say something. >> [inaudible] >> well, if -- as the governor alluded to, and i try to maintain a sense of independence. what's important to me is to delve into the issues an make up my own decisions. i'm only going to be there for a brief period of time. but while i'm there i'm going to make the most of it on behalf of the people of west virginia. >> [inaudible] . .

>> can i speak first and let carte follow up on that. there's no litmus test, when you worked side by side for four years, day and night, and you know a person -- i have said this about west virginiaian, we could look at your eyes and see your soul. but when you spend 24 hours a day, you get to know them. that's what i knew. that's where i started making my decisions a based on a person that i knew would be impeccable as far as in the decision making process. uncover any stone, do all of the research it would take. bring me the pros and cons, i know he'll do it more so for himself. i know he's fiercely independent. there's other west virginia citizens. it is not like there's a litmus test, do you fit there? i know basically the love of

this state and we have said, the center is fighting, the great fight he's fighting for our people. we're fighting the good fight here, we do it every day. the senate president will do that. he wrote the legislation and he would research things and bring it, basically, whether it is cap and trade or anything you might want to talk about, this person has been on the front end. he's given for four years of his life to public service and rocky will tell you, take it away from her and west at many knights for that. so, there's no litmus test being given here whatsoever. >> the only thing i would add to that is our -- our first policy discussion with cap and trade following the -- >> we did talk about that a bit. >> it happened mostly in response to the previous questions a couple of minutes ago. you dough don't have to live, too fwar from ear shot of any radio or newspaper to know, how strongly one citizens feel about

that. and how important it is that we protect our economy and make sure those voices are heard in washington. >> we go around the room, it not you'll been so kind. we appreciate it. thank you. [applause] >> proud of you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captions performed by the national captioning institute] >> congress is in session this week. zoo 12k3w4r50

host: for the next 45 >> the is discussion regarding the mid term elections and the politician that goes along with that on the cover of this week's edition of the "christian science monitor." house of pelosi behind the speaker's personal brand of power politician by gail russell, who joins at the c span table. tell us about the power

politician. th elections? guest: to be asked to do something about whom so much is written, you have to dig to find something different. what strikes me about how she gibbons is how well she knows the back door to her members. she's been 40 years of fund- raising, and knows anyone who has ever written a check of more the $1,000 to the democratic party, and those who they are connected to. it is not the money. it is the political intelligence, the knowledge. repeatedly, she has pushed those critical, difficult votes. when her legacy is written, she will get credit for that. host: reid wilson has this article called "battling irrelevancy" --

in truth, neither party structure is monolithic, and but they're becoming weaker as political power and the money the comes with it diffuses outside the beltway. gail russell chaddock talked a little about the money the speaker was raising. talk to was a little more about that money, and how it is being defused outside the beltway, and how that may affect the election? guest: that is right. not only lately are we seeing members of congress raising all this money, and the political parties raising all this money, but now all subgroups are establishing themselves to run the same kind of campaign ads. it is millions coming in. at the moment it is fairly unregulated, given some consequential court cases over the past year but changed the

way federal election law works. these groups are less regulated than a normal party committee, have to do less disclosure. they can be relatively anonymous and secret. when this money comes in, nancy pelosi may control a lot of the money that goes to members themselves, but when there are $300 million that republican allied groups are expected to spend, the money members themselves raise becomes less imported mig of this has weakened both parties -- becomes less important. this has weakened both parties. we have seen a weakening on both the right and left. it contributes to gridlock in the washington. senator bob bennett, a big knock against him before he lost, was he had worked together with a

liberal democrat from morgan on his own version of the healthcare bill. the bill did not even come up. the simple fact they worked together was enough to have republican primary voters in the utah very upset. if that is the standard to be used, that is what this outside money is really doing. host: is your contention that the deregulation of the political financing laws levels the playing field for republicans tried to regain control of congress? guest: it has allowed more money to come into the republican side. it has at the same time allow more money to come in on the democratic side. the main case that has thrown some much turmoil into the system was called a decisioa dee out in january.

it is these as we see just before the election. lately the labor unions have been using that as much if not more than corporations have. they spent $10 million on the race against senator blanche lincoln of arkansas. it has opened the door to more money from both sides, both liberals and conservatives, as opposed to democrats and republicans. the party structures themselves have less money to deal with. if you are a big donor is can write a big check to either party. the money goes to feeding the building, repairing the elevator, paying the security guards. it means not much of your money is going to political advertisement. if you write a $1 million check to one of these outside organizations, all but $1 is going to advertising, straight

out the door. host: gail russell chaddock, will the deregulation of campaign financing make it easier for speaker policy and democrats to raise money they need to hold onto power in congress? guest: it is a wild card at this point. i have heard arguments that corporations will be reluctant to spend money, especially if they have become identified with issues. it can hurt them in difficult economic times. the fact is, we do not know. members are very concerned about this for the reasons we are discussing. it is a big unknown. it will be an election cycle that is true difficult for incumbents. host: your top two issues you think voters will be thinking about in 2010?

guest: jobs, and more jobs. the economy is so huge that it eclipses all else. host: and your guest: thoughts she is right that the economy will dominate everything. this election is turning into a referendum. host: we're talking about the 2010 midterm elections and politics that go with them. if you would like to get involved, give us a call. you can also send us messages by twitter and e-mail. the first call comes from fresno, california, john, on the line for republicans. caller: ok, guys. here's my question. let's make an assumption that on

this 2010 election in november that republicans take back the house. my question is this -- is there going to be as much obstructionism from the democrats as there is from the republicans right now? . .

>> thanks for why your call. >> when you only control the house, you're a counter weight for the president. the president still has the bully pulpit. you might try to, articulate a program of your own, something like the contract with america. but you know, there's almost no indication that republicans want to do that. i think they think they could take back the house without articulating anything that voter concern about the economy and the executive power will be so much it'll dwarf everything else. once you come in to power with for program, you don't have a mandate. even if you had the presidency, which you don't. i think -- democrats will oppose it but i don't see them using their power in the house to do much of

anything other than to counter president. host: next up, matt on the line for democrats. go ahead. >> i have a question and i would like an answer and then like to respond, a response. from -- for the lady, please. what exactly does the christian science monitor do? guest: it is an international daily newspaper started in 1908. what distinguished it when it started out was a rigorous sense of balance. it was there at the time of yellow journalism when the newspapers started wars. she thought the members of the church needed to understand what the real issues so they could pray about them. most of our readers are not members of the church. they want a balanced view. when people think of us, they think of our balanced coverage

and our international coverage. host: matt, a follow-up? >> real quick. please don't cut me off, it taken a while for me to get through. i just -- first of all, how do you feel about people maybe that you know, will read your paper, how do you diaw feel in these times where -- i mean this country is falling apart. it is very scary what is going on in our country. how do you feel about people that come out and vote bible and not politician? really fangly i believe that -- an organization like yours should be illegal. guest: we're not -- i think if you read the paper, you would be hard priced to find a religious point of view except in one article. there's a clearly marked religious article that talks about spirituality and the events of the day. i think if you looked at it,

about half of it is liberal, half says i'm too conservative. no one ever suggested i'm too realmuous. host: back to the phones, jerry for independents. go ahead. >> that's okay. i hate all of the other ones except me. i'm curious, these polls we went through this the last segment, when these polls are taken, are they taken with people who just have hard land lines or are they taken with people that have cell phones or computers? if it is hard lines, how do you get an accurate poll? host: are you concerned about the accuracy of the polls? do you think that could have the effect on the election? >> if they're sticking to one segment of people with land loins and they're not hitting the kids in the cars and with their little laptops or

whatever, i think it would be biased poll. you would probably get more -- more from elderly than from the middle or -- younger aged people. i don't know star e -- i got a land line. host: we'll leave it there. your thoughts on the polling that is out there. how much do you the politicians actually pay attention to that when they're meeting with constituents? >> every politician will say, i don't pay attention and every politician knows, is watching every poll that comes out. they can't get enough of them, like we can't. there are some interesting points he property up. there's a move toward accepting, or rather including a number of cell phone users in every, in every survey, you know, i myself don't have a land line. so i would fall into that cell phone user category, although they do screen for immediate yeah, i probably wouldn't make it very far in the poll. but you know, there's -- there are colorly levels of polling

that are -- some are great. some are not so great. take a look at -- there's a great company called mason-dixon. they do surveys for a number of organizations from around the country. a number of newspapers that is. they were the ones behind the -- the harry reid poll that came out, has harry reid leading by seven points in nevada. they're seen as a well respected poll. they'll do a number of polls closer to the mid term elections. then there are others. there are real concerns here. there was a story going on at the moment in the polling community, the liberal blog daily coast has been paying for a number of polls condubted by a firm called research 2000, that blog thinks -- by the way, every poll makes headlines. every poll leads a newspaper somewhere. the poll that -- rather this company is now thought to have fabricated a number of their surveys. that leads to, obviously some -- some mistaken conclusions.

they got polls seriously wrong and people think that they didn't actually conduct the polls in the first place. that's why everybody has to be more careful about polling than just saying, hey, have you seen the latest number. i'm ahead by five or behind by five. it makes a large difference in -- you know, in who conducted the poll, when it was conduct and how. who the sample is. if i go survey, you know, 1,000 self-identified democrats and i say that president obama's approval rating 95%. that doesn't represent the entire country. there has to be the appropriate weights and -- the appropriate amount of person and demographic group in every survey. there are poll that is still do it the very old-fashioned way. the columbus dispatch does a famous poll where they may allow ballots. they mail out ballots and those are returned. they base their polls on that. honest to god, every year they get it pretty close. host: next up is jim out of

north carolina. you're on the journal with guile russell and reid wilson. stcomplee i' too. the election i guess a little over three months away here. my concern is that as a republican and i think the republicans are making a major error here in thinking that the dissatisfied electorate is going to go in and sweep >> i think the electorate is wrong in thinking they'll sweep them back into office. 12k3w4r50 contract on ame , the democrats labeled it. they need specific list of factual items that they will guarantee if the american people, you know, as much as a politician can guarantee anything. but that they will guarantee

for instance start number one can the economy, number two with the deficit, number three with immigration, and lay out specific facts. people want facts. if they think people like me, i'm not going to go back vote republicans because i'm -- i think that the republicans are just as cruddy as the democrats. unless they can come up with we want something concrete and factual to change this country. host: before i let you gow, if you're not going to vote for republicans or democrats, who are you going to vote for? caller: well, i sat out the last election, i can sit this one out too. because unless this election proves to be a water shed moment for the country, there's going to be a lot of people sitting out the election, i'm afraid. guest: the argument you just made is one that's being made very powerfuly within republican leadership right

now. there are people saying exactly what you're saying. take an example. the race to replace john murtha in pennsylvania, southwestern pennsylvania, i went around with the republican candidate tim burns who is running ads against nancy pelosi. some of them pretty funny basically saying let's get rid of this all-powerful monster, sort of 50-foot bubble held crushing cities. and the poll suggested that was enough. she is very unpopular in that part of the state. and yet, the democrat ended up winning by eight points. and after that race, which republicans really thought that they would win, it would be a big symbolic victory, a lot of discussion was made just like you're saying. look, we can't just expect that disappointment with the democrats will give us back the house. we need a program of our own. so you might want to start peppering republicans like comments you made today. guest: one interesting thing

about the nancy pelosi situations. republicans have used her as a cudgele against democrats. and in every single race in which they highlight nancy pelosi as the big bad boogie man they lose. nancy pelosi is very unpopular but voters don't care. voters are in the case of pennsylvania 12 they saw it as a contest between tim burns and mark crist and mark won that race. now, you have got, as republicans are talking about nancy pelosi it's clearly been a losing issue. so that's something they're starting to realize and i think she is going to play a diminished role in their ads come this november. host: next up, tony out of california. go ahead. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say yes i'm a liberal and we love you, nancy. we think that she does a great job. the republicans are the ones that hate her and we think that she does the job that she was chosen to do.

