screeria -- nigeria. -

obama's executive orders on immigration. and later, a hearing on home ownership and mortgage lending. >> at an event hosted by the center for american progress, state legislators from texas minnesota, and new jersey spoke about what their governments are doing to help the middle class. topics include the minimum wage and health care costs. this is just over an hour. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for braving the cold.

for those of you watching at home, we had a big snowstorm here in d.c., and it was difficult for a lot of people to get in, and we have a pretty full room considering the circumstances. so welcome to all of you. thank you to winnie. one of my first jobs in politics was here at the center for american progress when it was still just a fledgling organization with about -- i don't even remember at the time. but winnie was my boss here, and it was an honor to work for her. i learned so much from her, so thank you for the introduction and thank you for hosting us here today. so this panel and this conversation is about what's going on in the country. if you take a look currently at what's happening in washington, just last week, they're having snowball fights on the senate floor debating whether climate change actually exists. they're trying to figure out what parts of the government to shut down. it's not a serious conversation. and then when you go and you

look at what's happening in the country, there is a real fight for middle class and working class families that's going on. if you take a look right now in wisconsin, it's sort of ground zero in that, where they call the special election to talk about whether people, secretaries, you know, regular workers can get together to organize themselves to be able to fight for or negotiate for better wages, better workplace environment, that sort of thing. these types of things are happening all over the country. meanwhile, on our side, we are fighting every day. there is a group of state legislators here that we brought in from around the country that are legislative leaders who are on the front lines of this fight, and they're fighting every single day for working class and middle class families. if you look at what's happening in nevada, there is an equal pay measure there. in minnesota, there is a package

of bills that are protecting workers and advancing things like paid sick days, minimum wage increases, protecting wages. this is happening in all parts of the country, but it's something that we don't hear. and so the state innovation exchange which was created last year is to help organize and e k÷ work with state legislators on things like those issues, things that matter to everyday americans, things that matter to parents. as a parent, i care about the education that my kid gets. i care that they'll get wages. i care that my daughter is paid equally for the same job as a man when she enters into the work force. those things matter not only to me, but it matters to other americans. if you take a look, one of the silver linings of the midterm elections was that in places like my home state of nebraska, where i grew up, they voted --

they actively voted for pete ricketts who's very conservative for governor, but they also actively voted for a minimum wage increase. the same thing happened in arkansas. they voted against a personhood amendment in south dakota. we are, as progressives, right on the issues. and we want to take that fight and campaign and narrative to the states, which is why the state innovation exchange is launching a new campaign focused on middle class and working class families called opportunity works for us. it will be a way for us to work with legislators, to provide them technical communications and other supports, to be able to really advance and take this fight into the states and really support all of the work that they're doing. and that's what we're going to talk about today. we have a great group of panelists here from cap as well as some legislators from the state. we also have, as i mentioned, some state legislators here from around the country who i also hope will contribute to the conversation.

so let me start by introducing david madlin from the center of american progress. david is a director of the american worker project and the managing director of economic policy team. he's written extensively about the economy and american politics on a range of topics including retirement policy, labor unions and workplace standards such as the middle wage. his current work focuses on the importance of the middle class to the economy and democracy, as well as policies to restore the strength of the middle class. and on his right is melissa boteach. melissa is the vice president of the program of american progress. in this capacity she oversees american progress and analysis as well as the campaign to cut poverty in half in 10 years project. melissa served as the policy lead on the shriver report, a book and multimedia platform by maria shriver and cap about the

one in three women living in or on the brink of poverty, and the public private and personal solutions to help the nation push back. we also have here senate majority leader loretta weinberg from new jersey. she serves on the state committee and the government committee. she is a former member on the senate congress committee and the senate judiciary committee. to her left is representative jessica farrar from texas. representative farrar is currently serving her tenth term as state representative district 148. she was first elected in 1994 at the age of 27. she is the longest serving hispanic member from harris county in the texas house of representatives. rep farrar currently serves a as the vice chair to have the judiciary and civil juris jurisprudence committee and a member of the state affairs committee. rep farrar currently serves on the state committee and serves

as its chair. i'm going to hand it over to david to talk a little bit about what's happening with the american worker in the states and some ideas that cap has for how to advance this middle class working class agenda in the states. >> great. thanks, nick. do you want to join us? >> yeah, i'll be there in a second. >> thanks very much for letting me sort of, i think, frame this discussion, because what i want to focus on is why we are talking about the state of the middle class and what we can do about it, so we'll provide some big picture ideas. the center for american progress, we have long been focused on strengthening the middle class and we've been doing that for a couple of reasons. first, there are sort of obvious trends where the economy is only working for those at the very top. it is not working for the broad middle. let me highlight a few

indicators of those problems. first, there's the typical income that a typical family is taking home. and right now, that is lower than it was in 1989. that's two decades of stagnation or decline for most families. at the same time, the cost of basic middle class goods have risen significantly, you know. so we looked at, for example, just over the past decade, we looked at the cost of things like health care, child care, housing, higher education for a typical family, and we found that those costs had gone up by $10,000, the same time incomes were stagnant. that's putting a big squeeze on the middle class. not surprisingly, debt for the middle class has nearly tripled over the past several decades, so middle class is in quite rough shape. and that matters because -- not just for people suffering, but

really because this is how the economy works. the middle class are the basis for strong growth, and they are the consumers that purchase products that cause business to invest. they are the source of sort of a good democratic base, and right now we have this really fundamental debate about how the economy works. this progressive idea i've been talking about, how the economy grows from the middle out is a stark contrast to what has governed the way the economy has been run for the past three decades, which is this trickle-down idea. they make things as easy as possible for the rich, cut their taxes, cut their regulations, and the economy will grow. we've seen that's been a failure, and we have an alternative we've been pushing and developing, and it's proving to be correct. in fact, you have organizations like the international monetary fund coming out and saying the records of inequality we have are harming the u.s. economy. so that leads us to this place where people are struggling, it's harming our future growth. what can we do about it?

well, cap has spent a lot of time -- not you know, you might think of most of our work is on federal issues we've also done a lot on the state issues. and recently we put out a report on policies to rebuild the middle class in the states. and i'm going to highlight some of the main themes of that report. what i also want -- before i do that, we also -- this decline i've talked about is not inevitable. these policies we're working on matter significantly. and just to highlight that, we recently did this report called the inclusive prosperity commission where we had commissioners from around the world, from england, australia, canada and the u.s. leading economists and policymakers where this is a growing problem for many countries but not all. all countries face the same challenges of globalization and technology that harm the middle class in some, but some countries have done a great job with their policies and have had wage growth in the past decades. they've had a much growing

middle class. australia and canada are sort of prime examples. so better policy makes a big difference. now, what are those kinds of policies and what can states do? the three main areas, i think, we've been focusing on are raising wages. raising wages, reducing costs for middle class, and making the tax system more progressive and more efficient. now, to highlight a little about how to raise wages. well, the basic ones most people are familiar with are standards like the minimum wage or paid leave, et cetera. but i don't want the conversation to end there because there are a whole host of other things. you think when the government is spending money on government contracts, for example, you'll have standards on those to raise wages for those workers, and the government influences lots of jobs that way. you also think about the way we enforce our existing laws. there is a rampant wage theft going on.

we can do a better job of enforcing that. we can promote things like profit sharing. so there's a set of policies on wages. there's also a set of policies on making core middle class goods more afford and accessible, like housing, health care, and you think of, you know debate there. there's medicaid, that we're quite familiar with. there's making preschool to higher ed more affordable and states are at the center of that debate. but there's still also other things that are not quite on the radar screen but are emerging. for example, a bunch of states are starting to create retirement plans for private sector workers who don't have plans. and that will get them into having a good, low-cost plan. and finally on taxes, you know, it's really a shame that -- actually, all states have regressive tax systems, where the poor and middle class pay more of a share of their income than the wealthy. that's wrong. it doesn't work properly, and we

can do significant things to change that. and there's a whole host of policies to talk about there. and so i want to leave with the idea this really matters and there is a lot we can do. >> thank you so much. i'll turn it over to you now for some thoughts on new ideas that cap has been talking about and trying to advance in states as well. >> sure. a key complement to the middle class agenda is an agenda for economic mobility. for the millions of americans who are inspiring to be in the middle class. so in addition to the jobs and wages and all the important policies that david outlined, we're also doing some thinking about how we remove barriers to opportunity for those americans who are struggling on the brink. so there are sort of two areas i want to explore here. one is making sure your zip code doesn't determine your life chances. and the second is thinking about how we remove barriers for the one in three americans who have a criminal record. on the first set of policies, i think it's really important to remember that there are millions of americans in high poverty neighborhoods, and both the built environment such as the

infrastructure and the schools, but also the social environment, can limit life chances for americans living in those kinds of neighborhoods. at the federal level, there is an initiative called promise zones where local communities can apply for a designation and they'll get more technical assistance, they're going to get a better chance at getting federal grants, they're going to get volunteers coming to their communities. so right now there's five federal promise zones and 15 more coming down the pike. there's no reason states can't have a similar initiative considering the amount of both flexible federal funds and state funds that come to their communities. so one of the things we're proposing that states think about, for example, is having local communities apply for some kind of designation in a high poverty area where states can leverage resources, federal and state flexible resources, send americorps and vista volunteers to those communities, provide greater mobility for those americans living in the high poverty communities.

