former mayor of scottsdale to do that project. it may have gotten a 404 permit. >> i think they did some of the water channelling. >> the project was streambed wi have actually gone birding and looked at where there's been some water brought in to there and some vegetation is now growing to attract, in that streambed, if there was a disturbance of the streambed, they would have required it. >> because there's two mechanics and i have only 45 seconds to run this through. one was in many occasions where we tried to do good acts, my fear is that if this gets an expansive interpretation, all of a sudden, the good act are going to be required to get a 404 permit and go through those hoops. in some ways is there a potential we're creating a barrier. i'm going to let you sort of

combine the answers. last time, i sort of walked through a scenario, okay, this isn't about the water. it's about anything that's a pollutant in the water. our little scenario of the dry wash behind my home and i put fertilizer and plants and sediment and 14 inches of rain i get a year that all come on a tuesday, it's running down the wash and hits the birdie river and the birdie river hits the salt river and runs into this rehabbed area. i use fertilizer, i move dirt. it potentially got washed down that dry wash into a running river. do i potentially need a 4 zur 4 permit in planting my tree, and what's my exposure that may not be your intent today, but the way this is drafted, there's a whole new cause of action and future litigation coming at us that the lawyers now get to spend the next decade moving

that direction? >> well, the quick answer is, you know, and i want to be -- put the asterisks next to this, i would love to go to your house and look at the project myself, but i would say it's highly unlikely it's significant under the way we prepared this rule, whereas the existing regulation, the law on the books the supreme court has been opining about, has no such clarity of what's significant. it simply says anything the field biology thinks might have an impact. >> i'm way over time. litigation exposure. >> yeah. i mean, i think it would be less than what currently exists. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i will follow schweikert's leading and call you deputy administrator bob. and also based on hearing that

you are going to be leaving, probably after today, you figured you should have left three weeks and a day earlier. well, we're going to try to just get some questions answered. there's been a lot of discussion about how the epa's new rule can negatively effect small business. can you, you know, just list or describe a way that it can positively affect small business? >> well, i'll just do something very quickly here. on the water definitional rule, the waters of the united states, we firmly believe, and we heard this from the discussions we've had with small businesses, that a, they want to make sure that the law is interpreted correctly because they want clean water. but second, they want to be able

to have the clarity or the certainty of what's in and what's out. we are struggling to do that. and that is our intent, to try to do that. and we'll continue to endeavor in that. on the clean power plan rule that we have talked about a little bit here, one of the things that epa has laid out there is that we want states to really seriously consider energy conservation as part of what their plan might be. i know for sure that the whole sector of energy conservation, whether it be smart grids or how to make things better in your house is going to be very oriented to small business opportunities. >> as a matter of fact, through homeland security and the cyber security bill, i have a piece of legislation that was amended into that bill, and to do a smart grid study for upgrading the grid across the

country and benefitting areas that tend to have natural disasters and also looking at manmade. so that's right my alley. now, what -- why are you having such a hard time getting small business to understand these issues? >> well, i think that we are spending a lot of time with small business. i know that one of the issues the committee has is why not do that under their regulatory flexibility act, and it's because a lot of the impacts that may or may not accrue and a lot of the benefits that may or may not accrue, depending on how these proposals unfold, will be indirect impacts, or indirect opportunities, and the regulatory flexibility act deals with direct impacts. so we're not regulating somebody

who does an energy conservation project with a new kind of thermostat or something, we're not regulating those people, but they may have an opportunity to provide more business. so we have -- we have reached out to small businesses. we have a roundtable under way with sba on the water rule. we're in the process of finishing up a formal hearings this week on the clean power plant, and then we plan between now and when the rule is finalized, and even way before that, to spend even more time with small businesses, whether it's small coops or the small municipals or even the indire indirectly impacted small businesses. >> you know, around the complexity of all this, you know, the clean water act, you know, increases the amount of time it takes to make jurisdictional determinations. in your estimation, how much shorter time will these

jurisdictional determinations take with the proposed rules as opposed to the old one? >> the current one, because of the way it's written, requires almost every request for any project that might be near water, for them to go through a process on a case by case basis with the corps of engineers. well, the other thing we're trying to do here, and the intent is to have enough definition so along the lines we were talking about earlier, congressman, that it would reduce the number of case by case determinations, therefore make it more quickly apparent whether they have a jurisdictional issue or not, but i also want to point out, if you're not going to discharge pollution or put fill into the water, it wouldn't matter one way or the other. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> mr. hannah. >> hi, how are you? >> i'm fine. >> good.

you know, if you're trying to prove that you're trying to make things easier, you're not really doing it. as you can sense. the cynicism in this room is at least on our side of the aisle, profound. and i don't think that it's born out of some disinterest in the environment or anything like that. i think for one thing, your f m former administrator, lisa jackson, her comment that it wasn't her job to paraphrase, to worry about the economy, if you remember that, was, i think, a scary thing to hear for everyone in the country. and the subjective nature of the conversation here today and the notion that so much about this has a potential to be arbitrary and capricious and the concern that the farmers and builders

and contractors that i deal with daily, i was in construction for many years, it's not in any way, and i'm not surprised that you said that businesses are concerned to have clean water. who isn't? that's really not much of a statement, with all due respect, or a surprise. the problem, your organization has is nobody believes you. that you have no credibility here because frankly people feel put upon. and the burden, i just went through almost 13 years in our community to get a 404 permit through the army corps of engineers for something that was a relatively simple process. and it would appear to a lot of people i know, and i'm sure you hear this, too, that the epa is now our enemy, not our friend. that somehow everything has become so burdensome, so

complicated, so drawn out that the growth we look for in our economy, the opportunities that lie in front of people, that you're an obstructionist organization and not someone who ushers them through the process. and for people in business, you know, every bureaucrat who walks through the door feels like they're throwing an obstacle at their feet. and here you are one more, but yet you're bigger than all the rest. and people assume that you can in some way interfere in everything, everywhere, all the time. and when they hear the definition of navigable waterways, that, and people want to believe -- people are inclined to believe that it means the water off their roof. so when you explain it, it doesn't -- and i'm just telling you the way the people i work for feel. they don't believe you. and they're concerned. and if the concern seems disproportionate to your intent, which i'm listening to you, and

i believe you're earnest in what you're saying. you need to back up. because frankly, the outcome that you desire is going to be pushed back at by this entire country, not because it isn't an outcome that we might all want and even agree on, but because frankly, nobody believes you. i wonder -- i mean, i wonder how you feel about that. or if you even agree. >> well, i haven't, and nor does the epa, do polling to determine who believes us or who doesn't believe us. >> but you don't have to. >> let me just say what i believe, okay. i don't believe that most people don't trust epa. the polling i have seen, for what it's worth, back in the past by others, shows that people prefer epa to be setting standards. and you know, i don't have enough data on what every person

in the united states thinks about -- >> but preferring to have them set standards is not the same as being -- as trusting them. >> yes. so this trust thing is a problem, particularly if congress has it. this is not an idle problem, and we need to work on that. i'm here today, trying to explain what our intent is. and to try to build a bridge. >> i appreciate that, but you're not going anywhere with the presentation i see today. backing up and blaming the supreme court or using them as a crutch, that also isn't helpful because at the end of the day, this place has the ability to do -- to do what it would like to see done. we have the capacity to make mistakes here. to undo what you might record as good work and may very well be good work, but if you can't make us trust you in that regard,

you're going to have an outcome that you don't like, and potentially we may not like. my time is up. thank you, chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the deputy administrator for being here today. if i have asked a question that has been asked before, if you would restate the answer, i would appreciate that. one thing that many of my constituents are asking and i share the same concerns as my other colleagues, i have been trying to understand the claim from the epa administrator in kansas city a couple weeks ago and similar to yours here, this would provide more certainty compared to your current regulations. can you tell me if this regulation would allow the federal control or regulation of ephemeral streams? >> it would -- it would make ephemeral streams jurisdictional

if they exhibit those hide rologic characteristics that would be an indicator of significant flow. >> would that -- we get into the definition of significant and i have been through this at the state level. would this increase or decrease the amount of clean water act jurisdiction compared to current law? >> we believe it would reduce. >> it would reduce that. have any states suggested otherwise in their comments? >> i haven't read the state comments yet. >> have you read any comments about -- >> the comment period is open until i think october. >> you haven't peeked at them earlier? >> i have been out talking to states. >> and they disagree with the statement that it reduces? >> i haven't heard that. >> i'll give you a clue in kansas. the estimates are from our state, it increased the jurisdiction by 400%.