and i think just want to say that everyone, independents, democrats, republicans, that the republican party has been the obstructionist party and has failed to pass employment benefits for millions and millions of americans, and if they think that people are going to vote for them with that record and the fact that they're the runs us into this economy, i think they need to rethinks. host: i want to tack on this twitter message from mr. happy 4807. guest: there's going to be a dropoff from 2008. the number of people who came out and voted was huge, absolutely unheard of. the most people who had ever voted before.

in -- democrats really need those first-time voters to come out again, and the democratic national committee is setting aside $30 million to turn them out again and saying you voted for president obama for the first time, you voted come in and vote one more time. keep the democratic majority that he needs to pursue his agenda. that being said, independent voters have largely made up their minds on this administration and the democratic congress and it is not favorable. independent voters are the ones who not only created the democratic majority in 2006, expanded it in 2008 and gave president obama the white house, they are going to play the key role in this year's mid-term election. the enthusiasm gap is significant but it's not huge. it's not overwhelming. the democratic base will still turn out to the polls, the

republican base will still turn out to the polls. the difference is the independent voters have broken largely so far away from the democratic party and towards republicans. one interesting thing as we're talking about this idea of a new contract with america. or america speaking out is what the republicans in congress are trying to label it as, how they're trying to gather their ideas. they are walking a serious tight rope here as they dream up these new solutions, this new platform. the moment they put anything out will be the moment the democrats attack and say, look, this is a choice election between democrats and republicans as opposed to simply a referendum on the democratic party. once you get into that choice election, that's where republicans start to lose seats that they might otherwise win. they need this to be a referendum on president obama and democrats. >> host: two items this morning

that mention the tea party. how much of an influence is the tea party going to have in the mid-term elections? are they starting to heat up? guest: the nice thing is no one really know what is it is. but what it does is give democrats i think a very powerful tool here. let's say that the republicans decide not to listen to what jim just suggested. now, we're not going to come up with a program of our own. democrats will say you know what their program is? it's sharon angle in nevada. tea party candidate defeated the candidate that the national republicans had hoped would win. harry reid, senate majority leader hoped she would be his opponent because some of her positions, such as getting rid

of medicare scare people. so if republicans don't come up with a platform of their own, democrats can say, sharon is their platform and that's what they will do when they're in power. so like it or not, democrats will have someone to oppose even if they have to fabricate it. host: your thoughts. guest: that's absolutely right. and the tea party is a movement that a lot of people -- it's a movement that the media is clearly fascinated by. we've talked about it nonstop. it's in the paper every single day. and jourmists are going to these meetings, these gatherings, and every now and then people says something that's completely tauf rocker and does not represent the average mood of the tea party. but it's fair to say that the tea party, if it can be defined as anything. it can be defined as a concern with spending, a sort of general the people who show up with these rallies are most

concerned with government spending and the reach of government. but that leads to a whole bunch of sort of off your rocker kind of ideas that aren't necessarily in the mean stream or are completely outside. and you're exactly right, that's where republicans start to lose seats when they show up or when they don't offer any idea and democrats are able to say u -- democrats don't want to run against sarpe, you are sara palin, the person whose approval ratings are much less of president obama. >> and jeff has an article in this morning's "new york times" with a flurry of endorsement palin tries to influence primaries one year after leaving public office behind, definetly stepping down as governor of alaska.

guest: defy ntly stepping down is a great phrase. she has played a big role and won. she's got a great record in picking these primary candidates. everybody from nicky haily. take a look at susana martinez in nume. she's gone to a number of places. the next challenge is in the upcoming georgia, where she's picked secretary of state who is running second or third in the polls and now she is getting some momentum. so sara palin brings with her a clear following among the hard core republicans. and those are the people who turn out to vote. so if those people are told by her, hey, this candidate has the blessing of sara palin they're going to do well in the primary election. she doesn't have a perfect record. guest: of course, if you pick

the winning candidate in the primary are you ensuring that that candidate loses in the general? democrats are delighted with some of the picks that she's made. host: back to the phones. al on our line for independents on the washington journal. caller: good morning, folks. a couple points before you cut me off. the first point is this. my honest opinion the last time i called in, similar topic. i think the american people are going to vote republicans into the house and try to balance out the congress as a break water against an all-democratic party run operation. and i say that because i think there's still a lot of anger out there that the health care bill and the wall street bailout was rammed to us and we are very as a middle-class

person, i think the middle-class is really p.o.ed at that. we're pissed that no one has paid attention to us. we're the one who foot the bill yet like a child with a credit card they just went spending crazy and now we don't know what the bill is going to be on this. but we know it's going to be big and we know it's going to be bad. and i think that the republicans are using the same strategy that the democrats used in 2006. host: are the members of congress in the house and the senate are they ignoring the electorate on these issues? guest: well, i think you're going to see a lot of focus on what has been done for the middle class. but that's eclipsed by what people experience in their life. if you're still unemployed, even if they do as expected on tuesday pass unemployment extension, unemployment

insurance extension, you're still unemployed. you'd rather have a job. but i think the point the caller made is absolutely right and there is an impulse that is verified in polls that americans like checks and balances in government. and there was great enthusiasm for president obama and democrats controlling the house and the senate. but even and especially among some democrats disappointment about what they've been able to produce. but on the republican side it's genuine alarm. this concern about spending isn't restricted just to what reagan republicans, the example of the meltdown in greece and europe frightened a lot of people. and the sense that the government deficit, you know, 1.5 trillion and counting, should strongly by moderates as well as republicans, and i think it's a factor in probably every election this year. host: albert on our line for

republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you. i really appreciate the thoughts and research that these two reporters bring to the table. i just wanted to say that i've been a life-long republican and i am totally disappointed in their gimmickry. that guy, with the glasses for the republicans, i think his name is canter, i'm not sure. and then boehner. even mitch mcconnell. these guys have no credibility. they have stalled and they're awful people. and i don't see any leadership there. the r.n.c., the guy there, he's ridiculous. they have rush limbaugh. i'm really and truly getting out of the party. i just don't understand them except for the fact that they defend corporations, and corporations are just ripping

us terribly. i'm really tired of it. and i don't see everything these people are talking about except for the fact that our country, our jobs have gone overseas. and it was supposed to stop and it hasn't stopped. host: thanks for your call. guest: one thing that we've seen over the last couple years is that republicans are really struggling with their own identity. and by the way, it will be important for the party to realize, i think that if they win in 2010 it's no -- it's no rubber stamp that rationized there agenda. in fact, it's going to be sort of a boomer rang effect from republicans. the last caller brought up a point about anger. that's, this anger he said isn't new. it's there's still anger out there. and al is absolutely right. the anger happened in 2006, it

manifested itself in a democrat majority in congress. it happened in 2008. it manifested a clear rejection of the bush administration and an increased democratic majority and democratic president. now it's republicans turn to be angry and that's going to manifest itself in some pretty significant gains come this election. but even if they win, their agenda is not going to be valid dated. they're going to have to come out with some of their own ideas. eric is going to play a big role, john boehner is going to play a big role, mitch mcconnell will play a big role in that. but members of congress themselves are going to have to put together some kind of solution. that's what the 2012 candidates, the folks running against president obama will play a big role as well. they'll be able to lay out their own policy ideas. then that will lead to yet another fracture of the republican party with tim pole

entive saying one thing and sara palin saying another, all trying to get votes from iowa and the new hampshire voters. host: mitch on our line for democrats. caller: yes, a registered democrat life-long. but the direction of the democratic party i'm not happy with it at all. and i'm not the only one. so i don't think i'll be voting for democrats. host: when you say you're not happy with the direction that the democratic party is going in, give us a specific thing that you're dissatisfied with. caller: well, talk of cap and tax. also, this health care. but the one thing that gets me is democratic party at one time was for working people. and it seems like when you're a government today. we're not out here in the working class out here since the 70s we've been getting hammered. swrobs don't pay, the benefits aren't there. so they want to give government

the best benefit packages that can be had. so the democratic party doesn't represent me as a working person any more. host: address that man's concerns, please. guest: that's a really big issue. republicans are looking for you because the case they're making is that the obama administration has been focused on the public sector, not the private sector. republicans on friday pulled together 16 private sector organizations and basically asked them what would it take for you to hire again. and tried to link toyota what the obama administration is doing. there's so much uncertainty that's going to be required of businesses with these mandates with health care, so much uncertainty that's going to be required of businesses in this new financial regulation package.

republicans are using that to craft exactly the argument you're making, that this is good for the public sector, good for public sector unions. bad for the private sector that needs some sense of stability and some sense tax cuts, for example. republicans will go back to that argument. democrats have a huge decision to make in the next few months about whether or not to renew, extend the bush tax cuts. and the arguments are going to make, the republicans, are your point. your voice is exactly the one republicans are looking for. host: edmund on our line for independents. caller: thank you for having me on. i'm a redge registered independent. i'm against amnesty for illegal immigrants. and i think that the republican party is going to win

overwhelmingly come this next election because people are really upset at the devastating thing that is obama is doing like suing arizona for trying to enforce the immigration laws, like misspending all of the stimulus money. that stimulus will not work the way he spent it. a he was so -- and the health care bill, i'm so upset at the democrats for being lying to us, for not being open, and for being so dishonest about it. i wouldn't vote for a democratic incumbent. i don't care how bad the person that's going to get replaced -- replace them is. host: will there be much blow-back for democratic candidates because of the obama

administration's position on the arizona immigration law? guest: well, i don't think so specifically because of the lawsuit that the administration is pursuing against arizona. at tend of the day, people are voting based on jobs. anybody who is going to vote based on immigration is probably already voting for the republican candidate if they want to curb illegal immigration. any candidate who is actually talking about immigration issues is going -- is likely to be a republican. then again, this is one of those sort of stories that is going to have an impact 20 years from now as opposed to right now. as republicans talk about immigration, they're starting to be very careful in the way they do so. they don't want to irritate hispanic voters. they're now the largest minority population in the u.s., the fast est growing, and that's there's going to be a generation of hispanic voters. i had a republican consultant say to me that if hispanic voters start voting the same

ways that african american voters do in overwhelmingly favoring democratic candidates, you're not going to be talking about how win back florida when you're running for the presidency. republicans are going to be talking about how not to lose texas. these are some very read states that are going to have huge hispanic populations. and as republicans, some on the republican base begin to use ludge that makes hispanic voters very uncomfortable, ludge about deportation and -- i don't want to get into an entire immigration spiel right now. but as republicans use some of that ludge, they're turning off hispanic voters. that will have a dramatic impact for a very long time to

>> since the system is broken, we need someone that can break the system. for this gathering on the oldest and largest and most revered civil rights organization. it is time to break the system. business as usual is no longer acceptable. vietnam war era, northern california there's a sentiment that was against the government and against big corporations. not so much because the government was large, not so much because the corporations were advancing but there was a thought along college students that they were squark the individual spirit, that there had to be something that would rise to speak against the status quo, to go against the enormousness and to raise the standard. on the campus of the university of california in berkeley in a dorm room, there were two young men that made up in their minds, they were going to break the system. steve jobs and steve wiz sin sky

made up their minds that a change had to happen. they were influences tered and confused as to how it is. the monopoly of mom bell had a choke hold on the american telecommunication system. in the dorm room, they came up with something called the blue box. it allowed them to call home for free. it was not their intent to do anything ill heigl. it was their intent to do something to change the system. after it is they shut the blue box down, they came together and opened a fledgling company called the apple corporation. the apple corporation made up in their mind it was their ideal, it was their principle, it was their standard to change the system. in their first year, they garnered $1 million. in their second year, $10 million. in their third year $100 million. by their sixth year, they were a

billion dollar corporation, why? because they made up in their mind that they had to change the system. in 1940e8, the super bowl found itself, reexamined and redefined because the apple corporation for the very first time spent multi-millions of dollars to produce a commercial that would run for 60 seconds, produced by the producer of a film that -- that stalwart presentation of a commercial redefined how the super bowl was going to exist, you will note that apple is not in the marketing industry. they are not football players. they have nothing to do with nfl, but it was something in them that said, we mississippi change the system. while it is the big recording industries were tracking dunn 12 and 15-year-olds for pirating and illegally downloading music. it was the apple corporation that said we must change the system. and change how music is shared.