it's not only in the interest of people in those communities, because when you have a high poverty community, you're limiting both the life chances of individuals but also the human capital that can contribute to the state's broader economic growth. that's one area where we're looking to explore new and innovative ideas to partner with states across the country, and we think this is generally a bipartisan idea. the second is that one in three americans in this country has some kind of criminal record. this is a barrier to employment, it's a barrier to education and training, it's a barrier to housing, to good credit, to all kind of things. and so one of the things that we're looking at is a suite of policies at the state level. there's obviously things that local governments can do, state and federal government employers, but states have a lot of policy tools at their disposal. one of the things that's gotten a lot of attention lately is efforts to ban the box, which basically means delaying the point at which employers are considering a person's criminal record so that it can be at a point where they're already competitive and their resume isn't just thrown in the trash, even though they may be very

qualified for the position. other things we're looking at, for example, are subsidized jobs. this is a proposal that, for example, during the recovery act, there were over 30 states who partnered with the private sector to create subsidized jobs for people who were having the hardest time finding work in that economy. and over 250,000 people were put to work in public, private and non-profit jobs that gave them a foot in the door to the labor market, temporary income and also increased their long-term employment prospects. so people even with criminal records, a subsidized job is a opportunity states can take by creates job for those opportunities. and a new idea cap is pushing something called a clean slate. and that is for those with low-level offenses, after ten years with a clean record from time of a arrest, having an automatic expungement mechanism, so that is no longer a barrier

to economic mobility and having a second chance. so those are two areas we're looking to explore in partnering with state governments. >> thank you so much. i want to turn it over now to the legislators who are sort of on the front lines of all this, really trying to push -- they are on the front lines of all of this, trying to push these ideas in the states and really fighting on behalf of working and middle class families and advancing this type of agenda there. so i'll first turn it over to you, senator weinberg, to talk about what's happening in new jersey. >> well, there's a lot happening in new jersey. i assume most of you are familiar with our governor. so we have what will i think is a rather progressive legislature, both policies assembly and senate, but an office of governor which, under our constitution, is the most powerful office, as a matter of fact, one of the most powerful offices in the nation.

so the interplay between the legislature and the governor's office becomes very important with the kind of issues that we passed. you mentioned ban the box. we've passed that in the new jersey legislature, and it is now sitting on the governor's desk awaiting what we're assuming will happen, which will be a veto. we have had great difficulty with the minority party who, for some reason, are terribly reticent, afraid, whatever words you want to use, to override a gubernatorial veto, and in the senate we need three of those votes in order to be able to move things forward. having said that, we do have a very good family leave policy in the state, which was passed, i

think, three or four years ago. we are working now, and it is working its way through the legislature on the sick leave issues guaranteeing sick leave to employees, and particularly those in lower level. we raised the minimum wage, but we did it through a very arduous process because the governor vetoed it. we had to go through a constitutional amendment in order to get it on the ballot. we are not an initiative referendum state, so in order to get the minimum wage on the ballot, we had to go through a constitutional amendment, which meant we had to pass it twice in two different legislative sessions, have them veto it each time and get it on the ballot where it was passed overwhelmingly in new jersey. and we did, i think, add a very positive part to it besides the really minimal increase in the minimum wage.

we added into it that it is added into the cost of living. we don't have to go back to the legislature each time. it will be automatic increases, some kind of a formula attached to the cost of living. and right now we're working on a whole package of bills that run the gamut between giving tax credits to caregivers who are taking care of elderly or children because they are really the backbone and they're saving the economy a lot of money by keeping their loved ones at home, whatever the issues are. we're working on a package of bills that would allow people time off to go a parent/teacher conference, that sort of thing.

so there's a large package that's kind of going through review and hearing from the advocates. and we're almost ready to move the sick leave through both houses. that should happen sometime over the next couple of weeks. so it's been an interesting endeavor, and i'm delighted to participate, and certainly to hear about the growth of six. so there are places that we can reach out and kind of commiserate. comisserate. we haven't even met and we both were nodding at the same time. so i appreciate the opportunity and would be happy for any kind of change that we have. >> great, great. i turn it over to representative farrar to talk about -- you've been the legislator of texas for some time now. probably have seen all kinds of things happening there. but i think it will be very interesting to hear how it is fighting for middle and working

class families in texas. and i know you've been very much on the front lines of that. >> well, nick, unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly more difficult. i come from a land where the voters pick candidates, and particularly the state leadership and the majorities in both houses, both the house and the senate, on god, guns, gays and abortion. in doing so, they have overlooked their economic situation. however, myself and my colleagues have done a great job, i think, in terms of stopping the worse things from happening, but that has become more and more difficult recently. our lieutenantñ removed something called the two-thirds rule which required the senate to have two-thirds of an agreement to actually even bring up a bill, so that has been removed. so a lot of people are shaking their heads and wondering, what do we do now? however -- so what we have been

able to do in texas is also pass things sort of incrementally and also be able to communicate with our constituents we use. so our tools are the parliamentary process, the house rules, and we have a lot of expertise on our side on that, to our advantages that the other side also is sort of complacent in their power. and so they don't have -- they're not as familiar with that. so we've been able to stop bills on technicalities sometimes, and other methods which i can't disclose here or i would probably be tortured to death. and the other is just taking it to the outside, and i think you all saw around the country what happened in texas the summer before last, the famous wendy davis filibuster. but that was actually the culmination of the use of social media when abortion issues were

brought up in a special session at the last minute, and so from tuesday to friday, we were able to bill the capitol. and at one point they had to close the doors because so many people came, the occupancy limit had been exceeded. so these are our tools. but nonetheless, we are -- we let people know on payday lending. these are economic issues, so we attack. for us it means different things. for us it means in-state tuition. we all know the wage someone makes if they don't finish high school, if they do finish high school and if they get a college degree. so we have a significant hispanic community and a significant immigrant community, so years back, over a decade ago, we were able to pass a bill that allowed immigrant students to pay in-state tuition because they had been here so long they actually qualified.

however, they didn't have the legal status to be able to do so. but that's under attack, and people -- the people in the majority in my state ran and won on the issue of doing away with it. so that's something that frequently comes up for a vote. it has failed -- it has failed by just a few votes. i'm not so sure about our prospects this time. i'm now outnumbered. my side is outnumbered 2 to 1. so we'll see. also, it's difficult to do things bipartisanly in my state because republicans who stick their neck out are targeted in primaries and eliminated very quickly. so we have lost a lot of moderates on the other side. it has just become more and more difficult. nonetheless, we don't give up. and another economic issue is payday lending, so there are bills proposed to provide more consumer protections, more

consumer protections in insurance policies. these are ways that we might be able to win, and also, more importantly, is being able to stop the bad stuff. because even though it is so skewed against the consumer and my state, there are interests that want to take it even further. so we can sometimes block some of that as well. women's health is an issue that affects families as well. we have the highest rate of uninsured in the nation, and this affects -- when women are sick, it affects the family disproportionately, so we would like to be able to get in and take care of cervical cancers and other kinds of things that if caught early, we have good prospects. if delayed, we all know what happens, and we also know the costs to the public in terms of emergency room care. and so, unfortunately, our state leaders got into a fight, a political fight with planned parenthood and did away with the medicaid waiver, which was a 9