400% more jurisdiction under the proposed rule, instead of regulating 32,000 miles of stream miles, it would increase that to 134,000 miles. how could they be that wrong? you're claiming jurisdiction goes down in the state of kansas, i actually live there, and we worry about our environment. as a farmer myself, i consider myself a first environmentalist. how could they be so wrong in the misunderstanding of your rule? >> i don't -- i would love to see their analysis and i would love to get our staff to sit down with them and understand why we see such a different situation. i know that there are more than half the states already cover ephemeral streams themselves. including kansas. >> the issue -- >> including kansas. >> not under the clean water act, sir. the issue here, is one of navigable. can you describe or define navigable for the committee,

please? >> the navigable in the webster dictionary -- >> no, in your dictionary? >> in the clean water act, navigable has been defined by congress as waters of the united states. that's what the definition is in the clean water act of 1972, and the supreme court -- >> so navigable is an adjective? not describing the waters of the u.s. it's a limit on the jurisdiction of the clean water act. it doesn't describe every water of the u.s., sir. you are clearly wrong. >> well -- >> can you define navigable. limit on the power. >> navigable waters include waters that flow into traditionally navigable waters that can have an impact on the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of those waters. >> it's a navigable water that flows into a stream.

so nonnavigable waters by that definition then become navigable? >> no, waters of the u.s. >> they include nonnavigable waters. so there's a distinction? >> through the clean water act, it's looking to control water pollution. and controlling water pollution, even if the authority of the federal government is limited to navigable waters. and controlling water pollution that could enter it. >> under navigable waters. >> water pollution -- >> this is a -- >> from other streams. >> do you believe this is going to bring some certainty? here's a body of water in western kansas. it actually rained. once upon a time. this was a few weeks ago. is this a navigable stream? >> is neither navigable or waters -- or jurisdictional under the clean water act. you can -- >> you can guarantee me today this will not be under the jurisdiction of the epa.

>> i'm not going to go further than what i said because that's just unfair. i would have to go out and look like that, but it looks like wetness in a field, which would not be navigable. which would not be jurisdictional. >> it might flow down the road ditch to a navigable stream. >> it doesn't matter. it didn't fit the characters i described earlier or the soil or the vegetation. it's a puddle in a field and it would not be covered. >> that's the guarantee, a puddle in a field, the road ditch in western kansas will guaranteed not be covered. >> a road ditch that's not a channelized stream would not be covered. some road ditches actually channelize in a stream, but putting that aside, road ditches, the vast majority of them are not going to be covered. not be jurisdictional, and wet fields are not going to be jurisdictional. they're not going to be jurisdictional. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> ranking member velazquez. >> mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to submit

for the record a report from the american sustainable business council that found that small business owners are concerned about climate change, 57% are concerned about carbon pollution. 53% are concerned about climate change. and 53% believe climate change will adversely effect their business. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a couple questions, sir. with regards to power plant oversight, i know that apparently, correct me if i'm wrong, it appears that the agency when they figured the costs of the rules and regulations in power plant rules, that they considered on a

global scale. is that correct? the cost benefit on a global scale. >> well, i'm not -- i'm not exactly sure of that term there. but when we look at -- >> you take other factors besides what we could consider domestic things that would only effect the united states? do you take into effect whatever cost savings or costs otherwise may be affecting other areas of the world, our neighbors to the north, south, east, west? >> i don't know the answer to that. i'm going to say generally no, but there have been instances where obviously we have cooperated with other governments like canada on acid rain where we have done joint work together. but i would generally say we were looking at the impact in the united states. >> well, what i have been told is that you do take into account, calculating benefits on

a global scale, our cole referenced rules which have a dramatic impact on coal-fired electrical generation plants, which i've got a couple in my district. in fact, one closed up as a result, parlths partially, of the rules that have come down. and i'm just kind of curious why you included the cost of savings or other benefits of other countries over what should be, i would think, only the cost benefits that would be for us domestically. >> i really apologize. i should know what you're asking, but i don't want to guess. so if it's okay with the committee and the chair, i would like to -- >> sure. >> we can research that and provide the answer. >> sure. other than that, i'm -- just one other concern. when you go down the road with

these different rules and regulations that you're looking at, basically, the president seems to be trying to implement carbon tax rules around the congress by implementing some of the rules through your agency. i think it's very, very concerning. i think, you know, again, when you do this, you need to go through the rfa process to find the effect on small business, and it's very concerning to me that we're even going down this road when you look at what australia just did. australia implicated the carbon tax two years ago and found it increased costs significantly, over 15%, and affected thousands and thousands of jobs and they now have withdrawn that. i think we need to be very careful going down the road we're going down and we need to make sure we continue to adhere to the process and the procedures that are in place which today we're talking about the regulatory flexibility act. it's a very, very important tool

for analysis and not only for you but for us to make sure that the rules that you're putting in place are something that we could go along with, that we believe our constituents, our small businesses are having to live under and would be beneficial to them rather than costing them. again, when you see what's coming out of other countries with regards to the kind of power plant rule and regulation that's being proposed, and they're backing off, it should give us pause. and for certain to be able to cause -- i would think would be a red flag it to make sure you adhere to the process of procedures. if you want to respond, sure. >> sure, just a couple quick comments. first of all, i want to be really clear to the committee. we believe that we should be looking at the impacts of all different segments, whether it's small business or large business. i just want to be really clear about that. and somebody at epa did make the

statement earlier that it's not in our job description, but it was not lisa jackson, i can assure you that. it was not. it was a lower level epa employee who made a mistake. that's all i'm going to say, made a mistake. now, on the -- >> follow up on that, sir, before you move on to your next comment. that's why it's important that you do the rfa, because that affects the economic concerns that we have. and when you have a comment like that -- >> right. >> -- that gives us pause. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> there are two things. i want to make it clear we're not trying to implement a carbon tax or anything here. the clean air act is a very specific authority to look at sectors. so in the last term, we did a light duty vehicle regulation to reduce the greenhouse gases from light duty vehicles. we worked with the department of transportation to make sure it aligns so the automakers only

had one thing to look at. we reached consensus with the automobile manufacturers. we had consensus with the small automobile manufacturers. we exempted them from the rule completely, and then they came back to us and they said we want to be able to opt in if we're making really efficient cars because we want to sell our credits to the other automobile manufacturers. so we have an opt-in for small businesses in that rule. so i don't want you to think we don't really do think about this. that's the two big carbon, so-called carbon rules the epa is working on. one is automobiles which is in the process of being implemented now and it has those kind of provisions i just mentioned and the other one, which is power plants, which we haven't implemented yet, which is something we have to work at with states, where we are going to be continually looking for ways that we can incorporate ideas and opportunities like that to be able to deal with small businesses. and we hope that many small businesses will capitalize on some of the business opportunities as well. but we do -- we do look at this.

i want you to believe that. and not not trust us. >> thank you for your comments. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to associate myself with many of the questions and comments of mr. lukt ameyer. one issue, and deputy administrator, does it disturb you, and you're talking about, it's admirable they were able to achieve this with some of the small car companies wanting to be able to sell their carbon credits back. does it disturb you when we talk about the sense of congress, which created the epa, by the way, had rejected cap and trade? and effectively now, we're seeing it moving forward in a r regulatory action. i'm just quoting you. you were saying they wanted to

be able to use their credits in regards to -- >> we always do this. in all of our automobile rules, if one automobile manufacturer does a better job of pollution control than another, they can move those credits around between the automobiles, but they can't sell it to a power plant. it's inside, market mechanisms is something the epa has used in rule making going back to the early 1980s. >> i understand that, but i guess my point is congress had rejected it under a democrat administration, cap and trade, and this is not a cap and trade program. this is the ability to trade credits in between -- again, we have been doing it since the '80s. >> and i think that's really part of the concern, is we see stepping stones to movement. if we go back to water, when secretary salazar, secretary of interior, was initiating, were you familiar with the blue ways program? >> no, sir. >> blue ways was coming out of

the department of the interior which is effectively a precursor to the waters of the u.s. i would invite you or your successor to make sure they read the reports that were coming out of the blue ways program. effectively citing pollutants coming from far away farmlands in the midwest, and it effectively really goes to mr. schweikert's point in terms of once water is put on the picture that mr. holtholtzcamp shown you, we may not define that as navigable, but as it flows down, that backflow becomes all navigable waters. that's really the concern that people has, is once you start regulating, it does have impacts, and those costs that are going to be associated with it. through this committee, we actually have the empirical evidence through regulatory costs in this country right now, americans are paying $1.8 trillion in regulatory costs, and no one is suggesting we get

rid of all regulations, but those are real costs. right now in colorado, yesterday, you held epa hearings and unfortunately, you held them in denver. we sent two letters to the director requesting that the hearing actually be held in the impacted area in craig, colorado, moffitt county, in my district. we received no response from the epa. would it be appropriate when we're holding these hearings and i think you heard loud and clear the importance of these rfas, to actually go to the impacted communities rather than just going to urban areas? for hearings? >> well, we are -- the hearings are just one aspect of our outreach. we've tried to distribute them around the country into different -- in different parts of the country so people have an opportunity. but let me just say this categorically. epa will meet with anybody who wants to meet with us on this, and we're going to reach out to virtually every state and the

constituencies in every state and we're in the process of doing that. >> can we get aheld of you and you can help facilitate with us for director jackson to come to craig, colorado, and we will meet with them. >> well, you tell me who it is you're meeting and i'll try to figure it out. >> we're going to meet with community leaders, state legislators, the impacted private entities in rural colorado that are going to be impacted by proposed epa rules. >> so we would want to work with the state of colorado because they're the ones who want to implement it. >> you would be willing to come? >> i'm willing to get on the phone and get with the governor and try to figure out how we do that. >> great, we would love to have you come in. and i think when we're talking a lilt bit -- >> have a meeting. i don't know where the meeting will be, but we'll have a meeting. >> i think that is part of the problem. we just had rural coloradoen said had to drive 4 1/2, 6 hours to go to the meeting in denver,

colorado. it is important that when we're talking about outreach not to discard rural america. when we're talking about the states who are going to have to implement it, do you share with me some of the concern, when we're looking about some of the carbon credits, if you want to see blue skies and a coalifiered power plant, come to craig, colorado, with me. we'll be able to see that. the concern i'm hearing, these are senior citizens on fixed incomes. young families just getting started. they're seeing taxation via regulation to where those utility bills continue to climb. is this taken into consideration at all by the epa? >> our economic analysis shows that energy bills will decline. >> when? >> through between now and 2030, the energy bills -- >> if i'm paying $100, it's actually going to go down?