as a consequence, they began to develop the ipod and itunes. as a consequence consequence -- consequence, music industry must acquiesce to them, neither one of them play an instrument or sipping. it was not about their open promotion, it was about changing the system. they were not satisfied with that. they saw even greater giant called i.b.m. they made up in their mind that computers ought not sit in a library or isolated corporation, but computers should be available to every individual in their home. as a consequence, within five years, i.b.m. found itself obsolete and out of date and rarely anybody in the room has one. we understand that the apple corporation made up in their minds that they must break the system. one week ago in less than 48 hours, 1 hoyt 4 million cell

phones were sold, changing how it is that tell communication is done. why? because they remembered at their inception in a college dormitory and university of california in berkeley, that they hado change the system. prior to that moment, it was up to the distributors to tell the manufacturers what it is that they wanted on the phones. so verizon and nextel and sprint and at&t would tell what it is that they wanted from motorola and nokia. but apple made up about in their mind, you're not going to tell us what to produce. we're going to tell you what we want you to carry. as a consequence, they broke the system. i am here tonight to give america a wake-up call. they -- there is a new sheriff in town. because the ncaa has made up in their mind, that we have not come to be a part of the system. but we are -- we come to change the system. so in the event that rush limbaugh is listening, you might

want to refill your prescription medication, because there's a new leader in town. in the event that sarah palin is anywhere in the vicente, we have found a system -- a sister that has substance. in the event that the tea party can hear my voice, you have poured your last cup. the system is about to be broken, the ncaa has a new voice, a new vision, i want you to help me welcome somebody who is not going to be a part of the system but somebody that willbreak the system. welcome, the ncaacp. clap your hands for somebody that will break the system. ♪

♪ >> thank you, dr. bryant. for that extraordinary introduction. let's give him another big round of applause. that's what the naacp produces. i'm grateful dr. bryant for your friendship and support over the years. to chairman amer tis julian bond, an attorney pamela horowitz, to vice chair leon russell, members of the national board of directors, special contribution board of trustees, president benjamin jel ourks s and first lady, and delegates and friends, i am privileged to be with you tonight in kansas city.

i became a member of the naacp youth and college division as a freshman in 1984. never would i imagine that 26 years later i would address its national convention as chairman of the national board. michigan election to this post looping with the selection of benjamin todd jelus 22 months ago, signals the passing of the baton to the next generation of leaders who would become the new front line for social justice advocacy in our nation. [applause] again it is an honor to leave the organization and into a

second century. i'm grateful for the opportunity to serve. thank you again so much to the members of the national board of directors because each of you have mid this incredible journey possible. i want to personally thank members of my family who are here tonight to support me. first and foremost, i would not be here tonight if it were not for my loving mother, miss samson. my sister, devit ooh, mccalister and my brother, sergeant ronald glover. members of my family from florida and special friends who are here with me tonight who traveled across the nation, please stand. i want folks to see the wind beneath my winds.

to the village that raised me, a special thank you to the hon and orable hazel dukes, attorney james g and maxine who could not be with us tonight, along with chairman emertuss. and most importantly, friends, there's is a man that i want to say thank you to, because i would not be here tonight if it were not for bishop william gray. [inaudible] could you please acknowledge bishop gray. ♪ [applause] i told a story this morning in the prayer breakfast, bishop graves was the vice chair of the national board under chairman

mary evers williams. he saw something in me and said -- we going to train you. and i been on a training journey for the last 10 years. so i'm so grateful again to be -- bishop graves. i would also like to pay tribute tonight to two civil rights legends, dr. benjamin hooks and dr. dorothy irene hite. ♪ >> dr. hooks was an inspiration to us all. his meantering helped me understand the naacp better and recognize that there were no limits to what this organization can accomplish, if we only work together. under his tutelage in 1990, i developed a comprehensive minority help outreach program, shaped largely by health care policies and programs,

implemented in the earlly 1930's by two distinguished physicians and former naacp board chairman, dr. cobb and dr. wright. dr. hite was a trailblazer. an african-american woman who refused to let blatant racism dance in her spirit. when bernard cleem accepted her in 1929 but blocked her admission because they met their quota of two students, she went on to new york university and earned two degrees, dr. hite was a role model and a classy crusader for civil rights, who advised me that it doesn't marry -- matter chairman bond who gets the credit. just get the job done. . . 12k3w4r50b

12k3w4r50b12k3w4r50

this hearing on the subcommittee on immigration. the immigration subcommittee and others who joined us today for the subcommittee's hearing on the ethical imperative for reform of our immigration system.

today we welcome very important leaders from the faith community who are here to share with us their perspectives on current immigration policy, and the need for an overhaul of our nation's system. faith-based organizations often lead our nation in the ongoing discussion over immigration reform. over the past decade, faith leaders have often shepherded the often contentious national debate over our immigration system by claiming it as a moral and ethical question. the united states conference of catholic bishops was an early leader in bringing faith communities to the table. more recently, organizers and denominations such as the national association of evangelicals, the southern baptist convention, and the liberty council legal ministry have assumed significant leadership on the issue. creating unprecedented coalitions across the denominations, each of these groups has passed a resolution supporting comprehensive reform that provides for secured

borders, immigration laws that meet the economic and family reunification needs of our country and an earned path of legal status for hard-working immigrants who pay a fine, pass a criminal background check and learn english. while these groups, and i don't always agree on every issue, we do agree on this issue. as do most of the american people. a recent bipartisan survey found that the vast majority of americans, over 74% support comprehensive immigration reform that follows the above principles, border security, immigration laws that meet our nation's needs, and the needs of our families, and a pathway to legal status for hard-working immigrants. in fact, this poll found that 84% of people who support the arizona law also support comprehensive immigration reform. today we will hear from those to whom we look for moral and ethical guidance about their support for a firm, rational, and just immigration policy. i commend our witnesses' efforts

and their leadership. and now i would recognize our minority for an opening statement. i understand from mr. king that he would like mr. smith, the ranking member of the full committee to offer his opening statement at this time. >> thank you, madam chair. a recent zogby survey reinforced what many of us already know. americans, including the religious faithful, want america's immigration laws enforced. according to this study of likely voters, 54% of catholics, 61% of protestants and 65% of born-again christians support attrition of illegal immigration through enforcement. i suspect we will hear today that it is somehow immoral or unethical to enforce our nation's laws, in that, in fact, sometimes we should ignore those laws. for those who want to take this approach, there is just one problem. the bible contains numerous passages that support the rule of law. the scriptures clearly indicate

that civil authors preserve order, protecting citizens and pubishing wrongdoers. a prime passage is roamers 13, let every person be subject to governing authorities. on this passage the late father patrick bassio wrote in his book on the immorality of illegal immigration, clearly this is advice to christians to follow the laws of their nation, and to respect the laws of other nations. although christianity encourages acts of charity, we cannot be both charitable and law breakers. now, consider leviticus, when a stranger of soldier is with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. some claim that the passage mandates we welcome any and all foreigners, even those in our country illegally. but this and other passages do not imply that foreigners should disregard civil laws to enter or that we should overlook it when they do. for instance the law for israel allowed legal distinctions to be drawn between native jews, and resident aliens.

the hebrew term for sojourn, as well as the dictionary definition, means temporary stay. a related term used in some scriptural translations is stranger. so this passage offers no scriptural sanction for allowing millions of illegal immigrants to remain permanently in the united states. further more, in the new testament, according to the new westminster dictionary of the bible, the word stranger denotes one who is simply unknown. not necessarily a foreigner. related to the leviticus citation is the passage about treatment of the least of these, my brothers. the hungry, the neighbored, the stranger, the prisoner. this quote from matthew plainly advocates individual acts of kindness and does not mandate a public policy. a note in the new interpreters bible says, quote, it is the individual human being, not nations as corporate political structures, that stand before the judgment.

this suggests little biblical support for anyone's claim to have a right to remain where they have lived illegally or to obtain public benefits, including citizenship. father bassio takes it a step further stating, quote, the christian church currently favors an immigration policy that assists those who violate our laws, rather than enter the legal process that leads to legal immigration. the christian church in some quarters actually recommends to its ministers and priests that they break the law by helping illegal immigrants who break the law. the church's decision disappoints those who play by the rules, placing legal immigrants and businesses that respect our laws at a great disadvantage. end quote. bassio contends that the christian leadership of this country not really comprehending the wide-ranging prob lengts conducted with illegal immigration has blessed violating the sovereignty of our nation, depressing the wages of american workers, encouraging the growth of the most violent gangs in america, driving up

black unemployment, end quote. a prime example comes from "the wall street journal." after a wave of raids, a local chicken processing company called crier lost 75% of its 900 member work force. but for americans the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity. for the first time in years, local officials say, kreider aggressively sought workers from the area estate-funded employment office, a key avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs. of 400 candidates sent to kreider, most of them black, the plant hired about 200. bassio says rightly that, quote, those who build their empires by constructing the world economic order on the foundation of cheap labor are immoral. and their sins cry out to heaven for vengeance. church leaders, we plead with you to take note of this, end quote. the fact is that americans need

not repent for wanting to uphold the rule of law, and provide jobs for legal workers. i agree with father bassio's sentiment when he said that illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. there are an abundance of real victims, and christians have the moral obligation to aid and protect. a truly christian natural approach would be not to acquiesce to illegal immigration, but to work to end it. our nation has a wonderful tradition of welcoming newcomers. we admit more than 1 million legal immigrants a year. as many as all other nations combined. . there is a clear difference, though, between those who play by the rules, and come in the right way, and those who don't. madam chairman, before i yield back, let me say that i have another committee markup at which i have an amendment to offer so i will be gone for some time, but expect to return. and with that i'll yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. conyers, i believe, is on

his way, and wishes to offer an opening statement, but while we await his arrival i'll recognize the -- for his opening remarks. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the witnesses in advance for your testimony, and for coming forward here today. and it is just -- this is very interesting to me, this is a bit of a turn of what normally we see, folks on my side of the aisle are generally holding scripture and talking about faith and the core of the things motivating us. you on the other side are saying this isn't, sometimes even on the floor of the congressional records say this is not a christian nation. i believe it is. and so let's examine some of that today while we talk about our core values. it turns out, might have been reading a copy of the bible is a little different than we might hear about today. i didn't realize that moses was an illegal immigrant, and neither did i realize that king david was an illegal immigrant. or that mary and joseph were illegal immigrants. i didn't realize that the bible barred the enforcement of immigration laws.

and neither did i realize that it erased borders, demanded pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, or that the bienl forbid the leaders of a nation for caring most about the well-being of its own citizens. the goal of this hearing is apparently to certify the self-evident truth of all of these propositions. not only must i have been reading a faulty copy of the bible, but in the land of the bible, the leaders of today's israel must have been reading the same copy. because they built border fences to protect their citizens from terrorists, and illegal job seekers alike. they deported over 136,000 illegal foreign workers between september of 2002, and may of 2005. that's modern-day israel. the percentages of the equivalent of that was about 6.5 million removals in the united states, had we done the same thing. so, over that same period of time. and the law in return applies only to jews. now anything less would

certainly result in the annihilation of the whole of the jewish people that reside today in israel. and for those reasons, they have their policy, which don't seem to be objected to by the clergy in america, and certainly not by me. i think they have a right for their determination. but at the base of this concept that animates this hearing appears to be that the only biblically acceptable immigration policy is an open borders policy. never mind the fact that four out of every ten mexican adults that were surveyed would migrate to the united states if given the opportunity to do so. and, to the united states if given the opportunity to do so and there are 5 billion people on the planet who have an equivalent standard of living than the people out of 6 billion people on the planet, about 5 billion of them live in a lower standard than the average citizen in mexico. and especially on our most vulnerable citizens. and i'm pleased that jim edwards is here testifying today.

