that is voluntary but not foolproof because if you have someone's name or a birthday or social security number

you can see where that person and it will pass through without problems. but only a small percentage of employers using it it is far more effective than the current high nine system even chuck schumer schumer, president obama, representative smith from texas have all said in order to do anything to stop illegal entry and simply not you have to have everyone using e-verify. . .