>> national estimate. the energy bills will decline 8% to 9%. >> i'd love to see that study. >> we can point that out if the committee would need to have that. >> great. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i will be brief here. in looking through some of the rules and use of terminology, i think what seems to be bothering a lot of people, words like significant. and here in the proposed rule in the federal register, it says for an effect to be significant, it must be more than speculative or insubstantial. now, so when we use that word, is there any data behind that that would suggest what that means? >> one of the things we're trying to dale -- i believe, i may be wrong and somebody behind me may be able to clarify. i believe that's just the language that the supreme court

used and what we're trying to do with the rest of the rule is actually try to put a boundary on that. >> yeah, this is actually out of the regulatory text. >> we were probably writing that in there, but -- justice kennedy's opinion. so what we have done with the rest of the rule is try to say, what would they be? it gets back to trying to do it on a scientific basis as opposed does it -- >> the problem is small business in trying to adhere to something and reading through this, they're going to -- they're not going to know where to take something using the word like significant. so i guess i would conclude simply in saying -- let me also go to another point today. too many times in congress with the public, it looks like the epa has a, quote, solution looking for a problem. so today in our science hearing on the coal plants, a data point

came out that said if the united states industrial complex and the united states power generation complex produced no c02 whatsoever, none, they were all shut down, how would that impact the amount of c02 going into the atmosphere in the world? the answer was 2%. so here we are, so we could shut down all the power plants, we could stop all our production that emits any c02, the impact on the world is quite insignificant, negligible. 2% is not going to have an impact, not given what we're doing. so that's part of the issue when i say the frustration on our side is the need for jobs, the growing economy, and then having the epa overreach for something that's not needed. again, a solution that's looking for a problem, a problem that doesn't exist. certainly not that we could have any impact on. so it's just interesting you, i

believe, admitted there's a trust factor between the epa and congress. clearly. there's a trust factor between our farmers. and i always have this saying, don't bring me a problem without a solution. the epa has a real problem. congress doesn't trust you. farmers don't trust you. the public doesn't trust you. so what's the solution? don't bring me a problem without a solution. it's a simple solution. withdraw the rule. start over. understand what you've done wrong. reach out. study the small business. do the rfa. that would mean so much to, i think, this congress and the country for the epa to say we were wrong. we got ahead of ourselves. we admit that there's misunderstanding. we're going to withdraw the rule, take all this into account, and since there's no judicial deadline, we'll move

forward on another day, you know. we screwed up. you know what that would do for your trust factor in congress? it would take you a long way. so all i would say, i know you're leaving, but for my two cents worth, if you could convince your superiors to withdraw this rule, your credibility would skyrocket in the epa. i would suggest you seriously consider it. i yield back. >> mr. schweikert. >> thank you, mr. chairman. deputy administrator, sort of a continuation on a bit of a thought exercise here. significant nexus. ultimately, i believe in your definiti definition, it's driven because of multiple supreme court rulings? >> right. keep in mind, it's a definitional rule, so it's defining something. we had it defined in the '80s

and the '70s in a broadway. the supreme court has several times said, can't use that approach. you need to come up -- >> some of the significant nexus language actually came out of the supreme court language? >> that's right. um -- >> i'm going to ask you actually for a personal opinion and i know that's a little awkward and instead of your hat as depistry administrat administrator, but you're leaving in three weeks so you're allowed to have an opinion. >> i am a citizen of the united states. >> over the next decade, your personal opinion, how much litigation is ultimately going to take place in defining the significant nexus? because the regional differentiation of that is incredible, if you think about our lives out in the desert southwest compared to other parts of the country. so where i'm heading on this is, your personal opinion, how much litigation are we going to look

at in just once again, soon as this rule, if this rule goes into effect as written, in fixing these definitions or typing them up or politicizing them or moving them. what do we expect to see? >> you know, maybe it's sort of also a little bit toward mr. collins who just had to leave, answer. i can tell you that gina mccartha and me, as long as i'm here, but certainly my immediate supervisor or boss, gina mccarthy, want nothing more than to build credibility and confidence in the congress. so from a personal perspective, we would hope that we would be able to get out of the situation we've been in for 40 years with everything keeping going to the supreme court and try to get it that to stop. and at some point, you know, which i don't see -- if we do nothing, it will continue to keep going up there and they'll

continue to keep -- >> but if you also do this, in many ways, the term significant nexus is a new term of art. and now we have to define it. >> right. >> is a significant nexus different in oregon compared to the desert southwest? is it different in -- >> yes. >> -- building that box? and where you're hearing a lot of stress in our voices is for places like maricopa county, arizona, one of the third, fourth most populous counties in the country, we recycle every drop of our water, every drop of it. we think we do some of this really, really well. is it going to be litigation being driven on another, how water -- the significant nexus of water in delaware and all of a sudden we find out the way we operate in our region, we're back in court, having to redefine for a definition that works for us? >> in my minute and a half i

have left, you actually just touched on something. you heard the credibility discussion, distrust discussion. could you share with administrator mccarthy two things for me? if you have the chance. one is, stop giving speeches where you vilify us, where in your language, you say you're going to go after those of us who have questioned. where that only real scientists are worthy, and those are quotes from articles. you didn't say them, but the administrator did. and the second part of that is, transparency. it's not good enough to tell us what your study says. we need the data sets. it's unacceptable to have proprietary data saying, well, we hired a contractor to do it.

you need -- if you're going to make public policy, public policy needs to be done by public data. the public deserves the right, right, left, activists, researcher, to see the base data sets and modeling. because i think actually some of the distrust comes from the inability to see that base line data and know you could stress it and reproduce it. so that's more of an editorial comment, but i actually thing it would take us a long ways to openness, transparency, and rehabilitating the relationships between the agency and the public. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for coming in. and i might suggest because you have said on several occasions, you're seeking input, you want to. we have been talking about credibility and transparency and you want to hear from the business community. but i would suggest that you comply with the rfa, and why not

do it voluntarily? why not go through the steps that are laid out? and you know, and help your credibility out considerably and do it through the process? that's really what this hearing is about, why the epa does not follow the regulatory flexibility act, which is what this committee is all about. and it does require all agencies, the epa included, to conduct outreach and assess the impact of rules on small businesses. hearing from those small businesses early in the rule making process is going to identify these problems that come up and hopefully as has been pointed out, produce better solutions and better rules. but unfortunately, epa, you know, is not complying with the rfa, and the result is confusing. it ends up battedly crafted regulations and you end up in situations like you're in. but the community is going to continue to engage with the epa to make sure it complies with

the regulatory act. and i ask unanimous consent all members have five days to subimate information to the report. with that, the hearing is adjourned. thank you.

on the next washington journal, minnesota congressman keith ellison talks about the recent conflict between israelis and palestinians. after that, south carolina representative tom rice discusses the house republican lawsuit against president obama. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets.