he's done much to articulate and right about the real clarity of the issues in the bible and how it addresses the issues of today. he's pointed out things that i think he may not have time to say and so i would reiterate those here. one is to look back through the old testament. deuteronomy. when he divided mankind he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sun ises of god. and ezekiel, 47, numbers 34 describes the borders the lord established for each tribe of israel. deuteronomy 19 commands against moving a neighboring tribe's marking of israel's inheritance in the promised land. mr. edwards writes elsewhere, st. paul addresses the ephesia s

ephesians. they shawl inhabit the whole of the earth. mr. edwards points out, of course, some other issues in the old and new testament. one is in matthew. mr. edwards always writes timothy that paul warns that if anyone does not provide for his relatives and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a non-believer. here it is made and plain that we each have a very special obligation to those who are closest to us by family and blood ties and their needs and welfare must stay tops in our priorities and what it saysless the local civic community can besaid about the community on a larger scale. we have a greater more immediate moral obligation to be concerned with the welfare of the united states than any other countries, just as the residents of other countries should be concerned

with what kboes on in their countries. e each of us have ties and we must all acknowledge the legitimacies of the ties. statesmen and political leaders have a special obligation to look out for the well being of the political communities that are entrusted to our care. i just to point out a couple of other points here as i close, and that is my church sponsors a hispanic congregation in minnesotale we take up a collection on a regular basis, and that's something that we feel very good about doing. and i'll sit down and have conversations with many pastors in my district. the problem with the conflict between the people who make the laws and the people whose profession and spiritual obligation is to all peoples of the earth is our job is to faithfully make the law and see to it they're enforced by our executive branch and i hope you respect that all of you and i

respect your job and your mission to mission to all peoples on earth and so with that, i hope that's the appropriate tone for this hearing. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we will recognize mr. conniers for his statement when he arrives. at this point in the interest of proceeding with witnesses we will ask other members to submit their statements for the record. and without objection all opening statements will be placed on the record and without ox the chair is authorized to declare recess of the hearing at any time. now i'd like to introduce our witnesses. each one is esteemed. at first it is my pleasure to introduce dr. richard land. since 1988 dr. land has served as president of the southern baptist conventions ethics and religious liberties conviction, the policy arm of the largest protestant denomination in our country. he ee tess host of several nationally syndicated radio

programs and was featured a one of the 25 most influential people in america by "time magazine" in 2005. he's been an active convener for conservatives of comprehensive immigration reform and has co-authored a white paper on principles of immigration reform which lays out a world approach to the nation's yoifr haul of the immigration system. next i'm loo toik introduce the bishop. he's the seventh of tucson, arizona, where he's served since 2003. he's e a vice president. he previously served as auction illy bishop for arern diocese of chicago and was the trekt over the mundelian seminary. he was awarded the joseph cardinal bern dean award in 2008. next i ed like to introduce ref

rend dean. he's a non-profit legal ministry with a focus on litigation, poll circle and education. he's dean and professor of law at the liberty university school of law, a former seventh day adventist pastor. dean s is taber has argued twice before the supreme court of the united states and has authored 11 books aunld 00 degrees of articles. he's been active with conservatives, a group of over a dozen conservative faith-based groups pushing for an overhaul of our nation's system and finally i'd like to introduce the minorities witness. dr. edwards jr. as a fel o'. edwards was a legislate irdirector for representative ed bryant, a former colleague of ours and a member of the house judiciary immigration committee when he served here.

dr. edwards was an adjunct fellow with the hudson institute and was selected as 1998 lincoln fellow by the clairemont institute. with james g. game bbl. his bachelor and masters at the university of georgia. now you have written statements and those statements will be made part of our official rec d record. we are inviting you to address us in about five minutes' time. that little machine on the table, when it's green it means there's a lot of time left. when it turns yellow, it's always surprising it's a minute. if it turned red we won't cut you off but if you would finish

up so we have time to pose questions to you subsequent to the testimony. with that let us begin with dr. land. thank yu so much for being here. >> thank you. good morning, chair man and ranking members of the subkrit tee. we are the largest pros stent denomination. the ethics and liberty commission is the public policy arm of the southern baptist convention. with an estimate 12 million men, women, and children working in an undockmented status in the united states we have a crisis, and despite the impasse of previous congresses on imallegation reform i do not believe that that crisis is insurmountable. i believe congress can and should bring these people out of the shadows. the more protracted the delay in action, the more severe the problem will become.

i look at the arizona law and others to be a symptom. they're a cry for help from states that are suffering because the federal government has not done its duty. like other religious pods they have been vocal in the immigration reform in june of 2006. southern baptist convention gathered for its meeting. passed a resolution which called for enforcement of immigration laws, balanced with compassion nr those who were here illegally and urged a pathway for legal status. there was a call from the federal government to provide for the security of our nation by controlling and securing our borders. clearly our federal government has not done that for several decades. fund mentally i believe southern baptists and others view it through the lid of their faith. as citizens of the united states we have an obligation to support

the government and the government's laws for conscience sake, romance 13:7. we have a right to punish those who break the law and reward the laws for those who do not. southern baptist also recognizes a biblical mandate to care for those least among us, matthew 25, to care for the strangers who reside in our land and to act justly and mercifully, micah 6:8. bearing this in mind, they're to call upon southern baptists to act redem actively and to reach out to meet the emotional and spiritual needs of all immigrants, start english classes on a massive scale and encourage them toward a path of legal status. but acts of mercy by the church will remain insufficient end to repair our broken immigration system, nor is the church's responsibility equivalent to the

government. while southern baptists and other evangelicals will do their part to reach out though those who are here illegally, only a proper government response can resolve our immigration crisis. your responsibility and responsibility is different than ours. i believe the first of everything must start with border security. we have to sew cure the border and i think most americans do not accept the argument that our government cannot secure the border. the internal revenue service comes to mind. the american citizen understands if we don't pay our taxes you will come and get us and we believe that we have to commit whatever resources are necessary to secure the border. that does not mean to clees close the border but it means to have control of the border, have control over who goes in and who goes out. but, you know, the statement was made earlier that it's immoral -- that some peel would

argue that it's immoral to enforce our nation's laws. i don't think it's fair or right. what's immoral is to not enforce the nation's laws for over two decades and then to say, oh, now we're going to enforce the law and we fwierpg to enforce the law retro actively. you know, it would be like if the government sent out a letter to every describe every in america, by the way, for the last 24 years we've been conducting surveillance on the interstates and up to now we haven't been able to ticket you for violating the speed limit but we do now. we're going to send you a ticket for every time you exceeded the speed limit retro actively for the last 24 years. i don't think most americans would thing that was inferior and i don't think most americans would accept it. i believe once we have secured the border and i believe that's got to be done with agreed upon

metrics, that the government puts together and says -- certifies we have met this metric, we have met this metric, we have met this metric. then i believe we have to have a six-to nine-month grace period for people in an undock mend stad us the to come forward, to register, agree to pay fines, back taxes, background check, take tests to read and right and go to the back of the line so they're not being rewarded for having come here in an undocumented status behind those trying to come here legally. and over a time period they have the opportunity to then get to legal status. i do not believe you can strain the english language into saying that is amamnesty. amnesty is what president carter gave them for avoiding serving in vietnam. i would have let them come back but i would have let them work two years for minimum wage

caring for those who took their place. thank you. >> thank you very much, dr. land. fr. kukanis. the microphone -- very good. thank you. >> i'm bishop of tucson, arizona, and vice president of the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and i testify today on behalf of the u.s. catholic bishops. i would like to thank you, madam chairman, as well as our ranking member steve king for holding this hearing today on so critical an issue and inviting me to testify. i appreciate it. madam chairman, in my written testimony i outline at length what i and and the catholic bishops are kons vinced is the public policy needed for repairing our broken immigration system. i would like to emphasize this morninging what i and my fellow bishops think are some of the ethical and moral issues in this debate confronting our elected officials and our nation.

the immigration issue is often dissected in terms of the economic, social, or legal impacts on our nation. what is not often acknowledged and frankly is sometimes dismissed is that immigration is ultimately a humanitarian issue since it impacts the basic right rights dignities of millions of people and their families. it has basic survival and decency of life experienced by human beings like us. madam chairman, our current immigration system fails to meet the moral test of protecting the basic rights and dignity of the human person. as the bishop who oversees the diocese along the mexico border, the epicenter of micromovement,

witness the human consequences of the broken system in my diocese's service programs, hospitals, schools, and parishes. regularly anxious and troubled immigrants come to ask our priests, employees for assistance for a loved one, a patient who has been detained, a child who has lost a parent or tragically a family member who has lost a loved one in the harsh arizona desert. we strive as best we can, realizing that unless we change the laws, which apply to immigration, with are only providing a band dade for this situation. my grant workers are subject to exploitation by scrupulous employers. and those attempting to find

work by coming north are being abused and taken advantage of by human smugglers. it's shocking to realize that about # 5,000 men, women, and children have died in the desert nce 1998. one such victim was jocelyn hernandez, age 14 from el salvador. her and her brother were attempting to reunite with their mother in california when they became lost in the desert. jocelyn became dehydrated and survived four days until she died. she was found on the 12th day. jocelyn's story sadly is being repeated far too often along our arizona border. madam chairman, the overwhelming offing my grants coming to the united states come not for any fairous purposes but to find work to support their families or to join their loved ones. once here they do contribute their work and skills to our country, yet on their way north

and while in our country, and that atheir families often are subject to the dangers and abuses that i have mentioned. this is a situation from a humanitarian and ethical standpoint that needs to be addressed. from a moral perspective we cannot accept the toil and taxes of immigrants without providing them protection of law. let me address the issue of the rule of law which is a flashpoint in the debate and to what which many immigration reform opponents point in arguing against liam status for the undocumented. u.s. conference wholeheartedly agrees the rule of law is paramount and those who break the law should be held accountable. as our testimony points out korjs pre hencive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocume undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn english, and get in the back of the line.

we believe that this is a proportionate penalty. let me also address the issue of border security, the topic of much discussion recently, especially in our own state of arizona. church teaching acknowledges the right of the nation to control its borders. it's our view that the best way to secure our southern boarder is through immigration reform. we have spent $100 billion on immigration border and interior enforcement. the border patrol in the tucson sectors whose work i deeply respect are trying their best to address this difficult situation. and i'll close there. >> thank you very, very much. dean staber, we'd be delighted to hear from you. >> madam chairman, thank you, distinguished congress member for inviting me. i'm founder and chairman of liberty council a national and

legal organization, policy and education organization. i also seven as dean and professor of law at liberty university. it's the largest christian university in the world with over 26,000 students coming from over 74,000 countries. the crisis that the country is facing in arizona is a symptom and a cry for help. it is an example of our failed immigration policy. however, the constitution places the responsibility for immigration on the federal government, not on the states. therefore it is impair active that congress act sooner than later to reform our immigration system. it's a matter of national security, tranquility and identi identity. wee must devise a system that is compassionate and just. immigration debate does not belong to a political party. it is in my opinion a moral

issue. we should not allow partisan politics or the difficulty of crafting a solution that returns to a ultimate goal of fixing a broken system is. we must deal with the undocumented immigrant whose are currently living within our borders. on the national security issuing this is a national security and domestic tranquility issues. secure borders are not closed borders. violent criminals and drug traffickers take advantage. such criminals are a threat to everyone in every community. we must also enforce our laws against those who knowingly employ undockmented immigrants. those who take advantage of them once they cross the border. regarding the undocumented immigrants in the united states there are three solutions, am necessary cit necessity or deportation. it is a disservice to those who