to 1 match, we turned that away, and without -- i can understand that they've got the power, they can do that, but they failed to put in another system of health care before taking the rug out from under texans. and so in doing so, many clinics were closed, places where women had gone before to get their health care were closed, and so they have slowly tried to restore that and done a state program, which has not even come close to what it used to be. and so, yeah, it's nice to come here and meet people who do things for working people that give them a fair chance, and so we will continue to do that. another way that we have in texas, too, is education funding. we have never actually funded education proactively. it's always been in reaction to a lawsuit that says your system

is unconstitutional because it fails to fund the system adequately. and so we are under that again, and there is a pending case, the legislation is in session, we could do something, but we probably will not, and so we'll find ourselves here again. here's the thing, though. texas, our population has just exploded, and we have more people, a lot more people, and the cost of educating these people has become more expensive. so when you talk to leaders at colleges and universities, they say, we have to do a lot more remedial ed. that's very expensive to do. so we're failing to do that. i think also we have to recognize that we have a lot of adult learners as well, and i think our policies need to reach out there, and i think -- i hope there's movement. there's certainly bills filed and there's some interest. i hope that in our state we'll be able to convince enough

people. our state has been a place where progressive things have been able to be done as long as you didn't hold a press conference about it, and heaven forbid, people know we did something good for them and not the other tenants. i was principal of the electorate that i mentioned before. anyway, i hope to bring back news in the future. >> women's health, that's really under a national attack. same thing happened in new jersey. our government has a line item veto in the budget. which i know the president would die for, to be able to get. for the last five years he has taken out this same money for family planning centers that would generate a 9 to 1 match, $7.5 million.

we are so opposite texas with the most densely populated state, and you're probably one of the least densely populated state in the nation. we have the highest property taxes. i think if we're not number one, we're certainly in the top three. but that money has been zeroed out every single year for the last six years. we lost six family planning centers over that length of time. there are places that women went for their -- really, for their family care medicine for screening for breast cancer or cervical cancer or, heaven forbid, we are still debating birth control in the year 2015. i can't believe it. i just have to share one story. when we were first fighting to get this money back into the budget, and we appeared before, it was in the assembly before

the budget committee, and somebody from planned parenthood gave the testimony. we helped avoid 4,000 unwanted pregnancies in which a member of the new jersey assembly in the new millennium said, i am offended for those children who should have been born. i always remembered that since because i thought, i'm as old as i am, and i am still having a conversation about women's access to birth control. if that doesn't wake people up in this country, i don't know what else will, because without that, there is no security. without the ability of women and their partners to decide when and if they want to have children, you can take the rest of this out. so i feel a little passionate about that.

>> and something i mentality to say earlier our state leaders sent a letter to president obama about the increase in the medicaid caseload. it's great to see people here talking about medical expansion. in texas it's impossible, and we have a million people who fall in that gap. the economic policies we're discussing here, because they're not implemented in my state, that is why our medicaid caseload is growing, and i suspect that to be true across the country. >> and actually, that's a point i think i want to pick up on, in that i think if you're listening to this conversation, it's interesting that there are really great ideas out there, things we can be doing to move middle class and working class families. but then you hear there's actually -- there's politics happening. there's realities on the ground and these states on how to actually get those things in action and moved forward. so the thing i think i'd be interested in and one of the things i think i would be

thinking about in the state innovation exchange is, how do we start going on the offensive? not only on trying to get laws passed but moving the narratives for it, because if you take a look, i mean, the reality is that conservatives now control more state legislature chambers than they have since the 1900s. there are now only seven states where we have both chambers and a governor to signing things into law. so the realities are really reflective of what these two legislators have been talking about. what i'd like to hear maybe from you, david, are there some ideas that we can be pushing in state that are resonant across the board? let's have the debate on women's health. let's have the debate, really, are you against equal pay? that type of thing. then i'd like to hear from the legislators as well. either you or some of the legislators in the audience about what are some examples that have worked in your states?

what has actually passed in states that are progressive, middle class ideas and you were able to bring sort of coalitions along with you. go ahead, david. >> sure. i think there are two big things to your question. there are policies and the politics around those policies. the main point to make is that the economic policies we support for struggling middle class are overwhelmingly supported by the public. the public likes these things and they want us to make a big case and fight for it. you can see, i think the minimum wage is the most obvious example, but rampant success. whenever they go to the voters, they succeed and succeed overwhelmingly. the problem, i think, is that we haven't pushed enough of them on a scale where it's seen as carrying a whole agenda and carrying a whole legislature along with it, but this is what the people are behind.

and i think there is -- so i think we can't just have these isolated one-off issue fights where it's the minimum wage today. it's a broad sense of things that are needed. there is a whole package we need to do, and so i'll start listing them off, but i think the success will come when we are rallying behind a broad sweep that really are seen as affecting people's lives. for example, so i mentioned enforcement of basic wage standards. now, this might seem like it's a relatively minor problem, but the best evidence is among low wage workers it's about maybe 50, 60% of wages that have fallen in the past week. among the broader middle class, estimates are maybe up to one-third because they're, for example, classified as an independent contractor. they should be an employee, they

should be getting paid. there's a whole host of things you can do there. you can increase the penalties, you can target your enforcement, you also can have profit sharing. now, this means that when a company does well, all the workers do well. they get some sort of share of the company's gains. and states actually have done a fair amount in this space. there's basically the policies to encourage companies to adopt more of this from education to even relatively conservative states, like indiana provide better access to credit for these kinds of companies. and i can go on and on and list a whole bunch of policies, but instead we got a report. i think we need to package a bunch of them together and rally behind them and make it clear whose side we're on, that this set of packages is what

progressives stand for. the individual policies on their own are popular, but we haven't succeeded in rallying behind them. >> that's great, yeah. that's absolutely right, i think. i'm curious from the legislators -- maybe some of you in the audience if there are examples or stories of ways that you were able to do that in states, really tie it to a higher narrative, get something passed that benefited working and middle class families. >> that's encouraging. >> go ahead. let's wait for the microphone. if you can stand up, too. >> good morning, state senator jesse barry from colorado, caucus for the senate there. last year worked on an initiative that received broad bipartisan support in both chambers and it was actually building the narrative of middle class families that were exacted by wage theft. i think the wage theft was families who were very low income folks who may do day labor work. when we start talking about the

issues of not receiving overtime pay, being forced to work hours and not being compensated, it was a narrative that resonated for so many middle class families. if you're a grocery store worker, someone who works in a big box retailer or someone who works in an office downtown, so we were actually looking at the middle class broadly at the entire middle class and saying how are we not earning the wages because of no wage growth but how are we seeing our wages cut on the bottom end as well. and adjudicate wage theft claims. and it passed with broad support in the senate and the house, because it was a different narrative of one class of people. all groups were impacted by this ig big issue. having no recourse to actually get them back. that's one example where it was the broader middle class narrative that helped us to win

over republicans in both chambers. >> that's great. >> and speaking of this higher narrative that's part of what the state exchange's new campaign is. it's called opportunity works for us. but in each state this opportunity works for taxes and really tying in this great work that people are trying to push forward in advance in states to this higher narrative and partnering with great organizations like c.a.p., you know, the hill we're going to be doing a series of town hall meetings across the country with congressional progressive caucus members to hear from working class and middle class families in the country on, you know, what are some solutions, what's going on, what are some solutions? and today we're going to the white house to the obama administration and white house officials there about this, as well. it really is an effort to organize and move the progressive infrastructure towards this common narrative and frame to support these legislators that are working hard in their state. go ahead. >> i like that idea, to be organized in a group of town

hall meetings with federal legislators, perhaps adding in partnership with state legislators. >> absolutely. >> they are a valuable tool. our governor has used that valuable tool to propel himself to thinking that he thinks that he's actually going to become a presidential nominee. but the town halls can be excellent because if people come and really feel comfortable speaking, and the press covers it and social media covers it you're building the grass roots to help move things forward, as you said in colorado. you know, i posted on my own facebook that i was coming down here and just titled it something about time to pay attention to the middle class, and i got lots of comments,

including, is there a middle class left? was a theme that ran through. and as we talk about the income inequality that's going on in this country, and certainly in our state, and i would assume in yours, too, that's something that we need to keep talking about. you said something a little earlier about people not even knowing their own -- what really is economically good for them. and we have to keep on getting those issues out there. through social media, through e-mails. through twitters and tweets and whatever all these things i've actually learned. my staff will not teach me how to do my own tweets. they've kept that unto themselves to be useful, i guess.&3wv >> i think the town hall is also

important because it gets that there needs to be a grassroots push in addition to what's happening in the state legislature. you see fast food workers striking. you see home care workers organizing and that's creating the political and public will, and the space for some of these conversations to rise up to the state and to the national level. and the other place the other thing you get out of town halls and meetings such as that is real people's stories and voices. and i think, too often you know, low and middle class voices are left out of our policy conversations. we don't consult those folks when we make policy the same way we make business and consult policy. so to find places for not just the national economic narrative, which is critical but for the micro-narrative, the personal story that puts a face an experience on paid sick days and the need for pre-k, which we haven't touched on but another huge middle class and anti-poverty policy. i think that's a really important element of the fight. >> let's open up for questions, or comments from other legislators, as well.