washington journal's live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. our house subcommittee is holding a hearing on implementing the health care law. the next open enrollment period for buying a health care plan starts november 15th and ends february 15th. we'll hear testimony about whether the government's website will be ready for the enrollment process. you can see that hearing live starting at 9:15 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. and later, remarks from a former palestinian prime minister on recent violence between the israelis and palestinians. he'll speak at the atlantic council, that event starts live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. also on c-span3. american artifacts on american history tv. this weekend, our visit to the national security archives at george washington university

reveals the classified documents about the gulf of taung nn in vietn vietnam, gift years ago, they passed the resolution given president johnson prod powers to wage war in southeast asia. american artifacts sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern. while congress is in recess, american history tv will be in primetime monday through friday, featuring events from watergate on its 40th anniversary. american history tv on c-span3. now, a discussion on immigration policy and the future of immigrant children crossing the southern u.s. border. from washington journal, this is 45 minutes. congressman steve pearce is a republican from new mexico and he was tapped to serve on the gop working group on the crisis on the southern border and many of the recommendations of the working group are included in this new $659 million border bill unveiled by house

republicans yesterday. can you break down that bill for us, what the $659 million is for and what some of the policy provisions are in the bill. >> basically, the idea is to get children back, reunited with their families in their own countries, and then we've got to absolutely secure the border. so as you can guess, about two thirds of the bill is for border security. send the national guard to help give humanitarian relief at the border, free the border patrol up to go back and take care of their job, just patrolling. then secondly, the humanitarian aspect, absolutely, we have to feed and house the people who are here. we have to deal with the policy, but simultaneously, we have to understand that these are human beings. so there's about a third of the bill, about $100 million, for humanitarian assistance. then we deal with the problem of what's driving them here from their countries, and we're going into those three central american countries, asking them

to beef up their border security. when our trip went to honduras and guatemala, there between guatemala and mexico, the river, just rafts going back and forth all day long, all night long, intertube rafts carrying anywhere from 2 to 10 people. they just pull across the river and the border agencies from both states sit and watch that. and then finally, we're asking those countries, and they have since done this, but it was not illegal to smuggle humans, and so now then they have, both countries, i think, have passed laws outlawing the trafficking of humans to another country. and so a lot of the things need to be done. that's basically kind of the shape of the bill. obviously, some need to change, 2008 law, where we get equitable treatment of everyone coming in from all of the countries. i think that's a piece of the bill. last in, first out.

the countries there said send us our children back, and they said the biggest message you can send to stop people from coming is to just start returning those. back in the '80s, i think brazil started sending a lot of people here. and the only effective way to slow the tide was to return people that had recently come. they see their money is wasted so that's kind of the look of the bill. >> for weeks, people have been hearing about president obama's request to congress $3.7 billion for border security, $1.6 billion for law enforcement. $1.8 billion for shelter and care. can you explain the big difference in numbers between $659 million that you think is the right answer versus that $3.7 billion? >> well, the $3.7 billion was for a year. our bill just covers for two months, so actually, the numbers are very strong. what we didn't want to do is just say, okay, we're not going to look at this problem again

for the next year. so we're taking care of the needs through september. then we'll -- that gives us more time to take a deeper look. we can evaluate what's going on in other countries. we have some checks and balances for the money they're receiving, but also checks and balances for the money that the president is receiving. we just have to stop the problem. that's the main thing. i think all americans are agreeing, we want to be sympathetic to those people who are looking for asylum. we want them to get speedy hearings. we want -- and that's going to require more judges. we also are not going to do it for a full year. let's see if we can't stem the tide first. >> we're just a couple days away from congress adjourning for a five-week recess. what do you think will happen with this new proposal that was dropped yesterday, this week? >> that's coming for a floor vote either today or tomorrow, and we either pass it or we don't. i'm not sure what the senate will do. that's not really the house's problem. i just know that the situation

needs to be addressed. we just can't have an open border situation. we can't just let people come in here. there's a process to come here legally. i think everyone supports legal immigration. let's just get the thing checked and in the right lane. >> what do you think of statements from senator harry reid yesterday that this border bill that was dropped by republicans yesterday could be used as a vehicle for a comprehensive immigration reform? >> that would -- i think that would be a mistake on his part. we're just simply trying to cure this problem. there's no intent for the house to say we're going to take up an amnesty bill. and it would bog the process down tremendously. >> we're talking with steve pearce, republican from new mexico. the second district there. district that runs along the border about how many miles of your direct? >> about 100 miles. >> here's here to take your question, answer your comments as we talk about the border issues and the crisis down there. let's go to steve who is waiting

in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, on our line for democrats this morning. steve, you're on with congressman pierce. >> caller: yes, congressman. i had a comquestions. number one, did you see the report that the president made, kind of granted de facto amnesty to the 12 million illegallies out there. number two, if he did do that, would that drive the congress closer to impeachment proceedings. >> i don't see anyone on the republican side talking about impeachment right now. i think that's democrats. it would be contrary to the will of the people for the president to suggest an amnesty program through executive order, one reason that we haven't done it in the house is we're listening to the people. >> bill is up next, calling in from new york on our line for nments. bill, good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you today? >> good, bill. you're on with congressman pearce. >> caller: good morning, congressman. >> good morning.

>> caller: you talk about $800 million budget. you talk about a 600 mile wall. from buffalo to winston, salem, it's 600 miles. and you still allow the people in your southern borders to hire illegal aliens and there's no penalty to the employer. wouldn't it be cheaper to make employers responsible for their employment of illegal people in this country? ronald reagan as governor of california opened up the floodgates and let the mexicans in. so other industries other than agriculture could benefit from this low income. now that income has moved up into the north, into the northeast, and now the whole country is saying, well, let's impeach obama because he's letting the mexicans in. this has been going on, in the '50s, agriculture was basically the migrant workers. but now agriculture, now the migrants are allowed in all aspects because of employers. up north, i don't know anybody

who hires illegal aliens. in the south, that's all you do down there, and now you're complaining about the problem you have. >> i'll let you jump in. >> sure, number one, as far as holding employers accountable, i'm perfectly fine with that, except that you have to have a government that can tell them who's legal and who's not. my wife and i had a small business there in mexico, and we always tried to follow the law, but we could not tell a legitimate green card from a fake green card. and so until the government can identify those people who are illegal when they walk in, i would think a retina scan would be pretty easy for those people who are legitimately in the country. then the second thing bill points out is that we're somehow hiring all illegals down in the southern part of the country. i just don't find that to be true. the workforce is very thin right now. and just to drive a truck in my

hometown, drive a truck in the oil fields is $100,000 a year. so it's not like that people in the south are using illegals to drive the cost of labor down. the cost of labor is very high. most people that i know, most business owners are trying to follow the law. the government just can't tell us who is legal and who is not illegal. >> second caller has brought up the idea of impeachment. speaker boehner talked about this yesterday. can you talk about what's been going on in your conference when it comes to the idea of impeachment? >> actually nothing. this president, the speaker has said for the last three years that he's not going to bring anything to the floor. there have been people clamoring for it out in the district. there are people talking about it around the country. the main people talking about it right now are the democrats. they raised $2 million over the weekend talking about that for political issues. >> their campaign committees? >> absolutely. the democrat national committee or the dccc used the issue to inflame their side.

so i don't see much going on in our conference at all right now. it's not like we're down huddled in the basement talking about the impeachment. >> virginia texan on dwiter, wants me to go back to reid, talking about your border bill, possibly being used as a vehicle for comprehensive immigration reform. and wants to talk about some of the tactics of that. he said, would reid's attempts to attach amnesty scuttle your bill for good? >> i don't -- i don't see that that would happen. sometimes it looks like the senate does not want to solve the problems. we continue to pass bills. they just languish there in the senate. and if the senator is threatening that he's going to put an amnesty bill on this attempt to solve a short-term problem, that's exactly what's making people angry across the country. and they're justifiably angry because they just see the games being played here. everyone knows we have a problem. we need to solve it.

it's going to take money. we're willing to fund what it takes. but we need to remember that these are human lives we're talking about, and as the senate plays games with the politics of it, then these human lives are being disresulted. >> joann is up next, calling in from damascus, maryland, on our line for democrats. good morning. you're on with congressman pearce. >> caller: good morning. you know, i think this whole thing comes down to a fear of the browning of america. i think there's a lot of white backlash over this. and i have a feeling that if these were english men and english children fleeing unspeakable violence and grinding poverty in their country, we would welcome them with open arms. what i hear from the republican side is things like, they're bringing in diseases. they're diseases, oh, my god. my god, you know, trying to strike fear in the hearts of people. calling -- and you just did it yourself, calling them, quote, illegallies. as if they're no humanity to

them. illegal is an adjective. it's not a noun. and i am just outraged that these children, these children, are thought of as vermin and diseased and somehow they're going to pollute our society, that kind of thing. they're escaping. they're escaping horrendous violence. they're refugees, and we should be taking care of them. >> congressman pearce, do you want to respond? >> joann, i probably represent more non-cuban hispanics than any republican in congress. my district is 52%. i'm very well aware of the cultural mix that is going on in mexico. we have about 400 years of cultures working together. in fact, it's joann, i think, who is the one using the striking adjectives about things that would cause fear. i don't hear that in our conference. i don't see the republicans sitting there making these

issues. i hear democrats who make them issues. then to the matter that people are escaping grinding poverty, i understand that. but i saw about a billion people in china that are in grinding poverty. there's another billion in india. i'm asking if joann would use the resources of this country for everyone out there? we have people in this country who are in grinding poverty, too, and at some point, we say, what resources do we have and what can we deal with? very sympathetic to anyone who wants to come here and make a better life. it's just that there are limited number of resources, a limited number of jobs to go around. to bring everyone here and at some point, we have no prosperity left. that's the question i think everyone has to answer at the end of the day. >> sir, tell us how well those getting asylum are treated. be honest and tell people the