have worked their way through the naturalization process.amne. it is a disservice to those who have worked their way through the naturalization process. many undocumented children have come here with their parents. some children are natural iezed citizens, having been born in america, yet their parents remain undocumented. deportation and n these and other circumstances would rip families apart which no fair-minded american wants to do. while undocumented fell ons or those who have committed crimes in america should be deported we should invite the millions who are documented or living in the midst to come out of the shadows by providing them the opportunity to get legal status. subject to penalties, waiting periods, back ground checks, participation through american society through an understanding on testify english language, the

structure of the government and embrace the american values. we must embrace a rational immigration policy which suggests we're a nation of immigration and policy of laws that would put law abiding persons on one of three passes. one path leads to purr sowing earned legal citizen ship or legal residency. one leads to acquiring legal guess work or status and one goes back across the order which includes swift processing. it respects the traditions held by the people of many backgrounds that make up america while recognizing the importance of a shared language, history and cult yacht values. those who choose legal citizenship should with the opportunity to fully participate by removing any barriers to achieve those dreels. let me be very clear. an earned pathway to legal

status is not amnesty. they should stop debating this needlessly and honestly acknowledge the difference. the time to forge a national consensus is now. america is a country of immigrant, melting pot of different ethnicities and cultures. it's one that begins with sec e securi securing, not closing the borders, one that enforces or laws and one that aurs the opportunity for earned legal status. as the world's standard bearer for freedom, america's light shines for a hope for those around the world. we must never quelch the liberty. thank you. >> thank you very much, dean. now we'd like to hear from dr. edwards. >> thank you, madam chairman. first i'll discuss key bin lick

call principle that relates to today's immigration debate and second aisle discuss important implications of comprehensive immigration reform. first, each christian is bound by a high moral imperative. love the lord with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. these cornerstone precepts instruct believers personally to love your enemies, to bless those who curse you, to care for these the least of my brothers. it's unreasonable though to try to require civil authority to display the same kind of mercy or capacity individual christians are called to show. the god-given role of sishl governments is to restain evil within their jurisdictions. protect the innocent and punish law breakers. the things that are concentrated on justice. public acts of government differ fundamentally from individual

acts and individual showing mercy decideslingly to bear an injustice. it's merciful when a private person turns the o'cheek, goes the extra mile or gives up second we must consider the impact of comprehensive immigration reform on our fellow americans. more than welfare of the imglakts is at stake. >> it's the welfare of the american citizens. the american people would end up

the forgotten victims of comprehensive immigration reform. i would put the most vulnerable merchs at risk. we had 21 underemployed or unemployed in 2009 just a year ago. comprehensive immigration reform would put them up against many more job competitors, forcing down what the americas could otherwise command. today fewer than half of the american teens have jobs compared with two-thirds in 1994. they fell twoen 4% between 1980 and 2000. for native jobdropoudropouts. i eechl sighting the border u 6 unemployment figure.

32.4%. for native born blacks 18 to 29d years old with just a diploma, 389 pint 8%. for native born wlaks who crops ott of skol, 18.2. for native born latinos 18 to 29 with only a deemployee na, 33.9%. there's also the fact on america's current fiscal crisis. many officials would quality for many public programs for which they're currently disqualified. about 3.1 million aliens would qualify for medicaid. that's an extra $8.1 billion annually or 48.6% -- i'm sorry $48.6 billion from 2014 to 2019.

that's the first budget window. in short what constant immigration reform would do unto the least of these fellow americans hardly ranks as ethical treatment. in closing scripture doesn't detail ee normative immigration policy, thus we have to exercise prudent judgment. they tried immigration reform that looks much like today's proposal within a decade the illegal population had grown to three times the size of 1986 level. the enforcement levels failed to secure the border or shut down the job. pursuing essentially the same felled solution would force compassion on our fellow americ americans that they can't afford. perhaps the most ethical thing congress could do is to suspend most immigration at least until unemployment rates drop to prerecession levels. thank you.

>> thank you, dr. edwards. before proceeding with questions i'd like to enter for the record the -- we didn't have rupe for everybody who would like to testify. that will be added to the record. our chairman mr. conyers has arrived and i don't know if he had an opening remark he would like to make. >> if i could just briefly, madam chairman and ranking member king, this hearing is a landmark and i'm so pleased that the bishop is here, that the president of the southern

baptist convention is here, that the dean of liberty university law school is present with us, and, of course, dr. james edwards. we welcome you all, and i just mentioned to the chair person here and i haven't talked to steve king about it yet, but i just want to put on the record that we might light to meet with you after the hearing itself to talk unhow we can expand our discussion beyond the formalities of the committee hearings. and i'm so pleased and honored that you'd be with us here and the judiciary committee. and if i could, madam chair, i'd like to yield the balance of any

time, a few minutes, to our distinguished colleague from illino illinois, mr. gutierrez, who's been deeply immersed in this subject. >> without on jej our colleague mr. gutierrez is the chair of the task force for the caucus would take the remainder of the time. >> i think your suggestion is well needed and i would encourage us as when we met with the speak of the house to say to the men and women of faith that i think you can save us from ourselves and our own part sant political bickering. this is a moral issue and so therefore i would suggest that you call us to order and that you con phoenix the meeting so that men and women from this

side of the aisle can meet with men and women from that side of the aisle, put it that way, and then you can discern who is working of good faith in order to achieve the goals that we should as a government. now i want to begin by saying to dr. james edwards i listen to your comments. you want to make a dissubscription between scripture and government. between we as christians and the civil government but our government should be a reflect of who we are. what is government but a reflex of the millions of people who condition substitute that government. when you say it should be different and has a didn't test, i don't see it that way. i see my government as the best and highest of our moral and ethical stab standards and justice. 's what i want my government to be. i want it to be a reflex of my values. not distance myself from the

values. i'm sorry. i have to disagree. what are we talking about? we talk about them in these terms. you know, one member said we give money to the hispanic congregation and that means i'm not a bad person and 4 out of 10 mexicans. well, ladies and gentlemen, why do we always focus theish of immigration on the latino and on the mexican community when we know that 40 f o the undock mended workers that are in this country came here legally? smart, we can go to the mall today who came here on tourist visa and will will not return. there are students who graduate hopefully fraught from liberty university but there are though those who are going to never

return to their country of superior gin. when we speak about secure the bourder, secure the border, let's be careful about the message that we're sending to america, that this is not a fight between the united states and mexico. hundreds of meks con guide this year, in the last five moose, fighting the p cartel, the thafrt the-mile-an-hours have for the drugs that come across the porers we do have a spount thr for the effect it's hag on the civil society. so i just want to say to all of you thank you for coming point. >> without ox. thing what is important is we focus on families, who are these

undock mended worker? >>? >> in my household. i'm look most americans nchl a family house, only twoing fwu grow look. five out of ten. phosphatidyl choline y of kosk if you came to my house you'd thunk we had children because they're all showing u. think about it. the 7-year-old girl asked the first lady can you help my mom get the papers? we should respond we're going to get your mom the papers so she can raise the best citizen in america. >> the gentleman's time is expired and because we went to the chairman's opening statement i would like to refer mr. king

for any questions tofair. >> i thank the chair. i look on this side and it looks like two and i see over here, the democrats a lot who are eager. so i would like to defer to the chair. >> that is absolutely fine. let me go first. let me first thank all of you for your testimony. it's thoughtful and informative and i'd like to give my first question to you, dean, because not only are you a faith liter, you argue fwfrd court and you're dean of a law school. i was interested in your comment in a wherein testimony that there is a difference between providing amnesty and providing a path to status and that we

need to stop the debate from unnecessarily politicizing. we all need to believe the laws need to be obeyed but we make the law. i remember in 1996 we changed laws retro actively. we made it the case that someone was here -- someone was brought as a child to tu state, really was raced in the country and now they'v married their high school boyfriend and they're a married couple and yet that woman has to leave the united states and leave her husband for ten years turned law we passed that. was retro active. i one dir if you can talk to us about the rule of law and how the congress has an opportunity make changes to have a more rational set of laws as well as the am any city question.

thank you, madam chairman. as founder and chairman of liberty council and a practicing attorney i support strongly the rule of law. we must be a nation of law and a rule of law. so i believe this issue is critically important, that e we do support the laws. am necessary city that has always been used as a hot button flash word and i believe that's what it's often used. it should ultimately be defined. am any city is what he said jimmy carter did with those who avoided the draft in vietnam. amnesty is what ronald reagan did. it's complete p -- the reason

why i propose that is because of several factors. i propose first of all yo have is the path way to earn legal the us. whether that's citizen shep or temporariy status -- something that would be an opportunity for those that are here. we often get into this debate. think peel agree we need to do that. we need to enforce that. people agree we need to do that. then they forget about the 12 million or so people that are he here. we can't starve them out. we over got to bring them out of their shadows. these with are singe ises who want to pursue their dream but sometimes the law has put a barrier between that and that goal. i propose a path way to earn

legal status and that includes the various items that i mentioned. that is different than canada's statement and if you look at any law for example, there's not a cookie-cutter penalty for any hau that we e have. for example if the government were to entrap someone to break the law, it's complete vick friday for the child who is trapped. in other kinds of cases we don't given them is the same. wee tail it upon individuals. in this case to deploit everything is immoral. i propose we have something deeming with that but compassionately but deals with those who are here within our borders. >> thank you. dr. land you have spoken out

today and before today on the issue of immigration reform, and i understand. as a matter of fact i gave you a flyer that my office got yesterday that some are suggesting that they supported you before you spoke ow and now maybe you don't actually speak for the pews in your congregation. >> no one speaks for all baptists. >> or catholics. >> the last time congress debated the issue passed a resolution overwhelmingly, 95% plus. and you understand that when the convention pass as resolution

those are messages who vote their church and their conscience is. i think any fair reading of the resolution is a policy that secures the borders and then finds an earned way toward it. i decided to test that theory. i presented what i've argued is a fir and just policy to our southern convention baptists in orlando. i have a reporting time and gave that what i presented today in more detail. and it was supported by the messages that were there. they're the most faithful southern baptists. you have to understand that

hundreds -- we have hundreds of thousands of hispanic southern baptists, many of them undocumented who have come here to the united states. i don't think it's a secret that they're an eevangelistic. as so many of those undocumented workers have become members of southern baptist churches and lead leaders during the last two decades. and in fact, i had a chance of speaking to them in orlando during our convention and of course they were very supportive of this. they were very supportive of what i've laid out including an earned pathway and going to the back of the line, et cetera. and i would haysten to add, i'm elected as you are.