>> senate minority leader in michigan. i come from a state that's overwhelmingly blue, but the governor and the legislature are controlled by republicans in pretty big majorities. and we've had some examples, and to your point, first, too, nick, one of the things i think we need to do is we've allowed conservatives to set the narrative and we responded to them as opposed to being proud of the values which have, which are much more popular with the public and really lead with those. even if it takes awhile to get them passed just keep talking about them, as opposed to referring to their narrative. but some examples we had in michigan, and referenced before, we passed medicaid expansion, and got it signed by the governor. seen great success with that. and we passed a minimum wage increase through two republican legislatures and signed by the governor because what we did was we built grassroots support. we started the ballot initiative and they were scared of potential of it being higher. but for the first time in michigan we actually got it c.o.l.a. attached to it. so it's going to increase and

continue to increase. so what we did was working with grass roots, talking about this issue, really making sure people understood why we were pushing for this, and it forced folks -- supported minimum wage because they didn't want a higher one, so it's not exactly what we wanted. but you know, that's how we were successful in michigan, two examples, helping michigan, which was our medicaid expansion and minimum wage. so, i think we've had some success because those issues are just so popular with the public. >> sort of chiming in on that. i think, you know, more focused on strengthening and growing the middle class and making sure the economy works for everyone, not just the wealthy few, we really have, you know, as i highlighted in the beginning, both fundamentally economically important to be highlighting these things for people's lives but also for the future of our country. they're also politically successful and political winners. and because just some one piece of evidence of that is several years ago, if you look at the

republican rhetoric on inequality and wage stagnation they denied this was happening. they denied the middle class was going away. it was shocking. but like all the evidence, you look at all the government data, all the independent studies all shows the same thing. real problem. and they were denying. but now in the past couple of months all of their rhetoric has changed and inequality is a problem, wage stagnation is a problem. their policies have not changed. but the fact that they are starting to even acknowledge this is, i think, proof of the power of people focusing on our issues and we will now get our policies, and win on our policies. >> that's a really strong, good point. let's open it up for questions from the audience. >> yeah, hi, i just really enjoying this. i just have a question. it just seems to me, you know, i'm trying to what she said, you know, about people voting on abortion and gays and it seems to me that the other side, it's

way ahead in the use of committed science and branding, moral branding, and i think there are -- there's just efforts have been increasing on that. so i think if you ask a lot of people what is freedom, what -- what do you think is freedom? what would republicans stand, what do democrats stand for? i think you're going to see there's a lack of moral branding, you know, and so i wonder, you know, to what extent, you know, i mean i think that you know, hearing the panel there's always this, thinking that we need to do more, we need to appeal intellectually. we need to give them the facts. we need to, you know, we need to tell them the deception on the other side. there's all this, you know, and what we're missing, you know, is that is, is that this coming out of science, 95% of human reasoning is unconscious.

we are spending all this efforts focusing that 5% of conscious thinking intellectually, appealing and all that. the other side is going at that 95%. so, my question is, you know, i think we're in a moral ditch, you know, and i think because partly because of lack of awareness on our side. you know, the linguist from university of california has been talking about this. there are other authors out there, drew weston, jim wallace, you know, other people, you know, when are -- when are we going to, you know, change our way of thinking, you know, and way of communicating, you know, so that the american people understand what we stand for, and and what freedom really is. >> i can give a quick response to this. i think there is something about the values stand behind, we need to do a better job articulating

them. the idea that hard work should pay, it's hard to have more of a moral value and moral statement than that. i think what we need to do, you know, we don't need to overcomplicate it with things. we actually need to have fights on these issues. we need to make the fights on our issues. not on just being defensive, and reacting to their agenda. and i think we see, you know, seek too much ground, and claim that it's other issues that are distracting people from core economic issues. if we have an agenda, it's popular, move on it, run on it, that's successful. instead of ignoring, and not having the right kind of fight. this is the central issue. are we going to have a middle class? are we going to have a growing economy? or are we going to have an economy that only works for those at the very top? and we can reverse the fundamental trends of decline in the middle class and we can strengthen our economy, and we have an agenda to do that.

that's a winning message. >> also to piggyback on what you're saying a lot of times these bills would go nowhere in our legislature. you're lucky if you get a hearing right at the end. of course it's not going to go anywhere. but there is a tool that we have used before and i would encourage other legislators that are here, when you file the bill, have a press conference about it. and so you may not be able to win internally, but externally you can score some informational points out there with the public. and so, it's been a tool we've used. >> my name is cynthia gerald i'm the federal policy director for a faith-based community organizing group. i believe that structural racism is behind a good bit of the policies, the bad policies that we see in our states. and i'm wondering how you are explicitly or implicitly addressing that through the

policies, and the legislation that you're -- that are being pushed out into the states? legislation that are being pushed out into the states? >> one of the ways that we tackle that is to speak to -- i mean, both of them, you need the call it out in some ways. >> not only our are our racial disparity thes a moral problem but it's also an economic problem. we've're going to be a country where communities of color make up the majority of our population. and we're already getting there with the work force. we can put our heads in the sand, but this is a moral and economic imperative, starting with education and fair wages. these are all things where the more we close racial disparityings, the better we all do as a country. we put in a book not two years ago that laid out the case for this that came with a big poll

that showed that the american people are largely on that line of reasoning. they understand that this is an important suite of policies not just for communities of color, but foreverybody. and the more we stand together on this, the better we're e eel all do. >> i want to explore the conversation that just happened with the gentleman and david. i don't think you're saying different things. the dnc did polling a few years ago that showed that the public really does agree with us on these issues. and many of the policies that david is talking about, but many times, the communication is off. that's why i believe the suite of policies that david is talking about is really something we need to figure out how to get behind. but the way in which we communicate that has been a problem for precisely the reasons that the gentleman has stated.

and that, there are all of these things that are involved in terms of people making decisions about what affects them, making decisions based on morality where we had voters that agree with us on 80% of the issues but because of the thing that they centralized, that they will make a decision on that smaller part of the equation. and, so, and i find when we are on the floor and our colleagues are on the other side may talk about faith, when we don't address that at all, that person who holds that so sacred only really has one choice. but there are faith arguments for our policies that we often failed to make. there are economic policies in the benefit of business for some of the economic policies that we make and sometimes we don't make those connections. so i think that goes to the cognitive aspect of that. and i'll just give you a policy example. we failed to stand out and ask

that before because so many of us are in the mile noerty. it's hard to give progressive stuffer passed. this isn't stuff that's e's pass which was the tax shifting, right? it's posed as tax cutted. but when you get into the details, we've cut income tax for the wealthy and raised taxes in other places. that's been going on for 25 years and been been getting away with us. >> do that with a suite of

policies that i believe we could be a lot more successful than future judges wanted to throw that into the debate. >> that's a good point. one other point i want to make, too, talking about, you know, how we talk about things. i think, often there's a lot of polling that goes on. there's a lot of focus groups. there's you will of that stuff. and then we decide all right this is specifically how we're going to talk about it to everybody. >> i think it's important that

we let the middle class know exactly what that means. that means in txz, if you pay $80 for a refrigerator and you make $30,000 that's the sales tax on it for a thousand doll already refrigerator versus someone who's making $300,000. $80 is nothing. i think that's implicitly unfair. i just don't know that there's enough knowledge about tax policy. >> and so that's where i think this conversation is going. that when i was arguing about having sort of an agenda and getting behind that i was not dismissing the values behind them. i actually said i think these are values. and, to articulate the values because the numbers get confusing, but the value of who's side are you on and making that clear. and i think that's what a broad agenda does. and it enables all of the language about values and choices because, you know, it's really -- and so i just -- i was -- i agree i was not