benefits that they get at taxpayer expense. >> well, many of the people are coming to my district, we have about 700 in artesian new mexico. was just talking to a health care provider the artisan, mexiy said they were bringing the children down if they have a sickness or a cough or whatever, they bring them into the emergency room. they are seeing them locally. everyone is being fed. they're being housed. family units are held together. if they request asylum or express fear, they're being given a prompt hearing. these are things making america stand out and i think people are being treated fairly. and i have seen on tv, i hadn't visited the locations, but where they're holding people in the

gymnasiums and our limitations are be split. >> you are getting ready to head home for a five-week district work period. how much of your time are spending down along the border in your district? >> we have about 70,000 square miles. we are like a windshield wiper. we sweep back and forth across the district. we'll be in fletzie where the family units are being held now and two or three trips into there. and down in the border region or two three times. but i'll be 3 hup miles from the border. we have a very big district and will move the way across it. >> gary is waiting to talk to you from georgia on our line or democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. what are the percentage of people coming across the southern border and what

percentage are flying in or cross the northern board? which one is the worst? >> well both boarders are very unsecure. and when we talk about border security, we should be talking about north and south. many terrorists came across there. right now the flood is from the south, because it is the easiest border to get to but the northern border is equally hope and gary is drawing a point there, that we need to concentrate on both borders. >> has your bill or other bills go to securing the northern border that you are talking about? >> the bill that is coming before us right now is just to deal with the flood across the southern boarder and is a very specific bill to target that specific policy problem. the securing of the northern border becomes a longer range

thing. in fact it is in the job of the border patrol but i don't think it happens. i don't think either border is very secure, frankly. >> is there any estimate of what it would take to bring the north rn border up to the level you would like to see. >> i think just a change in the culture and the border patrol n. a border district, i spent time, even under the bush administration, so as i talk about the change in culture, this pre-dates president obama, president bush, we have gotten into this problem over a long period of time. both parties, both administrations. and so president bush doubled the border patrol and i can tell you from visiting with the ranchers on the border, they say border security did not increase at all. that they say -- the ranchers say you won't secure the border until you drive east and west. in other words north and south is how theyee the vehicle -- how

they see the vehicles moving. we had to bring tremendous pressure in the bush administration to patrol the border itself. many times they would be on the highway, which is five to 75 miles from the border and people closer to that border on the paved road said what about us. and finally they put an atv track along the fence but it wasn't something that the culture of the border patrol just did and i think we have plenty of resources. we doubled them, let's just get them focused on the job. agents tell us they spend six to seven hours a day on paperwork, that is something i think the national guard could do, go down and do the paperworks and let those trained be on the border. >> and part of your bill dropped yesterday involves opening up land held by the department of the interior as well as to border patrols. can you talk about that.

>> sure. the good example is the oregon pipe national monument on the border with mexico and big signs tell americans not to go in there because it is too dangerous and it gives the immigrants unlimited access to our boarders and our bill simply says that border agencies will have access to these federal lands. it is one of the biggest issues we're facing along the border and it just gives the unlimited access into land so that americans are unsafe there. >> and what do you say to groups who accuse you of trying to loosen environmental restrictions in that area. >> i would say they are either using it as a political argument with no substance or they haven't been to the border. just take a look. you can google it. look at the backpacks and environmental chaos that is caused when millions of people are coming through the national

parks and the national monuments and destroying things. we have in the sequoia national monument there are limits where people are not allowed to backpack into certain areas because the cartels are raising pot back in those and they have shotgun and triggers wired up and you walk in there and they blow your head off. we say don't go back into these areas. that doesn't look like environmental areas are being considered to. that is not a good argument they are bringing. >> we'll get to your calls. dave is calling in from wisconsin on our line from independents. go ahead. >> caller: you have to have a social security number for them to work and pay taxes for somebody. you need to start throwing the employers in jail that, you know, hire people that are illegal. it is very simple.

you guys can fix this. you have to have a social security number. you can figure that out right away if it is valid or if one is not. if somebody else is using it. it is easy. and when you take away the employment, people won't come. you could fix this problem a long time ago. >> again, one of the big businesses is stealing social security numbers or picking them up and using them, the social security administration themselves can't tell who is legal and who is not. holding employers accountable when the government can't do its job is not my idea of freedom or the way to fix the problem. the government should make sure they can tell employers who is legal and who is not. when i first got here in 20002-3, there was a news release of about 3 million, blank social security cards that

were stolen. you have a card cry ated back -- created back 300 years ago and there is no modern technology or no chips on it. these are agencies that are working 100 years behind times and they don't know how to stop the fraud themselves. so again, you can say that employers are the problem, but until you can tell employers what is a legal social security when it looks exactly like the next one and who has stolen a card, that is a very hard position to put our employers in. and if we had some way, if we had a thumbprint, retina scan where people could come in, okay, you're not here illegal, and you're here on a work permit. fine. now put the employers under great sanctions. but until the government can do its job and tell us who is legal and who is not. you put a burden on people when it is not clear. >> and one of your fellow border

states. laredo, texas. steve is on the line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. my question is with the man power of the border patrol, yet our strategy has changed since the bast 2012, it has gone more intel base. how do you think that impacts our border? i think it has drawn more of our guys [ inaudible ] into office positions and not manning the line. i think that is a big issue. but i don't know that our strategy -- what the american people need, rather than what they want. >> steve was on the point i made a minute or two ago. but it pre-dated 2012, the same paperwork requirements under the bush administration. i raised questions with the president and secretary cher tof

and we need legal immigration. it was constituents of mine that would see their cows being pulled across the border and they couldn't get them and there was no border patrol and they were 50 miles north and it was us pushing pressure on the administration. it is a culture that has existed for i don't know how long. retired border agents tell me they used to secure the border with a lot less people. so i think it is a culture that says we are not putting the resources on the border and we'll have you doing paperwork and not out there doing a job. i think steve has an adequate point. >> del ray beach, florida. margaret on the line for independents. >> caller: good morning, congressman.

i am married to an immigrant. it is -- i'll tell you, my husband and i had to come across a long process. we came to florida in the 80s. my husband thought it was a privilege to work in this country. he worked two and three jobs while he tried to learn the language. we have borders and laws. we never thought it was nasty or an untenable burden, while we got married, had to follow the law. and this idea, and i work in florida, i can till, i work with persons with disabilities, i can tell you that you can go in several, and you know this from where you are, you can go in stores where you will not meet a person who speaks eng blish in the back -- english in the back of a store. out of many, one. they come here and this idea they are all enjoying the

american dream, what do you do if you don't have the language, they are in low-paying jobs, and my husband owns his own business now partly because he followed the law and he became american. he didn't stop being a brazilian. this ridiculous idea that oh, well if you are a republican or a conservative you must hate brown people. which janet said. i agree with you. i think we should tell these brain trusts how many bills are sitting in the senate. >> thanks, margaret. appreciate that. and again, the idea that we can't talk openly and honestly about the situation is one that is penalizing the country greatly. i think your husband's story is one of many immigrants. they come here for a better life. they come here to feed their families and that i'm extremely sensitive to. but there is a legal process to do that and we need to follow the legal process. no other nation in the world allows borders to be just so

openly violated and so are we to be the only one with open borders. there is about 6 billion people in the world. we can't feed 6 billion people. we have people who have paid taxes in this country and they have a right to receive the resources and ref the benefits they've been promised before someone else is brought in and saying that we'll take your benefits and redistribute them here. it is a big question for the country right now. >> to new hampshire, george is waiting on our line for republicans. good morning, george. >> caller: good morning and good morning, representative. >> good morning. >> we hear a lot of people over the last few months, since it's become such a big issue, just enforce the laws that are on the books already. i don't know how many times you heard that but i keep hearing that over and over and over again. but yet few have taken the time necessary to explain what are the laws on the books and perhaps if you could take a minute or three days, depending

upon how convoluted this has become and explain to us the basic laws that are on the books and if, in fact, they do meet the need and why we're stretching this out to the point of a ridiculous argument that goes on day after day and year after year and maybe we could have some help. what are the laws that are on the books, and i'll hang up. thank you. >> thanks, george. first of all, you have to have permission to come into the country. that is one of the basic laws. and you can come here and request asylum in my district, as an example, of how the law is being enforced right now. the president and secretary johnson, deputy secretary, i've talked to both the secretary and the deputy secretary and they say they are trying to enforce the laws. bringing in people, family units and we'll give them a speedy hearing if they are requesting asylum and then we'll return