by southern baptists. and our convention aspired, the agency has in the last five years so they know how to do it and they're not bashful about doing fit they think i'm not speaking what most southern baptists believe. >> thank you very muff. i recognize mr. kij now for his questions. >> thank you, madam chair. this would be an interesting situation to carry on with points and counter points. i appreciate all your testimony here. maybe start with the reverend staber and you'd prefer we not use that language at all. of course it is in our diggs air and black's law and you recognize the definition when you staid as one definition of it that reagan signed the resolution in 1986 with prochlgs there would never be another

amnes amnesty. i would submit this. we do need to define am necessary city with more clarity and i would define amnesty this way.nesty with more clarity and i would define amnesty this way. reward them with the objective of their crime and i submit that definition and ask as a lawyer and attorney -- as a pastor and someone who studied this theirly. a partner for immigration law, law breakers coupled with the rae ward of the objective of their crime. we don't know whether iter it's to obtain u citizenship or a job. >> congressman kick, that law wouldn't be consistent with the luol of law that's in blackstone or blang's lck's law. i don't support what ronald

reagan did. i don't propose that that's what i'm using here. >> i would submit then reverend the path that you've described is pay the fine, pay back taxes, learn english, that those things are design to use the objective of the person who already broke the law. learning english is one that helps someone. i don't see that as a penalty or wreck come pence for breaking the law. at least 60% commit the crime of crossing the border illegally. >> with all due respect, we have three options. deport everybody or deal with them somehow. i think it's impractical. you'll tear apart families where

the children are legal and the parents are not. you'll tear apart families who have no idea what the home country is, can't speak the language and i don't -- >> let me submit this. what i'm suggesting we do, people who break the laws, we put them back in the condition they were in before they broke the law. i turn then to reverend land. the example you used is if you had video cameras up for 20 years and give them a ticket for every time they speeded, i would argue there's knew view point on that. what i'm hearing advocated on th this, no, let's dpranlt them however our definition is and aisle stick by mine on am any city but we're going to give a pass for all the times. but they didn't have a driver lease license. we're going to let them speed

for the rhett of their time. that's the difference between am any city. >> with all due respect the one thing we mentioned you didn't mention is going to the back of the line. so that they pay a penalty of going back to as if they were just coming into the country. >> where does that line form, reverend land? where does that ba back of the line -- physically where the are people that go to the back of the line snoom yo >> you know i'm very impressed with the way government keeps errors. i was audited once. >> me too. more than once. >> i came through okay but it was an interesting experience. it focuses your full attention. i think we've got a broken

immigration system that needs to be fixed and it's your job to fix it, so you need to decide where that line forms. it forms in government record-keeping that you have to -- you go to the back of the line. you registered on this date. you came forward during the grace period and you register on this date and you agreed to pay these fines. >> we're watching our clock. i'm sorry. we're watching that t clock. that line still is in the united states. people don't go back to their home country. the back of the line is actually in the other countries with they're coming in. that's my point. i'd briefly ask the bishop this question. you testified about 5,000 people lost their lives in the arizona desert 1998 to pren and it is tragic and i share that sense of empathy that you have expressed in your testimony but i ask if you have contemplated or you know the number of americans who died at the hands of some of those who did make it across the desert as victims of crimes and

are part of the drug culture that we heard from mr. gutierrez and the part of the violence that comes in. do you have any idea how many died at the hands of those who made it across the desert? >> it's certainly true to say some who enter this country do so with criminal intent anding at in ways that harm others but that is dleerly not the majority of those entering the country illegally. the vast majority of those are good people who are looking for a decent way of life for themselves or their family. who want to contribute to the community or add to the life of the society. it's that individual that is of concern. certain isly a person who comes here with criminal intent or who harms another person, this is something that the law must address and needs to address. i was humbled to be able to

celebrate the funeral mass for rob crentz. there were 1,200 ranchers present for his funeral. it was a sad and painful moment for suzie his wife and their whole family and the whole community. this is tragic, we don't know exactly what happened but perhaps it was a drug smuggler and that is an unconscionable crime that needs to be addressed, that needs to be dealt with fairly and justly. on the other hand the person if it were a drug smuggler or a my grant who perm traded that crime, that is not characteristic of the number of people who are crossing the border. it's an entirely different people. >> you recognize the american people are in the multiples,

thank you. >> i turn to conyers for his questions. think mr. conyers is deferring to chairman burr who's recogn e recognized for five minutes. thank you. dean staver, i -- this issue of what is amnesty and what is not. what jimmy carter did was a -- was a blanket amnesty that defined a group of people and said they're okay, notwithstanding what they did. the law that ronald reagan signed turned out to be seriously flawed, not because it gave a blanket amnesty. it invited individuals to apply, pay money and take english

language in courses. it didn't have all the features we have now, but it was -- it was a specific individual generated legalization program that conferred a temporary status before it confirmed a permanent res accident status. the flaws were that it didn't -- while it attempted to increase border patrol numbers it didn't secure the border. most of awe, the ini forms that he keeps in his files were not an effective process of

providing workers, and so we have a problem compounded at this particular time. you mentioned three alternatives. there's a fourth alternative. it's the alternative we seem to be locked into, which is really about the issue and leaving the status quo with all of the problems that exist, including the exploitation and the continued magnets that exist and created this situation. but dr. land, i really did appreciate your testimony, and i take your point. it doesn't deal with that part of the population that my colleague mr. gutierrez referred, to but it's certainly a significant part of the issue, the control of the border. the problem is the securing of the border. i did not take what you were

saying to we now spend greater time and effort to figure out how to truly secure the border. we know awe kinds of efforts have been taken. we know to some extent it's far more difficult to cross the border than it used to be. i took your comments to be a logical process as we pass legislation that focuses at its initial stages on an effort to do better at the border. that you create measures for determining the test. and when that test is met, a process that allows and you at the same time implement the kind of employer verification system that tells people about legal status and when that system is designed to be implemented you allow a process where people

under the test that you've outlined for an earned legal program, payment of fines, tax issues, back of the line, comes into being. it isn't that you -- sometimes people use the argument secure the border as an argument to do nothing else and i want to clarify -- >> thank you. your notion is a total scheme that puts that as the first test, but then at the point where it's reasonable to conclude that's been achieved, these other operations move into effect. >> yes, sir. think that the effort last time as global as it was in 2006 has shown there is not a sufficient trust level so you're going to have to do it sequentially, but you can do it with the law. once they have been met then ready. . . . and

i thi i think that part of border security is going to be we're going to have to have much tougher laws on those. you have to take awayny excuse they have and so i'm going to get really radical here. i ooh even going to suggest that what we really need is a tamperproof biometric social security card for everybody who wants to be employed in the united states. i know people get all up set about a social security card -- >> i don't. >> we all have them. when i go teach for my best friend, i have to show him my social security card before they employ me some of we already have one. if you had a biometric tamperproof social security card this would lessen the borer. if they managed to get across,

if you told the employer you're going to get six months in jail if you hire somebody that doesn't have a card, they won't be able to survive. >> i think my time has expired. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you very much. as a person who was the republican floor manager and got the republican votes to pass it, i recall very well the discussions in the long period of time in passing that bill. i must say, however, from my friend from california, it did apply to those who entered this country legally and whose legal stat status was overstayed. so long as that illegal status occurred four years before the date of the bill. so, yes. >> my point was that it didn't apply. my point was nothing in that bill dealt with trying to remedy

that problem from continuing. >> well, all right. the point i'm trying to make is it applied to all people who were in illegal status before the signing of the bill so my first question would be to all of you and hopefully short answers. to whom should this apply, someone who's just gottener of the border, someone who's been here two years, three years, four years, five years? our situation back then was as a matter those people who had put down roots in the community ought to be treated differently than those who had not. if i could ask you just one, two, three, four -- well -- >> that would be for your to determine. >> no. i'm asking your opinion. >> i would say you have to have a sliding scale. >> where would it start? >> those who have been here 20 years, for instance, would have less of a time of waiting -- >> okay. >> -- and we would move up. you'd have to set some arbitrary date. >> i know. i'd like to know what your opinion is. when does someone have

sufficient roots in the community? one year, two years, three years, four years? >> that's probably above my pay grade, sir. >> all right. bishop. >> could you turn your microphone -- yeah. >> reform means to bring people out of the shadows. and to the extent that we can do that comprehensively, that would be our encouragement. >> so i guess you would say if they'd been here a day? >> certainly they should be some cutoff. >> what should that be? >> i would say minimum perhaps a year. >> sir. >> congressman, i don't have a imagine it bullet as to when that time would be, but i would agree there would be some kind of sliding scale. however, because that is a difficult question, and there are many difficult questions, that question alone and any others that we face should not be used to obfuscate or delay a passage of some kind of -- >> with all due respect, sure, i'm not asking to obfuscate. this is a very difficult issue. i spen ten years trying to get it done the first time around, and these are the difficult

things we have to do. and when you're talking about trying to have a balance between what you say is fair treatment for those who have been here illegally, that is, immigration, illegal immigrants and the rule of law, you have to determine that. and so, my question is do you think that is a public policy issue we have to deal with? that is, shouldn't there be a differentiation between people who have been here five years and just got here, number one, and number two, do you not understand that if you make it so close to the time of illegal entry it encourages others to come in the future and you will never have a perm nuclear weapon law? >> i agree with you on that point clearly. and certainly i think you do need to have some kind of scale, and you have to be careful that if you say you're going to provide this that you don't have all of a sudden a flood of immigration that's illegal that people want to take advantage of what we're trying to address here. >> let me ask this question of the three of you. when we passed this law in 1986

we made the statement it would be a one time only because we thought it was a one-time-only phenomenon and that one of the reasons we did that was we did not want to encourage continuing illegal immigration. and we were afraid that if it were viewed as a sequential thing, do one now, do one in 20 years, another one in 20 years, it would defeat the purpose of securing the border. do you understand that and is that something we ought to be concerned about? >> yes, sir. that's why i said border security first. and when i mean secure the border i mean you have control of the border. you decide. >> how do we answer the question that we did this once before, said the it was going to be the only time we did it and now we want to do it again? >> the federal government didn't enforce the law and haven't enforced the law for 24 years. that's what's bred disrespect for the law under republican and democratic administrations. our own federal government has chosen not to enforce etc. own laws. >> bishop? >> illegal immigration is not

good for anyone. it's not good for the person crossing the desert at risk to their own life. it's not good for a country not to know who is crossing its border. so definitely if there is an earned pathway for those who are here, it will provide them legal entry, if there is a worker program connected to the reform, so that there is a legal way for people to come. >> should that worker program allow them to bring their families with them, or should bit a temporary worker program in which they come to the united states for let's say ten months out of the year and then return to their home country after ten months, although they could then return in the following year? >> the church has always been insistent on family integration. the separation of families is not helpful. it's not helpful to the family. it's not helpful to the society. so to whatever extent possible, family should be kept together in a worker program if that's feasible. >> so they should be treated better than our men and women in

the armed forces who are separated for 10, 12, 18 months deployment. >> well, that's an entirely different situation. >> i understand. >> it's not analogous, really. >> the other thing i would ask you, do you recall the s.a.w. program and the r.a.w. program in the 1986 law? do you think that worked well? >> i know that there are concerns in terms of, for example, in yuma, which is a huge agricultural workforce. and the need to bring workers over the border. and there's been great concern about the fact that they have to build housing and they have to find a way to retain people when really the intention of people is to go back home. they want to be back home with their families. >> that's a different thing. the only thing i'm just trying to mention for you and for my colleagues is we put a seasonal agricultural worker program and

a replenishment agricultural program in the 1986 law. as opposed to a specific temporary worker program. unfortunately, the s.a.w./r.a.w. program had the greatest amount of fraud of any program i know and we were not able to police it, and many people made assertions that they had worked in agriculture during the period of time we required who hadn't. and it became a backdoor way of getting in the united states even though you didn't have -- you didn't meet the qualifications. i've overstayed my time. i just want to say this, though. as we talk about treating people fairly, i have to also think about the people in mexico, the people in africa, the people in the philippines, the people in europe, the the people all over the world who have followed the law. in the 1970s we changed our law to have a worldwide quota system, which was supposed to mean that everybody had an equal chance to get in the united states. and when you have rampant illegal immigration, significantly from any portion of the world, it -- it makes it

unfair to those who have waited in line. and i have to say this. as we go forward -- and i hope we do do something -- as we go forward, you should also think of what it does or says to those people who followed the law, who have been waiting ten years, to 20 years in the philippines to come here, in africa to come here, in mexico to come here, and what does it say to them if we say you were the saps and those that broke the law came here are frankly going to be treated differently? and i'm not saying that's the answer, but i say we also have to understand what fairness, what justice means to those who did follow the law. thank you very much. >> gentleman yields back. i understand that miss jackson lee is prepared for her questions and will be recognized for five minutes. >> madam chair, thank you so

very much for this very important hearing. i could not acknowledge the clergy here today without acknowledging in my hometown of houston, reverend clements of the national baptist convention and bishop kyles among many others who have led a very potent and important convening of souls who have supported and understood the ethics and the humanitarianism of real comprehensive immigration reform. and i'm humbled by the sincerity of my colleague from california, and i believe that he is sincere. but i think it is important to maybe go against the grain of a familiar refrain in a song that says, as i remember, tiptoe through the tulips. and i think that we are tiptoeing through the tulips. i would adhere to the fact that once a law is passed, we should