seeding the moral of territory. i think we need to own the moral territory and a broad agenda around strengthening and growing in the middle class and allowing us to do that. >> and you know, to what we said in terms of the faith-based kplunties. for me, when we have committee hearings on some of these kinds of issues if we hear from ministers and other members of the clergy, rabbleis it adds a certain acceptance, even on the part of the more conservative members who are sitting on the committee. there's a national group that's very active in new jersey. the narctional council of jewish women. when they come forward people look on them with some respect. they deent realize that they're

pretty aggressive in their own right. so it's important. and, you know, if we're ever in so and so gets up or rabbi gets up to talk about these kinds of issues and the moral values at committee hearings, that adds a level of it's okay. talking to your point. >> i used to work in faith community. and we did a lot of interfaith organizing to that end. and to be able to say a bassic premise like if you work hard, you shouldn't live in poverty or we shouldn't track people in poverty that last for generations. these are value statements that i think can stem from a faith perspective. but are also broadly shared universal values that speak to people that stem from them that have all kinds of economic rationale. but i think you get at people's guts as to what they understand is fair. >> good morning.

i'm i'm i'm representative marty anderson from iowa. we meet all of yours pretty regularly. >> yeah ours has been there quiet often. >> in our caucus, we've started doing some very simple things. every morning there's a prayer in our chamber. and so we're bringing in different people to bray. i'm bringing in two nuns who live in my district who were on the nuns on the buss tour. >> so that's one way to do that, to counter some of the ministers who, frankly, be e by a lot of people, being very specific about their faith. the other thing we started doing is woe call it moral monday iowa. and i believe it started in one of the carolinas.

with the naacp. but we just stole the idea. and so every monday, at noon, before we gavel in at 1:00, we have a gathering that draws a lot of press and a lot of -- a lot of advocates. and we talk about an issue that we're not getting any legs on. so we've had moral monday iowas on date rape. we've had moral monday iowas on disparities in education and prisons. we've had moral monday iowa on education spending. and next week, we're having it on women's health.

we get a lot of press coverage for it. >> thank you. senator winfield from connecticut. i wanted to go back to the point about how we talk about things. so last year we did the minimum wage increase after the president talked about it. that was the traditional way that we do things. how we had a bus come out, how we brought out all the people who might be affected by minimum wage, the year, two years before i had gone to progressive states, we were talking about the trust act. and how we could get it passed in the state. we hadn't really done that and i suggested how we go back to connecticut and work on it and try to get it passed. >> what is the trust act? >> the trust act deals with the

security communities issue, we've talked about in the past, and how the state interacts with i.c.e. on i.c.e. detainers and whether or not it responds in a way that i.c.e. would like it to. so when i went back to soi@ connecticut, traditionally this issue was talked about by either the leadership which doesn't look like the community that we're talking about. or, it's dealt with by us sending out information that's all correct. or they pick a latino legislator to talk about it. but when i was thinking about it, i disagreed to some degree with tip o'neill about what politics is. i think politics is all about identity, not where you come from. where you come from is part of it. so i thought about the fact that normally when you have that kind of an issue, there's a gap between the african-american, and latino communities, sometimes they see us as giving them things, such as college tuition, and all of those things, right? so there's a gap. so being one of the people who came back to deal with the issue, i thought about how do

you get them, the african-american community, to be a part of this discussion. what i talked about was when i was a child, an experience i had with police. it wasn't a pleasant experience. and that experience was one where i to this day do not take out my trash without having an i.d. in my pocket. and then i related that back to what those people who were talking about in the trust act would feel. and what it did was it changed the conversation. so i think when we're thinking about how we communicate -- we also think about who is communicating. and not always have the leadership which generally does not look like the person standing before you right now. because, they can't tell those stories. and i think that will have some impact on whether or not we can move those progressive policies, because, the communities that i represent are a lot of what we're talking about anyway. so i just wanted to put that point out. >> that's a very good point. that is an important point, because, progressives we are a big tent. you know, when we talk about morals and values, let's also talk about including, you know, people of faith from islam, and hindu, and all of those things. we are a big tent, expand and make sure that those values are

also interconnected into everything -- they're all similar. even when we're talking about it's easy to talk about immigration reform. it's easy to talk about black, brown issues and other things. you know, but you need to have the voice of the people who are affected as part of those conversations, as well. so i appreciate that point. >> and i think it also speaks to, again, the power of personal. we've seen in the anti-poverty community conservatives do something like a lottery winner getting food stamps in one state to further an agenda to put access limits so there's millions of people who want to build statements -- because of one isolated incident. and so i think there's a need to to give voice to the millions of people who are actually using whether it's social services or need a minimum wage or need paid sick days but define platforms for the real stories to get out there and to leverage them for activism. so i think that's a very important point more broadly.

>> can i also chime in on this? >> and i think this gets back to the values question, and to the point i was trying to make. i think it's a vote and point because having the identity recognized, and is i think critically important but i also think we need to have everyone be able to see themselves in the conversation. and i think that's where the arguments about the economy really come into play. it's not -- you mentioned the minimum wage. and i think the minimum wage for example for years, the focus had been, this is fair. this is fair. well, yes, but also, it is good for our economy to raise the minimum wage. and the reason is, because you have more consumers. you put more money in people's pockets. if you don't do that, you've got the stagnant economy where no business -- and that's i think

the broader story about why all of the policies matter in addition to the identity and the values, they have a broader effect on the economy, and they reflect how the economy actually works. it does not work from rich job creators making things better for us. it comes from the strong and growing middle class, making it function for everyone. and i think when we make those values, fairness, identity, connected with the larger economy story, we have the right mix. >> yes. well it's a good start to wrapping this up. it's been an incredible conversation, i can talk about it. i think we all can talk about this all day. hopefully one of the takeaways that people get from this is that things are happening in the states. this is where the action is. this is where the fight is for the soul of the country, for middle class, working class issues. and it really is, you know, sort of this corporate frame versus the people's frame. and you know, groups like c.a.p., and others, are taking it now. are taking it to the states and really supporting this work. and i hope people watching on

television, people here in this room, organize ourselves to be able to fight for these issues that matter to all of us in our own backyards. so, thank you for the conversation. thank you for your stories. thank you for your questions. and we look forward to carrying on this conversation moving forward. thank you. [ applause ] on the next "washington journal," a look at the latest unemployment figures with bloomberg news reporter michelle janrisco. william yourmanis on 21st serve ri policing with eugene o'donnell. washington journal live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the

c-span networks.

>> good morning. the judiciary committee will come to order, and without objection the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on the unconstitutionality of president obama's executive actions on immigration, and i'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. last november president obama announced one of the biggest constitutional power grabs ever by a president. he declared unilaterally that by his own estimation almost 5 million unlawful aliens would be free from the legal consequences of their lawless actions. not only that, by granting them deferred action, he would bestow upon them benefits such as legal presence, work authorization, and access to the social security trust fund and the earned income tax credit. president obama took these actions despite having stated

over 20 times in the past that he didn't have the constitutional power to take such steps on his own. as the washington post's own fact checker concluded, apparently he's changed his mind. the constitution is clear. it is congress' duty to write our nation's laws, yet president obama admitted that i just took an action to change the law, quote/unquote. the constitution is also clear that once laws are enacted, it is the president's responsibility to enforce them. the constitution requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. yet the very integrity of our immigration laws is now in question. 26 states believe that president obama's actions would cause them irreparable harm. they challenged his grant of deferred action in federal district court in texas. the court agreed with the states and has granted a temporary injunction halting for the moment the administration's plans. the court stated that the administration is, quote, not

just rewriting the laws, it is creating them from scratch. president obama has justified his actions under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. law enforcement agencies do have the inherent power to exercise prosecutorial discretion. the authority as to whether to enforce or not enforce the law against particular individuals. however, telling entire classes of millions of unlawful aliens they face no possibility of being removed is not prosecutorial discretion. it is simply an abdication of the executive branch's responsibility to enforce the laws. the president relies on a memo prepared by his justice department's office of legal council to attempt to justify his actions as constitutional.