them. so the flights carrying people back to honduras, and other areas, people get a lawyer and get a hearing date and they get their case heard. and if they find that there is reason for credible fear, then they are given the process, they put into the process for asylum. if they are not, then they are asked to go ahead and return to the country and we repatriate them to the country. the two nations that we visited asked to send our children back. we can't give up that next generation of our culture. and so when we think that we are doing somebody here a favor, we're actually robbing the human resources, the human talent from other countries. and that is something that we just can't ignore. >> and who are those people in other countries that -- >> we visited all the way up to the president. we had meetings with u.s. agencies, visited with people on the streets but all the way up

to the president in hondurass. it was the president and the first lady. >> there is a new poll out today on the border issues and want to get your sense of what you make of this poll. it notes that most americans surveyed in the poll released on tuesday said the united states should give shelter to children from central america coming here illegal without their parents, 69% of respondents said that the children should be treated as refugees and should be allowed to stay if authorities determine it is not safe for them to return to their home country. about a quarter of americans in the survey, 27%, said that minors should be treated as illegal immigrants and deported to their home countries. >> yeah, so, again, that is what we're using the humanitarian assistant for. we have the bill that said we will house and feed the children. i think everyone would agree with the humanitarian aspect of it. now whether or not we can take

everyone who comes here, whether or not we should go down and start giving plane loads travel into here, those are bigger questions and questions of what can we sustain and when people then have to address the question of how much are you willing to do, how much are you willing to give to make this happen, that becomes a different question. >> in burke, virginia. dean, good morning, you are on with congressman pearce. >> caller: good morning. thank you for being on the show. >> thanks. >> caller: i do believe we should come up with something like verifying sign so they can be identified and if a employer hires them, so it is not as much easier. but my big point is there are scores that hire them, like

contractors or somebody mentioned before, the people in the back of the shop that don't speak english. these are folks hired under the table and we are not collecting the taxes from the employers. there is so much going on there in my opinion that makes it a bigger problem. now, question for you. you had mentioned before that the democrats are bringing up impeachment and the democrats are the ones bringing up the diseases the kids are bringing over and everything, and perhaps it is not up to republican politicians, but do you believe that, like fox news and sarah palin and outfits like those are driving the issue and i'll take that answer off the air if i could. >> they may be. i don't know. but i don't see republicans in the congress consumed with the issue. we're simply trying to govern the country the best we can on the issue of diseases. there is credible fear there.

just one of the questions that i get in artesia a lot, what about this. they've had suspected cases of t.b. yet, a couple of people put into quarantine for chicken pox and i think there are legitimate questions to ask about that and i don't see the republicans being the one to do the fear mongering. i don't know if fox news is driving and i suspect they are responding to a vain of tremendous concern and i think if people are put into any community, democrat, republican or independent, you see states saying you are not going to put kids -- put people in our school systems, not in our state. those are democrat states and as well as republican states so i think there are -- there is definitely a national opinion when it comes down to bringing the possibilities of anything

into your community right now. one of the problems that we face is the educational problem. when we're in guatemala, i think it is less than half of the people who actually speak spanish. there are 22 or 32 different dialects of the mayan language. not even guatemala can speak to all of their citizens. so what are we going to do to provide an education for those minor dialects here, yet we're required to give an education. many questions come up that strain the resources of local kmoobities -- communities and they have the right to speak up. >> michigan is next, ed on the line. >> caller: for that caller, i have two comments. this country is built for cheap labor. slavery for 200 years. he and his wife have owned a small business and yet this

guy -- [ inaudible ] worth $22 million. and we have in congress a bunch of millionaires and they're not looking out for the average american. that is my comment for today. >> well, i would just take issue with the fact that people in congress are doing nothing for average citizens. this year, 17 ranters were kicked off for their allotments. those are private property rights that the forest service has been given and were kicked off and our office and the congresswoman from albuquerque went in and took a look and there was no need for that and the forest service reinstated everyone there. and likewise we have areas of high, high wages in about 250 miles away we have areas of low income and low wages so we took some companies over to the low-wage area and hired people and now they get housing back on

the east side so they're working to -- two weeks a month on the east side of the state and go back home for a week. we're just doing what we can to make things happen for everyday, regular people. for myself, every day i serve, i think i'm serving people like my mom and dad. my dad was a share cropper when i was born. he went broke doing that when i was a year and a half old. moved to the oil fields and took a job at the lowest level and stayed there his entire working life. they didn't know one political thing. so when i represent, i think i'm representing people exactly like mom and dad. they had a right to raise their kids, they just wanted the government to stay out of the way and let them go to work every day and they would provide for their families. and so i find my service falling along those lines. >> crowley, louisiana, joe on our line for democrats.

good morning. >> caller: good morning. i want to talk about -- >> joe, are you with us? >> caller: yes. i want to talk about the immigration border problem and stuff like that. why can we use people to pick cotton and do our land and stuff, [ inaudible ] and then call them immigrants and don't want to make them legal? >> joe, i think that the main question is, at what point do we stop? every country has limitations on how many people can come from outside. that is basically because of the jobs, the economy will only support a certain population. for instance, china has about 1.5 billion people in a country about the size of the united states. two thirds of the people live in abject poverty. they are a middle class developing but many people are

poor. i've travelled there and i've seen that. and i've traveled to india, a country about the size of the u.s., about a billion people there, largest middle class in the country but still abject poverty. so the idea that the u.s. or any country could be the place for all of the world's poor to go, that just economically can't work and what kind of a human consideration is that if we can, if we were to take the brightest and best from every other country, we rob them of their future. many times i tell the mexico kids, the worst that mexico does is export the children. we educate them, we have them hard working and they go make a good economy in another state and just yesterday i was encouraging people, come back home and make your future in mexico. yes we're 47th per capita income, but with good human capita and good people entering the work force, we can compete

with other states. so whether it is people immigrated from new mexico or el salvador to next and that is a credible question to put in front of the american people. i think right now the polls, regardless of the one you showed, john, i think the polls said we must get control of the situation. we can't allow the world to flood in across open borders. i think that is the essential question. >> dan is waiting to talk to you in iron ridge, wisconsin, on our line for republicans. good morning, dan. >> caller: good morning. i have two quick comments. when congress comes to an impasse, i believe that the american people should be able to get the vote, the chance to get the vote. that way the bill passes. that way nobody is arguing with each other. the second quick comment is i don't believe these immigrants should be able to vote unless they are u.s. citizens because i

believe obama is pulling them over the border to get a vote. and that's it. >> dna, can i ask you for a second. hold a referendum every time congress is deadlocked? >> i wouldn't say every time. only when the bill -- only when the bills are very important, such as immigration and things like that. so -- um, yeah, i think the public should be able to take a vote and nothing happens and the situation gets serious, i believe you should pass the bill so the public has a choice to make the vote. >> dan, there are definite upsides and downsides to what you are suggesting. that comes closer to a purer democrat than what we have. we have a republic. but when we were facing the government shutdown in the middle of the night and we had to pass a bill, this was about a year before the actual shut down, my comment to the speaker was, nobody wants to shut the government down, but if it does, why don't we simply, during that

period, reboot -- call for a reboot and let the american people look at the 12 or 13 different appropriation bills. we let them assess them line by line, we take a month for each one and to get rebooted and put back into the system that would require at least a four-star rating by 5 or 6 million people. at some point i think americans are going to take a look and take a close look at the way that their tax dollars are being utilized and the wasted programs and duplications. we could easily cut hundreds of billions of out of the budget just by taking care of duplications and another couple million through the fraud that happens in social security, medicare and medicaid. and i think the american people are going to insist we get it right here. but that is one of the areas where i had suggested to the speaker, why don't we do this. we go online and let people vote

on it. i don't know that it will ever happen, but dan brings up an interesting point. >> last caller in this segment. charles is calling from ft. collins, colorado on our line for independents. >> caller: good morning. i maybe missed some of the conversation, but it seems in colorado here, as an example, we had i.c.e. came in and deported many of the illegal people here and the farmers here were screaming because their product was rotting on the line and everybody was yelling, hey, just hire americans and they're like, well the americans won't do these jobs. and when they do, they do it for a short period and they quit. but it just seems like -- i think you mentioned the e-verify system, that seems to be the only way to handle this, is to implement that system in there so when -- and then put the own

us on the employers and have heavy fines escalating as they get caught doing this. because the people are only coming here for jobs. and many of the people that are here are here on visas. they came here illegally -- legally, they just didn't come over the border. they came here legally and just ended up staying here. so that seems to me the only thing you could do is put the own us on the employers. >> charles, want to give the congressman a chance to respond. >> charles, i think you're talking about our immigration laws are broken, so for me when i talk immigration in mexico. i say we have a problem and after we secure the border we need to reform immigration and it takes up to 14 years to get a citizen and i think we can do it smoother and then we can address

the people already here. there are many different suggestions. myself, i think that guest worker program is absolutely needed. there are people who can't find workers, even with 7% and 8% unemployment, employers were saying we can't find people to work. so we need to address those three things, the situation that exists today as a culmination of decades of just letting the system go. i think everybody is screaming for us to fix the problem and start fixing it right. i'm on board with that. >> congress steve pearce, a republican from new mexico. appreciate you joining us this morning. >> thank you, i've enjoyed it. >> on the next washington jurnel, keith ellison talked about israeli and palestinian conflict and then tom rice discusses president obama. plus your facebook and tweets.