be meticulous in how it's implemented. reverend land, i believe that your controversial statement to some should be on the table. but we must have it on the table where we can all discuss it in its implementation and so you can hear the cons for those of us who may not agree and we can hear the fors. but the good news would be that we have moved forward. i've worked for a very large nondenominational church to give them relief for one of their evangelistic workers who didn't meet a standard to get a visa to be able to come in, and we attempted to change the law, i think we worked on it because it said a catholic for a catholic, a baptist for a baptist, and we said it should just be a religious worker so that people could come in and help to save souls. but the greatest impediment for

passing legislation -- and i refer to legislation that i have, safe american comprehensive immigration act, and i refer to one that has drawn many, many responses, hr-4321, i call it ortiz, which you would be shocked. maybe you've read it. please read it. it has pages and pages and pages of border security provisions, ones that if you took a moment to read it you would understand that we are reasonable, we're responsible, and we're compassionate. so the one major impediment is the republican party. every single republican is committed to denying, denouncing, and insuring that this president fails on immigration reform, that this congress fails on immigration reform, and you tell me, how do we overcome that kind of mind-set? nothing you can say here today -- you could take wings

and fly around this room. you could create the opportunity and president land is looking for an opportunity to fly. as they say, let me fly where the eagles fly. you could fly with the eagles, and you would not get them to get past the political schism that they have. let me share with you some numbers that i want to put into the record. 1994, 6.9%, 1995, 5.59%, 1996, 5.41%, 1997, 4.94%, 1998, 4.5%, 1999, 4.22%, 2000, 3.97%. u.s. department of labor unemployment figures. i was a ranking member of the immigration subcommittee during that period when republicans were in charge under newt gingrich and under the subsequent speaker of the house. we could not move immigration

reform, and we had the lowest unemployment that we could ever have. it bothers me now to use the excuse of unemployment for that. could i ask the clergy quickly to -- and if i could start with president land, what do we do about senator mccain and senator graham, who committed to us to work together in a bipartisan way? i don't think this should be a single-party issue. it should be an issue for america. and let me remind everyone that the idea of immigration reform is to take care of those who are stranded here in this country. president land, what should we do with that mind-set that no immigration reform will pass as long as i'm a republican in the united states congress? which i am not. >> well, i think congressman lee, my home -- you represent my hometown of houston, and --

>> good to see you. >> the texas pastors council just -- it had a press conference last week -- issued a statement on comprehensive immigration reform signed by a lot of conservative baptist pastors and was a multiethnic statement dealing with the texas legislature and their attempt to implement some form of the arizona law. and i know some of those churches. those churches are filled with people who vote republican. i think frankly the country is ahead of you on this issue. i think with all due respect the country is significantly ahead of you on this issue. >> excellent. >> and they're waiting for leadership, they're waiting for statesmanship. i believe that there is -- there is -- the foundation and the building materials and the blueprint for a sen triggs comprehensive immigration reform package is there. it's out there in the country waiting to be constructed by

people who are willing to be statesmen. as you know, churchill said politicians think about the next election. statesmen think about the next generation. this issue is rending the social fabric of the nation. the arizona law and the attempts to implement the arizona law shows there's great frustration with the lack of federal government comprehensive immigration reform and the federal government enforcing its own laws. it breeds disrespect for the rule of law when the foft ignores its own law. any fair observation of what's happened in the last 24 years is that more often than not our own federal government has just ignored its own laws when it comes to border security and when it comes to immigration enforcement. and let's understand, as well, that we as a nation bear some responsibility for that because we are a government of the people by the people and for the people. we've had two signs up at the border for at least the last two

decades. one says "no trespassing" and the other says "help wanted." the vast majority of these people have broken the law in order to come here and work. >> absolutely. >> whereas your domestic lawbreakers break the law in order not to work. they've been able to do it because the jobs are there -- and by the way, i've seen studies that show that undocumented workers lower the wage wages of those at the lower end of wage scale by approximately 10%. all workers, documented and undocumented. so that if we had comprehensive immigration reform it would have the impact of raising the wage scale by about 10% at the lower echelons, where 10% makes a real difference. and would make a difference in the living standard of those who are in the lower echelons of our society.

so what i'm doing is i'm saying this is not an issue of right and left. it's not an issue of republican and democrat. it's an issue of right and wrong. encouraging people to talk to their congressmen and their senators, i didn't know what the texas houston pastors were doing until they informed me and they said thank you foryour leadership in orlando, and we're going to respond to what's being attempted in austin. and i can assure you that the churches -- that the pastors that are there, a sigma joe torre of them vote republican. >> the jept l lady's time has expired. >> i thank you very much. >> gentlelady from california, miss waters, is recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chairwoman. i appreciate your holding this hearing today. it's very important that we create a discussion and a debate about immigration reform. and it's very important that the

government accept -- the federal government -- responsibility for immigration reform. i'm pleased that we have witnesses here today. several times i've heard my colleagues talk about trying to create a reasonable discussion of where republicans and democrats can get together and really talk about this issue in ways that will help to solve the problem. but i'm finding, as i learn about some of the reasonsor opposition to immigration reform, is that we are so far apart philosophically that i don't know how we're going to be able to really get together and have this debate and this discussion. let me -- i was intrigued by the testimony of james r. edwards jr., ph.d. today and this discussion about the ability for christians to display and

implement compassion and mercy but that governments can't do that, that governments should not attempt to use this civil responsibility in that way that it can be more harmful than not. let me find out a little bit more. to ask myself, find out who this gentleman is. and as we understand it, you, sir, as a fellow at the center for immigration study. is that right? >> yes, ma'am. >> are you familiar with the case of eduardo gonzalez? >> no, ma'am. >> eduardo gonzalez i guess is being deployed on his third tour of duty with the u.s. navy. and he has or will be serving on the "uss harry truman" in the

persian gulf. hi wife is not a u.s. citizen, and they face deportation, and their deportation was advocated for and sought out by the center where you did your studying, your -- where you were a fellow. do you support that kind of deportation of the family of someone who is deployed to serve to protect the united states of america? >> well, not knowing the facts of that specific case, i hesitate to comment directly on that. but i would say in general that there are elements in the law that allow exceptions in certain cases, and that may well qualify as the exception. >> but the center advocated for his deportation. do you believe that someone who serves in the united states

armed forces should have to worry about their family being deported because they are not -- the wife, the child are not citizens? do you think that's right? or is it government should not be compassionate enough to consider the plight of the wife and the child because that's not our role, as you have articulated in your testimony about the role of government or the -- >> what i've said in the testimony is that it's clear from scripture the role of government properly is more on the justice side. and certainly we have elements of compassion or mercy that play out in our -- are reflected in our government, which i would agree, as congressman gutierrez noted earlier, that should be reflected to an extent.

and things such as in general where it applies very evenhandedly, such as the role of due process or punishment that fits the offense. >> in your testimony, if i may, in closing, this is what you say. "it would be unwise to misapply biblical principles in any public policy area. this is true with respect to immigration. immigration," you say, "is one of those issues in which scripture does not detail al public policy. this issue differs from clear-cut biblical preaccepts such as prohibiting murder, stealing, or perjury. thus we have to consider such biblical principles to appropriately apply carefully -- thus we have to consider which biblical principles do appropriately apply, carefully assess the situation at hand, consider this nation's

experience and unique characteristics, judiciously estimate it will various policy options and then exercise prudent judgment." i'm clear about that. that puts us a long way apart. and let me tell you why, particularly with this separation issue. i'm in the process of reading three books right now. one is known as "the known world." the other is known as "the wench." and of course i'm reading the biography of the british legislator and abolitionist mr. wilbur force. all of these books are about slavery. and i have decided to spend a lot of time trying to understand not only what took place during slavery, but the implications of that even today. one of the most vicious and heartwrenching components of slavery was the separation of

families where children were sold off, where fathers were sold off. and when we look at this immigration issue, it emerges again that families could be separated, children could be separated from their parents. what do you think government's role is in looking at this family situation where families could be separated? what's the role of christianity? what's the role of religion in looking at this? and what is government's role? >> the gentlelady's time has expired. by unanimous consent, we'll grant the gentleman 30 seconds to respond. >> where do i start? in general, i'd say that there's a distinction between those who knowingly broke a law and took a chance and would be separated by their family if they were caught and held to certain -- whatever

consequences, be it imprisonment or whatever. i mean, it's the same story as an embezzler or any other person who breaks the law, would be separated from their family members. the person who comes here as a lawful permanent resident played by the rules and is separated because of the quota of waiting the turn of his spouse and minor children because the citizens who came here before him are joined more quickly with their -- their more extended family members. to me, that's a family separation issue of greater import to the government. and it would be more compassionate to join the spouses and minor children than to prioritize more distant family members? >> the gentleman's time is expired. i know dr. land has to leave in

about 15 minutes. so i'm hoping we can get to all our members. >> attached to my testimony that was submitted to the committee in appendix five is principles for just immigration reform where we try -- dr. barrett duke, who has a ph.d. in old testament studies, and i who have a ph.d. in theoloologtheolo take the biblical teachings and apply them to what we perceive as being an ethical immigration policy. it's much too long to go into, but i would refer you to it. >> thank you, and we will commend that to our committee. mr. gutierrez is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to go back to dr. richard land. temper proof biometric social security card. it's in our bill. we want to make sure, because i agree with you totally. you want to end illegal immigration, tell them they can't get a job in america. now, i'm saying that. i'm about as pro immigrant as

you can get. tell them they can't get a job in america, that we're going to end illegal immigration and we're going to end it once and for all. let's not -- let's just confess to ourselves. 1986 was a good start. but it was a fraud bill. and it was in essence amnesty to the extent that people applied -- you have been here four years, you show up at an office, you go through a quasibackground check, and guess what, 18 months later, you go from temporary resident to permanent resident. the law was passed in 1986. i got elected to congress in 1993. in 1994, i started at the beginning of a process that brought up 50,000 people in my district to become american citizens from that bill. so you see how quickly people went from 1986, they didn't open up the first office till 1998, but by 1994, they were already applying for american citizenship. that's pretty much it. that is not what our bill says today. what our bill says today, you

have to go to back of the line. people keep -- they make fun of this back of the line. it's nothing to be made fun of. the back of the line is a long time away from you ever becoming an american citizen and gaining permanency in the united states of america, because what we do is we're family friendly. so we say all of those people that are waiting in line, during the next five years they will receive their visas. in the next five years, in any comp henszive bill, you must take -- it is immoral, wrong, unethical to make someone wait 25 years to bring their brother to america when we know that will they're on the brink of dying, that their life is all but done. that's not our law. our law is to bring families together. so what we say is let's put them -- and once everybody that's in line and has been waiting lawly in line is taken care of, then you begin with those that are undocumented. but you place them somewhere in the line. and all i want to say to everybody is think about it a moment, think about it a moment, if we create a system that

doesn't allow people to ultimately become american citizens, reason we undermining our country? isn't that what we want is people to come here, to invest themselves, not only economic but socially but in terms of their heart and their soul by saying this is my country and adopting the united states and following that position? that's why we're not like other countries. that's why america has become the cemetery of so many foreign languages. think about it. germans came, buried germans. polish came, buried italian. we continue burying languages. english continues to be the language of the nation. why? because we've allowed them to integrate themselves fully. so this is really -- i want to thank you all because this is really -- we agree with you, biometric, leaders of our faith-based community begin to speak simple, clear facts. we need that. we need dr. land and bishop, we

need to make sure we secure that border and do everything. and if we need to get metrics to figure it out, let's figure out what those bet meth ricks are so we can secure that border. but we need to secure everything totally. we agree with that. we need to punish those employers that exploit them. we agree. every democrat here on this side is ready to put them to jail for long jail sentences if they hire undocumented workers and illegal workers in this country. now, after hearing all of this, you say, well, what's the problem, luis? you're for securing the border. you're for a biometric card. you're for putting employers in jail. that's going to be the solution to ending illegal -- what's the problem, luis? the problem is what do we do with the 12 million undocumented workers that are already here? and you know what, you've heard it again here today so i want to thank especially i want to thank the reverend matthew staver. it isn't amnesty. you know what they've done with amnesty? they've changed it from a seven-letter word to the