but that very memo finds that, quote, immigration officials, discretion in enforcing the laws is not unlimited. limits on enforcement discretion are both implicit in and fundamental to the constitution's allocation of governmental powers between the two political branches, end quote. the memo admits that the executive cannot under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences. and the memo quotes the supreme court's heckler versus cheney decision in stating that the executive branch cannot, quote, consciously and expressly adopt a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities, end quote. the memo, in fact, is an indictment of president obama's actions. the federal court in texas agrees, it found that the grant of deferred action, quote, does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement, the government here is doing nothing to enforce the removal against a class of millions of individuals. and the grant of deferred action does not represent mere inadequacy, it is complete abdication, end quote.

and the court points out that president obama's actions go beyond even utter nonenforcement. he is, in fact, granting affirmative benefits to the aliens as i described earlier. in absolutely no way can president obama's action be considered a justifiable use of the administration's powers of prosecutorial discretion. they're a clear violation of his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws. the president also mistakenly claims that his actions are nothing new. it is true that previous presidents of both parties have provided immigration relief to groups of aliens. however, most often the actions were based on emergencies in foreign countries, therein relying upon the broad constitutional power given to a president to conduct foreign affairs. for example, chinese students were protected from deportation after the tiananmen square

massacre of 1989. what about president george h.w. bush's family fairness policy which the white house cites to justify its power grab? this grant of voluntary departure was, in fact, authorized by the immigration and naturalization act as it existed at the time. without any crisis in a foreign country, to justify his actions, and in granting deferred action without any statutory authorization, president obama has clearly exceeded his constitutional authority. no administration has so abused and misused the power of prosecutorial discretion as has the obama administration. by assuming legislative power, the obama administration is driving full speed ahead to a constitutional crisis, tilting the scales of our three branch government in his favor and threatening to unravel our

system of checks and balances. this administration has entered the realm of rewriting the laws when it can't convince congress to change them. the house of representatives has taken decisive action this year to protect the constitution. we have passed a department of homeland security appropriations bill that would defund a series of unconstitutional actions of the obama administration, including this grant of deferred action. tragically the house passed bill is being filibustered in the senate, even as appropriated funds for the department are set to run out at the end of the week. by not even allowing the bill to be debated, those senators who have chosen the path of filibuster and obstruction are threatening dhs' access to funds designed to keep americans safe. they are also denying the american people a fair debate on this vital issue of whether congress needs to take action to protect all our constitutional liberties. we can only hope that they will relent in time. i look forward to today's hearing and the testimony of our witnesses and it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman and to our witnesses. members of the committee in three days the department of homeland security will run out of funds. while tens of thousands of

federal government workers could be furloughed, around 200,000 workers will be forced to come back to work without receiving a paycheck. they will be told to patrol the border, conduct investigations, and secure our ports, but they will not be paid. now, it is fairly well known that the department of homeland security has notoriously low morale. that has been a problem since the department's creation a decade ago. this won't help. but i am sure those workers will

do their jobs, which is more than i can say for the legislative branch of our federal government. why do i say that? because congress has certain responsibilities, some are complicated, and some are less complicated, and we failed to live up our responsibilities for years. first, consider the most basic obligation we have. it is our responsibility to pass bills to fund the government. if we don't do our job, the government shuts down. congressional republicans got their wish in october 2013, and shut the government down for more than two weeks. now the majority here has again set on a collision course. this time they will shut down the department of homeland security because they refuse to pass a clean spending bill because they want to block the administration's executive actions on immigration. now, keep in mind that the

spending bill we're talking about was negotiated between republicans and democrats in the house and the senate. truth be told, there are aspects of that bill that i disagree with. i strongly oppose the detention be mandated and believe that it is wasteful and unjust to include that language in the appropriations bill. but i also understand the importance of funding the department of homeland security and the need to keep our nation

safe. second, congress is also failing to do its job because it is ultimately our responsibility to fix our broken immigration system. instead of doing that work, we're holding hearing after hearing to vilify the president for taking important and common sense steps to prioritize the deportation of felons before families. the limited legislation that pg this committee has considered would make our immigration system even less efficient, less humane and less able to meet the needs of american families and

businesses. earlier this month, we held two immigration subcommittee hearings on draft language of four deportation only bills that would separate families, strip protection from dreamers, destroy the agricultural industry into millions of jobs that depend on it. and return vulnerable children to face persecution and violence with no meaningful due process. finally, i want to note that then

commander in chief. i cannot recall a previous administration during which members of congress, from either side of the aisle, showed such a persistent disrespect for the office of the presidency. the title of this hearing is also interesting because it is a statement, not a question, it

just presumes that the administration's actions are unconstitutional. even though no court has found the actions unconstitutional, and there is no -- there is strong legal authority and historical precedent supporting these policy decisions. and so in closing, our current immigration system is not working for american families, businesses, or the economy. these problems require real legislative solutions. and so i urge our colleagues, my colleagues on this committee to start doing the job that we were sent here to do. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time and thank you. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. now my pleasure to recognize the chairman of the judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law. the law is the greatest unifying and the greatest equalizing force that we have in our culture. the law is what makes the richest person drive the precise

same speed limit as the poorest person. the law is what makes the richest person in this country pay his or her taxes on precisely the same day as the poorest person in this country. the law, mr. chairman, is symbolize bade blindfolded woman holding a set of scales and a sword. the law is both a shield and a sword and it is the foundation upon which this republic stands. we think so highly of the law, mr. chairman, that in the oath of citizenship administered to those who pledge allegiance to this country, to their new country, it makes six different references to the law. so attempts to undermine the law via executive pheaa regardless of motivation are detrimental to the foundation of a democracy.

president obama, after the november midterm elections, i hasten to add, announced one of the largest extra constitutional acts ever by a chief executive. he declared unilaterally almost 5 million undocumented aliens would receive deferred action under some new fangled definition of prosecutorial discretion. moreover, in addition to using prosecutorial discretion as a license to rewrite the law, he also conferred benefits on those same people. you may like the policy, you may wish the policy were the law, but one person does not make law in a republic. if you enjoy a single person making law, you should investigate living in another country. because our framers did not give us, nor have generations of our fellow citizens fought and serve and sacrificed for a single person to make law in a unilateral way. so removing consequences for breaking the law is one thing, but bestowing benefits like work authorization and immigration benefits is another. the president himself recognized his own inability to do this,

mr. chairman, more than 20 separate times, he said he lacked the power what he ultimately did. in 2011, he said this, and i quote, the notion that i could just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. he told us time and time again, mr. chairman, that he was not a king. his position may have changed. but the constitution has not and that document is clear and it is time tested and it is true and it says that congress passes laws and it is the responsibility of the chief executive to take care that those laws are faithfully enforce. the prosecutorial discretion -- [ inaudible ] a lot of conspiracies. how's that? is that better, mr. court reporter? let me see where i was. oh, his position may have changed, but the constitution has not.

prosecutorial discretion is real, and constitutionally valid, mr. chairman, but it is not a synonym for anarchy. can not enact a program where by it not only ignores the dictates of congress, but actively moves to thwart them. the constitution gives the president a lot of power, mr. chairman. he's the commander in chief, he nominates supreme court justices, he can veto legislation for any reason or no reason, he can fail to defend the constitutionality of the law, he has the power of pardon, he has a lot of power, mr. chairman. but what he cannot do is make law by himself. that is the responsibility of the congress. and if this president's unilateral extra constitutional acts are not stopped, future presidents, you may rest assured, will expand that power

of the executive branch, thereby threatening the constitutional equilibrium. the argument the previous administrations acted outside constitutional boundaries holds no merit with me, the fact that other people made mistakes is not a license for this executive to do the same thing. mr. president, in conclusion, we live in a country where process matters. the end does not justify the means, no matter how good the intentions, when a police officer fails to check the right box on an application for a search warrant, the fruits of that search warrant are suppressed. when a police officer, even though he has the right suspect, for the right crime, but he just fails to include one small part of those prophylactic miranda warnings, what happens, the statement is suppressed. even though you have the right person, even though you have the right crime, because we view process over the end. i must say this, and i'll finish, i want to say this to

those who benefit from the president's policies. you may be willing to allow the end to justify the means in this case, you may well like the fact that the president has abused prosecutorial discretion, and conferred benefits in an unprecedented way, you may benefit from the president's failure to enforce the law today, but i'll make you this promise. there will come a day where you will cry out for the enforcement of the law. there will come a day where you will long for the law to be the foundation of this republic. so you be careful what you do with the law today because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever. with that, i would yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman for the very cogent remarks and it is now my pleasure to recognize the

ranking member of the judiciary subcommittee on immigration and border security, the gentlewoman from california, miss lofgen, for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the 113th congress is considered to have been one of the most do nothing congresses in history. the biggest symbol of the republican failure to govern was the unnecessary and irresponsible shutdown that lasted from october 1st through october 16th. federal employees were furloughed for combined total of 6.6 million days, $2 billion was spent on payroll to these furloughed employees for work they were prevented from doing. the recovering economy took a hit, and millions of americans were denied access to programs and services that they rely on. perhaps it is fitting then that the 113th congress ended with the so-called cromnibus, a spending bill that yet again put us on a path toward a government shutdown.