live on thursday at 9:15 p.m. the next open enrollment for buying a health care plan starts november 15th and ends february 15th. hear testimony about whether the government's website will be ready for the enrollment process. you can see that hearing live starting at 9:15 a.m. eastern here on cspan3. and later remarks from a former palestinian prime minister on violence between the israelis and palestinians. he'll speak at the atlantic counsel starting live at 3:30 p.m. eastern, also on cspan3. >> sunday on book tv's in depth. former republican congressman from texas and presidential can dade ron -- candidate ron paul,

the latest the school revolution. join the conversation as he takes your calls and tweets. and tune in next month for mary francis berry. in october, john bis cubic discussed court sessions. and michael corda is our guest in november and in december, musician arthur brooks. in depth on cspan3, our discussion for serious readers. >> and more on the discussion of the latest congressional issues, including the highway trust fund, birth control and health care and immigrant children crossing the southern border. this is 45 minutes. >> and we're joined now by colorado democratic congresswoman diana deget. i want to pick up on the comment

we were just talking about on the situation of the u.s. mexico border. house and republican leaders released their own border bill yesterday. it was far below the funding level that senate democrats were looking at and has a few policy provision changes in there as well. i wanted to get your reaction to that bill? >> of course the president's proposal was for emergency funding for dealing with these children. many of whom are refugees coming across the border. and that's money we needed to house them, to get them through the legal system to figure out their status and to either get them placed with family members here or send them home. so to come up with so much of a lower amount of money seems to me that what the house leadership is doing, is just kicking the can down the road more because we're going to have the same crisis later in the fall. we need that money to help deal with the situation. >> and what do you think will happen this week on the border issue and does any legislation

get moved this week? >> well we need to move legislation. but i think that the democrats are going to be very reluctant to support something that is so much lower than the president's proposal. and also has the policy provisions in it. we would have been willing to support something lower than the president's proposal if it really made a difference and helped us deal with this situation. but i'm not sure how this is really going to be able to have us help the situation. >> and another bill and subject that is being talked about this week, possible movement of the highway trust fund, efforts to continue to fund that. a headline from the hill newspaper says the highway bill back to the house on tuesday and sent back the house bill that was passed with pretty overwhelming support with some changes putting the legislation of the hill notes up in the air with only three days left to act before the august recess.

what do you think happens with the highway trust fund? >> this is a bill that we have to pass before we leave. the last thing we need, as this economy is starting to recover, is to have congress not pass the legislation and to have highway projects around the country actually start to stop working. and that would be devastating for our economy. and i think it is a must-pass legislation. the house sent the senate a bill and the house sent it back. and the senate bill does fund the highway trust fund through the end of the year and that is a good thing and gives congress enough time to come up with a complete reauthorization. but i've got to say, again, i feel like we're kicking the can down the road again. we are not really tackling the big problems and fixing them in a way that will benefit the american public. >> so do you think having this fix last through december would be better so you can address a

longer term fix then or give yourself more time like the house bill does and address it mid-next year. >> i think we should address it as soon as possible. i think we need a permanent solution. >> this is a chart from the department of transportation on the highway trust fund, showing the cash balances getting down to zero as the projection by august 29th. what does that mean for colorado, if it gets there? >> well this is what i'm saying, is we have highway projects all across the country and of course we have a lot of them in colorado. in my state, the snow will start to fly in september. and so we have to complete a lot of these highway projects before it snows. and these roads get shut down, some of them. so it is really important that we do that before we leave. and to be honest, i don't think we should leave until we get it done. >> and a recent release from your office on this notes that close to half of the colorado department of transportation

$1.1 billion in annual budget comes from forward funding so obviously an issue for colorado. we have congresswoman diana degette taking your questions an comments as we talk about the end of session activities before congress. will start with amy calling in from texas on our line for independents. amy, good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> go ahead, amy. >> caller: i wanted to say about the children on the border, the people that are getting together to help these children or to put them in foster care should be ashamed. the foster care system that we have now is so broken, most of the trafficked kids now come from the foster system. where were they before when the children that were already here were being put into horrible homes and horrible places? do they not matter as much as

the immigrant children? >> amy, i care about all children. i'm the mother of two myself. and many of these kids who are coming up from central america are refugees, many of them have actual family members who live here in the united states. some of them are not. and what we need to do about this is -- it's a multi-prong solution. first of all, we need to get the kids into a stable situation while we figure out their legal status. then we need to get them lawyers and figure out what their legal status is. some of the kids, i've heard horror stories, 14-year-old girls who have been basically given to the cartels for prostitution. and it takes a while to sort that out. but then the third thing we need to do is either find them placement with their families here, if they are determined to be ref umgys or if -- refugees

or if they have families here or if not, send them back to the country where they came from. and the other solution, and i think this is an important one, is continuing efforts in working with both mexico and the central american countries to make sure these kids don't come here in the first place. because it's a long and very, very treacherous road and many children have died. if you think about it, as a mom, if you think about that journey they are taking, it is heartbreaking. so to work with mexico on enforcement at their southern border and to work with the other countries to -- so they can let their citizens know they should not be sending their children unaccompanied to the united states. >> ricardo is in buoy, maryland on our line for democrats. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing. >> good, ricardo. >> caller: i'm calling, i'm frustrated and mad to hear the republicans and people calling up talking about the bills that

we hold up. can you tell some of the filibusters the republicans have done versus the bills that -- it is a much higher number than that. could you explain that. >> i'm in the house and not in the senate so we don't have the filibuster system in the house. but i will tell you that in the house, of course under the leadership of speaker boehner and the republicans, we've had the least productive congress ever in the house. and of course, this week now we're getting ready to leave for a five-week august recess. and in october, they've scheduled another five-week recess because of the elections. my opinion is we should be working hard on creating jobs for the middle class. this highway bill is a good example of something we need to pass. but we need to be doing other things. we need to pass the

appropriations bills, look at education. there is a lot that we could be doing and some days i just feel like we're treading water. so, you're right, it has been a very unproductive congress just at a time when we could be tackling the issues that could benefit the american public. >> one of the things you are doing before you leave for recess, there is a hearing scheduled for tomorrow in the energy and commerce oversight and investigation sub-committee where you are ranking -- where your ranking member there on the affordable care act. what do you expect to hear during that hearing. >> we've had a series of hearings on the affordable care act in that committee. i'm not sure if it will add anything new. i'm hoping that next year, after we've had a year of the affordable care act, that the over sight sub-committee will actually start looking at some of the data that is coming out to see how many people have been enrolled, and to see -- how many

people are enrolled to see where it is working and where it is not working. any time you do a overhaul of the health care system like this, you are bound to have issues come up. and i think rather than voting to repeal obama care 53 times, we should look at the bill to see how we can fix it and make insurance more accessible for americans. >> when you say you are not sure what new will come up. are you saying that the oversights in the committee haven't been productive so far? >> i would say in the oversight sub-committee, hearing on the affordable care act, for the most part they are gotcha type of attempts to show it is not working or whatever. and i'm not expecting a lot of new information to come out. >> that hearing is scheduled for 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. on the phones, gene is waiting in sterling, michigan on our line for independents. good morning, jean. >> caller: good morning. i want to make a statement

before i start with immigration. the house has passed almost 400 bills, haven't they, that are sitting on harry reid's desk that he won't let go into the senate. so it is not really the house that is holding up stuff. and that is the only statement i want to make about that. as far as immigration, we have a national security crisis. it is not just about the children. this is about the open border that we've got anything and everything crossing without -- i mean, our border patrol is busy with the kids. how are they going to secure this? >> jean, thank you for that question. the first thing is, i don't know how many bills the house has passed but most of the bills that the house has passed, in my opinion, are sorted of ideological message bills that everybody knows have no chance

of passing. there have been very few bipartisan pieces of legislation that have passed the house that could be taken up in the senate. and so just because -- just because a bill passes, doesn't mean it becomes law and that is what i'm saying. i don't think it is really worth people playing the blame game, except for the fact that if you want a bill to pass and really become law, you should work in a bipartisan way. i'm working right now, and i'm happy to talk about it, i'm working on a bill with chairman fred upton, chairman of the commerce committee, a republican. and it is called 21st century cures and it is a very big attempt to restructure our health care system -- health care research at the national institutes of health and then drug and device approval at the food and drug administration so that we can get cures from the

lab right to the patient as fast as we can. and this has been a very big bipartisan effort that we've been undertaking all summer and last spring too. so there are some things happening in a bipartisan way. but i think there should be a lot more. with respect to the question, jean, that you ask about the border, i think you're right. any sovereign country has got to have a strong border. which is why i support comprehensive immigration reform that will both give regular order to the 11 million people who are here, who are not on a documented status. but will also give strong border enforcement. i think both of those things are important. and that is why i was very disappointed that speaker boehner decided not to bring up the comprehensive immigration bill that the senate passed on a bipartisan basis. and so that is something that i think could really help. the issue with the children at