we're only two months into the 14th congress, but it seems like the republican majority and the house and the senate is trying to outdo itself. for the past six weeks, rather than proceed with the dhs funding bill, the democrats and republicans and the house and senate agreed to last year, republican leaders and the house and the senate have insisted that funding be contingent on the series of poison pill immigration riders demanded by the most extreme members and supported by all but a few. since it was first hatched, many republicans have argued that the president acted unconstitutionally on november 20th when he and the secretary of homeland security announced a series of measures designed to bring a measure of sense to our broken immigration system. we have been told these measures cannot be permitted to take effect. last week, of course, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction halting two of those measures, the deferred action for parental accountability and the expansion of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. these efforts are designed to offer temporary protection from deportation to certain parents of u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents and to dreamers with long ties to our

country. the department of justice this week requested a stay of the injunction and noticed an appeal. the matter is in the hands of the federal courts. the branch of the government that the constitution entrusts to settle disputes, arising under the constitution and the laws of the united states. some people including some republicans in the house and the senate have speculated that a court injunction would convince republican leadership to stop holding the spending bill hostage. what we have seen over the past two weeks, however, is that many republicans are even more determined to take us over a cliff and once more shut down the government. several points are worth noting. first, we continue to hear republicans minimize the impact of a shutdown on national security, by arguing that 85% of dhs employees were deemed essential during the last

government shutdown. i just can't understand how we in congress would take comfort at the idea of forcing border patrol agents to secure our borders. coast guard personnel, to patrol the seas and officers and agents to conduct law enforcement investigations and secure detention facilities without receiving their paycheck. it is unconscionable really. further, it is bizarre that we will defund the e-verify program, stop the immigration enforcement efforts, but at the same time because they are fee supported, the processing of immigration petitions will be unimpeded. so the effort stops immigration enforcement, but does nothing to actually stop the processing of immigration petitions. second, since we know the court has already temporarily halted implementation of dop and daka, expanded daka, it is important to remember what other initiatives congressional republicans are trying to block as part of dhs funding. they voted overwhelmingly to eliminate the daka program itself, stripping protection from more than 600,000 dream act kids and subjecting them once more to deportation. they voted to prevent dhs from implementing a new enforcement strategy along our southern

border and creating three new law enforcement task forces. they voted to block dhs and dod from working together to ensure that u.s. citizens who wish to enlist in the military would be able to do so notwithstanding immigration status of close relatives.

it fails to acknowledge that the legal authority for granting work authorization and social security is entirely distingts from the authority to grant deferred action. and, in fact, is statutory yal. all of those authorities long pre-dated dakka and congress has never taken action to limit that diskrex. >> the courts will ultimately decide whether it can take effect. it is our responsibility to reform the law and it would be irresponsible of us to shut the government down. we should allow the courts to do their job and we should do our own. and i would yield back. >> the chair thanks the jentle woman.

we welcome our distinguished panel today. and if you would all rise, i'll begin by swearing in the witnesses. >> and is a special advisor to

the undersecretary of state for arms control and the international security. the attorney general graduated magna cum laude and also graduated from georgetown yumpbt law center. professor josh blackman is an assistant professor at the south txz college of law, specializing in constitutional law and the united states supreme court and is the author of unprecedented, the constitutional challenge to obamacare and over a dozen other articles about constitutional law. professor blackman, clerk for the honorable danny jchlt bogs of the u.s. court of appeal for the sixth sir cult and for kim r. gibson.

magnum cum laude from george mason university and magnum cum laude from penn state with a b.s. in information sciences and technology. professor elizabeth price foley is a professor at florida international university college of law where she teaches constitutional law. prior to joining fiu, professor foley was a professor of law at michigan state university college of law and served as a law clerk to the honorable carolyn king of the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. professor foley is the author of multiple books on constitutional issues, including liberty for all, reclaiming individual privacy in a new era of public morality. and presently serves on the editorial board of the cato supreme court review. professor foley graduated from the university of tennessee, and holds a b.a. of history from ák emory university. professor steven h.lagamski is the john s. leeman professor at washington university school of law. focusing on u.s. comparative and international immigration. the founding director -- a center for instruction and research in international and comparative law.

he recently returned from a two-year leave of absence serving as chief counsel of u.s. citizenship and immigration services. he is the coauthor of immigration and refugee law and policy which has been a required text at 176 law schools since its inception. the professor graduated first in his class at the university of san diego school of law and clerked for the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit. i ask you each summarize your testimony in five minutes or less to help you stay within that time limit. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony, and when the light turns red, that's it, your time is up.

please stop. welcome, you may begin. >> mr. chairman, ranking member, and members of the committee. my name is adam paul laxalt and i'm the attorney general of nevada. on behalf of nevada, i thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the state's lawsuit, challenging president obama's unilateral executive action granting deferred action over 4 million people. i represent 26 states that have sued the federal government. it's about the president's attempt to change the law through unconstitutional executive action. like most of us i'm the

descendent of immigrants. my ancestors came in search of a better life. in our nation's history, similar stories have been repeated over and over they are what we have come to know as the american dream. however, it's never been true that in order to sympathize with the plight of immigrants or to believe in the american dream one must reject our constitutional system. fond of using that is a false choice. it is our commitment to the rule of law and the constitution that

has drawn people to our shores across generations. the president said the following, i am the president, i am not the king. i cannot do these things by myself. there's a limit to the discretion. i can't just make the laws up myself. we can't ignore the law. these are series of comments the president made before this action. after repeatedly acknowledging his duty to faithfully enforce the immigration laws passed

direct d his homeland security to do just that and change tlau. to quote the president himself, he said, i just took an action to change the law. a coalition of states brought suit in federal court to join the president's unilateral action. requires the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed. during the korean war, president truman relying on the war unilaterally seized the steel mills. president truman justified unilateral action because congress refused to pass a statute authorizing his action. they were ruled unconstitutional. here the federal judge presiding over this case has observed. not only ignores the dictates of congress, but thwarts them. the case was held unconstitutional by the supreme court. we think president obama's unilateral action here is unconstitutional.

second, federal statutory law, namely the administration procedural acts similarly requires when an agency issues a substantive rule. under unambiguous statutory law, the department of homeland security here, i quote judge hanan again is tasked with the duty of removing illegal aliens. congress has provided it shall do this. the word shall certainly deprives the dhs of the right to

do something that is clearly contrary to congress' intent. the president's plan that millions of illegally present individuals be granted legal present work authorization, eligibility for state and federal benefits cannot be squared with federal law. and therefore we believe violates the procedures act. third, when a federal agency changes the rules like the president has ordered here the administrative procedure act also requires that due process is followed. that is, the agency must give fair notice of the rule change and allow public comment before implementing the change. everyone agrees that was not done here. so this is the third reason the states are arguing the president's action violates the law. as you all know on february 16th, judge hanan found the states had standing and issued a

preliminary injunction in joining the implementation of the program. now, why nevada joined as nevada's chief enforcement officer, nevada law requires i initiate or join litigation wherever necessary to protect and secure the interest of the state. this suit is not about immigration. it is not about politics, it is about the rule of law and our constitutional system. this lawsuit transcends policy differences and seeks to prevent legislation from being usurped by executive fiat. upholding our constitutional process is more significant than any policy directive. that any political party may be pushing at any time. thank you for allowing me to testify about this important issue. >> thank you, general. professor blackman, welcome, i understand your parents are with us today. they're -- >> my dad is wearing the same color tie. you'll know who he is. >> excellent. >> chairman, ranking members and members of the judiciary committee. i'm a constitutional law professor at the south texas college of law in south texas. i'm honored to have an opportunity to testify about why it violates the constitution and poses severe threat to the separation of powers. my brief time, i have three points. first, doppa's unprecedented exercise and not constant with

previous exercise's preferred action. it violates the presence of duty to take care of the laws faithly executed. an encroaching threat to the separation of powers and the rule of law that congress not just the courts must take steps to court. the office of legal counsel declared that justify dopa through congressional approval. these claims are false. so first, in 1997, deferred action was granted for battered aliens under the violence against women act, vowa. where petition had already been approved but a visa was not immediately available.

here the deferred action served as a temporary bridge for those who would soon receive permanent status according to the laws of congress. in 2001, deferred action was granted for aliens under the victims of trafficking and violence protection act. lawful status was immediately available on the other side of the deferral. third, in 2005, deferred action was granted for foreign students who, unfortunately, lost their visas when gulf coast schools were closed following hurricane katrina. the deferred action bridged the gap and gave the students four months to enroll at another college or university in order to regain the status previously held. fourth, in 2009, deferred action was granted for aliens that were widowed by the untimely death of their spouse before the minimum two-year period. visa petitions have been filed but not completely adjudicated by the government because of administrative delays. again, a way to deferral. it acted as a temporary bridge from one status to another where benefits were construed as immediately arising post deferred action. in contrast with dopa, deferred action served not as a bridge, but as a tunnel to dig under and

through the ina. there's no visa, the proverbial pot of gold awaiting other side of this deferred action rainbow. my second point is that dopa violates the presence duty to second point is that dapa violates to take care of the laws we executed. article ii imposes a duty on the president unlike any other in the constitution. he shall and must take care of the laws to be faithfully executed. with daca, the blueprint for dapa, the administration limited offices to turn disdroegs a rub er stamp. this did not reallocate resources but was an effort to bypass and a transparent one at that. second, because dapa is not consistent congressional policy according to justice jackson's decision presidential power is at its lowest ebb. third, like that mythical phoenix, dapa and daca rose in the ashes of congressional defeat. the president instituted the policies after congress voted down the legislation he wanted. further, the president repeated over and over and over again that he could not act unilaterally in the precise manner he did.

his actions create a prima fascia case of bad faith. third and finally. while i support comprehensive immigration reform, the president's unconstitutional actions can not be sanctioned. i hasten to add if upheld democrats have a much, much more to fear from this precedent. generally, democrats like when the government takes more action and republicans like when the government takes less action. today democrats may approve the president's deportation halt, delay unpopular provisions of obamacare or not prosecute marijuana crimes. however, the situation would be very, very different if republican president declined to enforce provisions of the tax code, waive mandates under environmental laws or decline to put obamacare together. in the words of james madison, the only way to keep the separation of powers in place is for ambition to counteract ambition. although the courts play a role to serve as the bulwarks of the limited constitution, our republic cannot leave the task of safeguarding freedom the

judiciary. the congress must counteract the president's ambition. the failure to do so will continue the one way ratchet for executive supremacy and delusion of nowers of the congress and the sovereignty of the people. the rule of law and the constitution itself are destined to fail if the separation of powers turn to parchment barriers that can be disregarded when the president deems a law broken. thank you very much and i welcome your questions. >> thank you, professor blackman. professor foley welcome. >> chairman goodlatte ranking members connier members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify again today. my criticisms with the president's immigration actions are based on legal process and not any particular policy or political results. what shape immigration reform may ultimately take is not my concern as a constitutional scholar. my sole concern is with preserving the constitution and its separation of powers

architecture. president obama has repeatedly said that his motivation for taking executive action on immigration is because he wants to fix our broken immigration system. and what this means is that he's trying to fix our immigration law because of course, immigration law is the only immigration system that we have. so he thinks our immigration law is broken and he believes that it's broken because it fails to exempt certain categories that he thinks deserve exemption from deportation and to whom he believes the law should grant benefits such as work permits. but fixing a law by unilaterally changing it by granting exemptions, recommend dis and benefits that the law doesn't provide is legislating. or to be more precise, it's amending. and that's a power that is given

exclusively to congress by the constitution. the president's duty under the constitution is not to fix a law that he thinks is broken but to faithfully execute that law. when a president takes upon himself the power to change a law he doesn't like, we have no democracy anymore, we have instead, a legislature of one. if congress doesn't oppose president obama's executive orders on immigration, it will be writing its own institutional obituary. when congress fails to express disagreement with executive action, the courts tend to construe that as acquiescence or implied authorization by congress. this is so-called category one from justice jackson's concurrence in the youngstown steel seizure case. so congress needs to be very careful here. it has a constitutional responsibility to vigorously protect its turf.

president obama's immigration actions are unconstitutional for three separate and distinct reasons that i elaborate in the written statement. first, they alter status of certain illegal immigrants, magically transforming them from deportable to not deportable. second, they provide a remedy called deferred action that congress has not explicitly or implicitly authorized for this category of people. third, they confer benefits upon certain illegal immigrants that that again congress has not expolice siltly or implicitly approved for this population. any one of those particular reasons will render executive action on constitutional. when you have all three of them existing as you do hear with president obama's executive actions on immigration it creates sort of a bermuda triangle of unconstitutionality.

it has a uniquely powerful gravitational pull capable of eviscerating article i's legislative powers. it's the combination of all three of these aspects of president obama's executive orders on immigration that make it uniquely dangerous to this institution. i'd like to highlight two points that i elaborate on in the written statement that i think bear a little special mention first, by granting work permits to dhaka and dan a recipients president obama immigration orders encourage employers to hire illegal immigrants over lawful residents. that's because the accordffordable care act does not allow illegal immigrants to buy insurance. so if you hire more dak a and dapa p.a. recipients, this

lessens the employers exposure. so the more illegal i want grants you hire who are eligible then fewer eligible to buy health insurance and the fewer employers you have capable of triggering that employer responsibility tax. why do i go into that detail? it means one important thing. president obama's immigration actions undermine the aca itself by undermining its goal of providing insurance via the workplace. so it's no small irony here that by granting work permits to daca and dan pa recipients, president obama is undermining his own signature legislative achievement. second dapa and daca recipient

cans leave the country and come back relatively quickly. without that if you enter this country and leave you have to stay out for a long period of time, usually about three to ten years before you're allowed to reenter. so once a daca or dapa recipient reenters this country they're considered to be paroled into the country and controlled individuals under the statute are eligible to adjust their legal status and they can do this as long as they qualify for a visa such as, let's say, an employer-sponsored visa. so what does this mean? it means that at least for some dapa and ♪" th recipients attaining advanced parole will provide -- professor foley, you've exceeded your time limit considerably as well. could you please summarize? >> absolutely. it means they will be able to have a pathway to u.s. citizenship. this is problematic because congress has the sole power to decide who's granted citizenship

under the constitution and even if just one person under daca and dapa is granted advanced patrol and applying for adjustment of status we have a fundamental sur patient of congress's power over naturalization. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you professor. professor legamski welcome. >> thank you very much mr. chairman ranking member conyers and honorable members of this committee. i appreciate the that reasonable minds can and do differ about the policy decisions but i want to respectfully share my opinion that the president's actions are clearly within his legal authority. that's not just my opinion, by the way. this past november 135 immigration law professors and scholars joined in a letter expressing their views that these actions are "well within the legal authority of the executive branch." we are people who have spent years and in some cases

including mine, decades studying, teaching researching and writing immigration law and we are very familiar with what the statute allows and what it forbids. the president has not just one but multiple sources of legal authority for these actions, and i've submitted a detailed written statement that documents each of them. i also identify there every legal objection i can think of that the president's critics have offered and i've explained why, in my view, none of them ultimately withstand scrutiny. so with limited time i'll hit just a few key points and refer you, please, to the written statement. deferred action has been standard agency practice for many decades and it's been expressly recognized by congress in several provisions and in many court decisions. further more, every lawyer knows that statutes are not the only source of law. the most explicit legal authority for deferred action but not the only authority is in the formal agency regulations which have authorized it since the earliest days of the reagan ad