the border is an immediate emergency that we are trying to deal with right now. this surge of children that came here mostly from central america throughout the spring and summer. and many of them were escaping cartel violence or servitude or worse. but some of them were just coming because their parents sent them here. that's a problem that we need to deal with. in addition to passing comprehensive immigration reform. >> if you are just joining us, we're talking to congresswoman diana degette, democrat from colorado. representing the first district of colorado in her ninth term in the house of representatives here to answer your questions and comments as congress wraps up the week of business before heading home for a five-week recess at the end of this week. let's go to sal in brooksville, florida, on our line for republicans. sal, good morning. >> caller: good morning. yeah, on the highway bill,

basically, i don't mind doing construction on the highways but it seems over the years the construction companies have taken too long to complete a simple project. we have a construction project going down through here which is federally funded and one thing i protest about is them putting up lights up -- everywhere they are upgrading the roads. there is no need for the light systems. people are getting accustomed to light systems even though at one time the stars used to be enough to see. but the lights everywhere, it is urban sprawl that everybody has the lights to see. >> sal, what i would say is if you have an objection to the way they are building the highway, call your local congress person's office or call your highway department and ask them, i'm sure there is some highway engineers that would say that is a safety factor but i really can't speak to the issues around local highway construction.

>> on twitter, my lan burk writes in his comment about the affordable care act and the hearing this week. another hearing on the aca? more meetings, more hearings, more money, no results. fire the people in charge -- he says the republicans. let's go to armond in lakeland, florida on our line for independents. >> good morning. i just want to put the kid as side, put them aside. this country can take care of all of the kids that come to the border. if the border was secure we could see who are kids and the adults with the border secure. i would love to talk to the gentleman that just got off of c-span and ask him, when he decided, well the e verify program wouldn't work, it would work but the problem is all small businesses are too big to fail because they have the cheap labor. the cheap labor is what -- and

it is democrats and republicans. because if you listen to everybody, everybody wants comprehensive immigration, they want to let all of the illegals that are here now stay in the country and get themselves status so they could work. well that is for all small businesses of too big to fail. >> congress, we'll let you jump in. >> let me say that immigration reform would include a number of issues. it would include securing the border, which is important. but it would also then, for people who have been here for a long time, they would get in the back of the line of people waiting to become citizens, they would pay a penalty and they would be able to -- to go on a path to citizenship. but then also, what it would do, is it would set up a visa program so that agricultural workers or in my state of colorado, ski workers and other temporary workers could get

visas to work here so they wouldn't have to come here illegally. i was telling representative pearce, as he was leaving, that in colorado i've been approached by many, many farmers who have said to me, we really need to have comprehensive immigration reform because we need to be able to get workers to work in our fields and we don't have enough u.s. citizens who want to do that work. well rather than bringing them in illegally, we should bring the workers in and give them temporary work visas and let them do that. same thing with the businesses. the ski areas in colorado have been calling me and saying, we really need comprehensive immigration reform. in fact, in my state, one of the biggest proponents of the comprehensive bill has been the business community. >> in kentucky is next, ken is on the line for indedeends.

you are line. >> caller: i just changed my question after listening to the last response. if you grant temporary work visas for already that is here, you don't know who is here. so would you be willing to agree with president obama if he does grant temporary work visas for the 11 million people plus and you don't know who they are. >> i'm not advocating we give temporary work visas to everybody here. i'm advocating that we pass comprehensive immigration reform which has a variety of ways. but what that would do is it would help identify the 11 million people here who right now are many under the radar screen because they are afraid they would be arrest and deported. we don't know who those people are. if we had the comprehensive bill, they could come forward and get in line to try to get citizenship. again, the back of the line, with paying a penalty or apply for visas or a variety of other

things. but it is just not a very tenable position to have 11 million people here who are in the shadows of our society. >> ken, did that clear up the congresswoman's position or did you have a follow up. >> caller: the follow up, because the president is supposedly going to grant the temporary worker visa over the summer. and i'm just wondering what the democrats are going to say about it if he does grant the temporary visas for the 11 million plus. because you still don't know who the visas are. >> i haven't seen that proposal. >> to martin waiting in trenton, new jersey, on our line for democrats. martin, good morning. martin, are you with us? >> caller: yes. >> go ahead. >> i want to ask the congress woman, i am a democrat and i think that a lot of these immigrants are coming here take america for granted because i think we have more on -- laws on

our book that says you are not supposed to be illegal, but i think a lot of them come here to get -- get a benefit. and i think that americans will do a lot of the jobs that you say the americans won't do. i just think that we won't do it for the pay that the immigrants will do it for. >> well, you know, we're a country of immigrants. i'm the grand daughter of immigrants from russia and ireland. and i think that most of the people who have come to this country have come from immigrants. and so we have to figure out how to allow new people to come in that makes our economy robust and it makes us who we are as the united states of america. but at the same time, i don't think we can have a situation where we have a whole bunch of people here working in the shadow society. and i would actually argue that if you gave them a regular

status, either a green card or a temporary visa or something. it would require employers to pay them at a rate that would be equivalent to any other worker. right now, what we're seeing is, in agricultural sectors for example, in colorado i heard about some people that they would hire them at a very low wage, because they were undocumented. and so they figured they would just have to take whatever they could get. so that employers hire them at a very low wage. and then at the end of the pay period, they said, you know, we're not going to pay you and what are you going to do about it? you're illegal. that is just not the right thing to do. to take advantage of the workers. but also it disadvantages u.s. workers that might want that because the employers are paying people on the black market. so i actually would argue that if we put everything in a -- everybody in a regular status it

would help with the americans that want those jobs. >> and wayne from pennsylvania is on the line for republicans. good morning, sir. >> caller: good morning. how are you? >> good. >> caller: and i'll ask these questions, this diana there. how would you rate the united states in the world today? one, two, three, four, five? >> one is best and five is worst? >> okay here is my question. >> no, is that what you are saying? i want to know the standards here wayne. >> no. you're right. >> okay. >> caller: my question is this. and everybody is talking about immigration, immigration, secure the border. secure the border. the united states being number one or number five, we could put people on the moon, we could put -- libber at afghanistan, iraq and pakistan with our armies but yet we cannot close the border to our own country.

come on. i can have that border secured in one week. all you have to do is close the border to mexico and that president from mexico will be at our border begging us to reopen it again for all of the trade that we do with them, all of the touri tourism. >> because we talk about these things. and we have a grand tradition of democrats, republicans, unaffiliated voters and independents, all have a robust

debate that we can have right here on c-span or anyplace else in our communities and we can try to come some kind of consensus around these tough issues. and that is why i'm proud to be an american and why i'm proud to be a member of the u.s. congress. because as hard as it is every day, we hammer these things out until we fix it and until it is equitable. and i think part of the reason why we have that great country is because we have such a diversity. if you travel around the world to other countries as i have, both privately and in my role as a congresswoman, i see these other countries and i love it, i love going there, but you know what, there is not the kind of diversity or the robust debate in many of those places that we have here. and i'm always happy to come home. and i think we should all be proud of that. >> brooklyn, new york is next. robert is on our line for republicans. good morning, robert. >> caller: good morning. i have two questions.

the news that [ inaudible ] was fleeing because of the cartel and they are [ inaudible ]. what is the american government doing with that and concerning the war with palestine, will they take some of the risks as they slaughter so many leaders an children in pakistan? >> so, with respect to the children who are coming here, many of those children are fleeing from their countries because of the violence and the cartels. and some of those children have either been sold or given into either prostitution or as mules or other tools of the cartel. and so they are coming here and really refugees from those situations and we have to figure that out. but some of them are coming here

because their families are so desperately poor, the families think they can have a better life in the united states. and of course, if they are not refugees, they are not entitled to come here legally and they will be sent home. and so i -- i think that i just met with the consul general of colorado last week in my office in denver and we talked about how mexico can help us both secure the southern border of mexico so those kids don't come across that border to begin with. but also how we can work together to let the -- and with the presidents of those countries, to let their citizens know they shouldn't be sending their children on this treacherous journey, but also they need to work together to try to eliminate those cartels and that violence that those children are subject to. with respect to israel and

palestine. that is a terrible situation and i know that secretary kerry is there trying to help negotiate a cease-fire. and i hope and pray that works, because it is a bad situation in both directions. and obviously obviously nobody wants to see the violence that we've been seeing there. >> we wanted to ask you about a bill you cosponsored in the wake of the hobby lobby decision by the supreme court. a bill that would inr inhibit employeers to deny health coverage in the affordable care act. what's next for your house version? >> well, we've introduced the house bill and members who agree that women and their families should be able to decide their birth control not their employers. we're going to be going out across the country in the august recess, talking to our constituents about why this is so impor t