dirtiest four-letter word there can be. if today were halloween instead of kids knocking on their door and saying boo, they would say amnesty as though to scare us once again. that's what they've done with the word, a word that has no relationship with what we are doing. what we are saying is, quite simply, now, you know, it's become the norm here not to speak about charity, not to speak about forgiveness, not to speak about -- look, i'm not a theologian. i didn't come here with my bible. i'm a good catholic, you know. but i tell you, i learned two things, to love god above everything else and to love my neighbor as i love myself. and let me tell you, i cannot fulfill my principle if when i sit in the pew and i know the person sitting in that pew next to me is undocumented and i don't love them as much. when i register my kids to go to school -- and this is not hyperbole. when i register them in first and second and third grade, when i take them to school, i know there are undocumented children. when i go to teacher/parent

conferences, when i go to the park, everywhere i go, they are there. they are an integral part of my life. they're so ingrained in our life. they are our neighbor not only in the spiritual sense but in the factual sense. they live next to us. they live among us. 4 million american citizen children. hundreds of thousands of american citizen wives. hundreds of thousands. and husbands who are married to undocumented. do you really propose that the government go out there and destroy these families? do you know what it would do to the fabric of american society to take 12 million people and rip them asunder? it is not reasonable. so what i suggest to all of you is that we meet, again, that this testimony is good but you guys got a little different thing than most people that come here. you know, you have a mission in your life. you have different objectives and different goals in terms of what you want to do. i want to see if you can help us reach those goals. and for that i thank you for the wonderful testimony here this

morning. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. smith wants to catch his breath. oh, he's ready? the ranking member of the full committee, mr. smith, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. land, let me direct my first question to you. and i apologize for being gone during your testimony because of having to attend another committee's mark-up. but as i understand it, you do have some concerns about chain migration, and to the extent that you didn't elaborate on that, could you tell us what aspects of chain migration you would eliminate and which ones you would keep and to the extent that you agree with it, what would you substitute for chain migration? would you put a greater emphasis on those who have the education and skills we need in america, for example? >> well, in appendix five of my testimony, which is attached, i talk about chain migration, the process of bringing extended members of one's family to the united states once one family

member is settled here is of significant concern to us and many people in the nation. if we are to allow millions of people to remain here, we must find a way to limit the influx of extended family members so that we leave room in our nation for future immigrants who have no family here. we propose that chain migration be limited to spouses and their natural or adopted children. we recommend that hardship exceptions be part of the limits to enable children to bring elderly parents to the u.s. who have no means of support in their home countries in order to maintain our commitment to bringing in additional immigrants, we recommend the number of family members who can be united with family members in the u.s. be subbed to an annual cap. >> thank you. >> the reason for that is otherwise you get into numbers that are extremely large. right. okay. thank you. >> a hard decision, but that's the decision we recommend. >> right. thank you for that answer, and it is appreciated. bishop, i know that the conference of catholic bishops

does not -- or claims not to support open borders. my question to you is what illegal immigrants would you agree to deport or not admit in the case of those individuals that we might send home, would you agree to send individuals home, for exame, who had been convicted of crimes? would yougree to send individuals home who were working illegally in the united states? i want to give you an opportunity to show that you're not just for open borders, that you do agree to enforce some immigration laws. >> yes. clearly, the bishops of the united states do not support open borders. we call for border security to address appropriate issues that are concerns along the border. for example, drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons smuggling. these are all serious issues. >> what about the category of individuals i asked specifically about? would you deport or support deporting those individuals who

had been convicted of crimes and those individuals who were working illegally in the united states? >> i think we would certainly support a judicial decision that someone should be deported or -- >> would you deport individuals in those go categories? >> i missed the second category. the category was those who have committed crimes -- >> those who have been convicted of crimes and those who have been found to have been working illegally in the united states. there seems to be bipartisan agreement on those two categories of individuals. i just wondered if you all as a conference also supported the deportation of those individuals. >> what we support is comp henszive immigration policy reform. >> right. what about individuals -- >> with regard to deportation, clearly this is something that the government has to determine, who should be deported. >> no. i understand that. my question is does the conference support deporting individuals who have been convicted of crimes and who have been found to be working illegally in the united states? yes or no.

does the conference have a view on that? >> that really isn't -- i mean, the position of the conference is to reform our immigration policy. now, the issue of deportation is affected by a comprehensive immigration policy. >> you're not willing to state those individuals should be deported. it sounds to me if you're not, then i don't know who you would agree to deport if any. >> it's not a matter of d agreeing to deport. the government determines who is deported. the church doesn't. we wouldn't stand in the way. what we do is try to assist people on the other side of the border who have been deported. that's what the church -- >> i don't think i'm going to get a fur answer to my question, but i thank you for your response. any remaining time i have i'm going to yield to the ranking member. but mr. edwards, a question for you. do you consider comprehensive immigration reform so-called is equivalent of amnesty or not and if so, why? >> i do consider it amnesty and

because the parameters of what is proposed in the 2006 bills in the senate and 2007, the most recent proposals on the table, they have about the same exact requirements, a de minimis sort of fine or fee, you know, some modest steps toward english, but there's no real requirement of acquisition of english language. there's -- you know, a number of other things are pretty small potatoes and exactly like congressman king said the -- those things are actually benefits to the people who -- in the most part are benefits to the people who are the benefits of the legalization. and that's -- they're going to be better off if they learn english. they're going to be in better stead for the future.

if you wanted to look at real things and take into account what congressman gutierrez said, that, yes, generally, you want everybody who comes here legal, even people illegally, to form a positive emotional and cultural attachment to this nation and a loyalty, a political or patriotic loyalty to this nation. but that doesn't mean that everybody should be able to go the entire route to citizenship. you may consider that there are disabilities attached to people who are beneficiaries, and you've got to sort out all the distinctions. i mean, some people who have been here 20 years, some people 20 days, some people have education, some people don't, and some people have citizen

children, some don't. you've got to design something that sets up all of that and deals with each of those specific groups in a way, and some of those may benefit from naturalization, citizenship, but others may not. but you need to think long and hard about exactly who should be held to what standard. >> gentleman -- >> thank you, mr. edwards. thank you, madam chair. >> madam chair, may i have two minutes? >> without objection, yes, sir. >> thank you. i think i've technically got to be the one to ask for the two minutes, but i'll be happy to do so. >> we're very cooperative in the running of the hearings. >> i just again want to thank everybody here for being here on this important issue and again encourage you to continue this dialogue. it's very critically important. more than i review immigration laws throughout the history of america, and we've had many, every time we have taken an anti-immigration position, it has been the wrong side of

history. when i was recently in jerusalem in january and february this year, i came across a letter that was startling. it was from a member of congress to our then president. it was regarding this ship that was filled with people fleeing the holocaust, the jews that were fleeing hitler's regime, and they were circumstance nlg the atlantic, wanting to land on the shores of america. he wrote a letter to the president, urging him not to move forward with immigration reform, urging him to deny that ship's entrance, which we eventually did. the same arguments that were raised in that let rer the same arguments we hear today with regards to jobs, diluting our economy, diluting our culture. we were on the wrong side of history then, and i urge us not to be on the wrong side of history now. thank you. >> thank you, dean. i recognize mr. gonzalez from -- colleague from texas for five minutes. ? thank you very much, madam chair. my questions will be directed to dr. edwards, and i'm going to be reading from your written testimony as well as some previous remarks attributed to

you. "we fairly conclude judgment to construct an immigration policy for 21st century america based on a handful of scripture passages taken out of context." in your written testimony today you made reference to some of those, and you also comment, "but to attempt to require civil authority to display the same manner of mercy or compassion that individual christians are commanded to display would be ludicrous. yet that is what certain advocates in the immigration debate unreasonably demand. i'm not real sure where you make reference to as certain advocates making that kind of a demand, because that's not been the testimony of the other witnesses here today, nor of any member here on the democratic side. but let me ask you this. you say, but do these high standards apply to civil government? and then you say to an extent. so i'm going to take some of those passages, and you know what, i don't think you're entirely wrong.

you're substantially wrong but not entirely wrong. so to care for the least of these my brother. all right. maybe government should don't that. maybe civilian authorities shouldn't do that. love your enemies. difficult thing to do in time of war. bless those who curse you. we don't really turn the other cheek all the time. love mercy. walk humbly. no one may vote for me if i love mercy and walk humbly. maybe you're right. you left one out. to act justly. to ak act justly. i think that does have application, whether it's in the religious sphere or whether it's in government service. would you agree to act justly is an objective or a goal that should be sought by all? >> well, earlier in the testimony i did cite micah 6:8 in full where it does say act justly, and i fully agree that -- >> i'm quoting you. >> yes, sir.

>> because act justly seems to be one where you would find a lot of disagreement that it may not have an application as we form public policy here in congress. to act justly. actually, that's what i thought we were all elected to do, fundamentally. so you would agree that that's one passage, whether taken out of context or not, has application in what we seek to do here today. to act justly. >> that is one passage, and, in fact, it is not out of context because there are so many other passages, and the reference point is scripture best taken is to scripture interprets itself. >> to act justly. >> you have to take it as a whole, and it is very clear from scripture that the principle of justice and acting justly is fully in order. but it's for individual christian -- >> so you're -- that is a long

answer to say yes, you would agree with my proposition to act justly, is something we should all seek regardless of context, regardless of our roles. right? is the present immigration law on the books just? is it fair? is it just? >> in general. it's got a lot of weaknesses because it's a political decision. but it's -- it has in general elements of justice. it is thought through and in many regards it allows for exceptions, kind of merciful exceptions on a case-by-case basis such as parole -- >> let me ask you, is it just to view the 12 million workers and their families in this country as someone that is leer illegally without any chance of remaining in this country? because it appears to me that you agree with some on the other side of aisle that anything

short of deportation would be amnesty. because that's all you have provided us today. for the 12 million workers and their family, and they're all not from mexico, by the way, or south of the border, one size would fit all, that they would be deported. is that justice? >> no, sir. >> and so you would agree that we need to reform our laws and find exactly what the other witnesses have spoken to today, find an answer or solution that is fair and just. and we've been talking about an earned pathway to legal status that does include penalty. in every courtroom in the united states, whether it's administrative, criminal, or civil, where there are penalties and punishments, there are gradations, not everyone -- it's not one size fits all. and people are basically also placed on a probationary period.

if they don't comply, then the full import of the law or punishment or consequence would be visited on. but what i'm hearing from the other side and from you today, it's not just, and it is not fair. and that's what we're attempting to do here today. so i welcome and i appreciate the testimony of the other witnesses, and i hope that we can move forward. and i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- >> may i respond? >> i think that would be fair. by unanimous consent, the gentleman is granted an additional 30 seconds so you may respond. >> thank you. what i was trying to say earlier is very much in line with what you're pointing out, you cannot treat all of the 11 million currently illegal aliens exactly the same because some have been here 20 years, others have been here 20 days. some have families, some don't.

vom u.s. citizen children, others have no children. you've got to design very specific penalties according to each of those categories of circumstance. that would be the prudent approach rather than saying everybody gets to stay here forever and become a u.s. citizen regardless of whether you just crossed any border or whether you overstayed a visa or whatever. i think exactly as congressman gutierrez pointed out earlier, it would be well in order to deal with the problem of visa overstays. >> the gentleman's time has expired. and the gently day from california, miss chu, is recognized for five minutes. >> i'd like to ask some questions pertaining to labor and jobs. and first i'd like to ask dr. edwards and then have a response from reverend staver. i'm particularly disturbed by your testimony, dr. edwards,

where you state that harvard economist george berhas has attributed immigration with directly reducing the yearly average native born men's wages by 40%, and i'm d distushed because you only tell part of the story. citing the statistic alone is misleading because you failed to mention that while immigration reduces the wages of native workers by 3.4% over the short run, he finds that immigration has no effect on such wages over the long run. in fact, it's a 0% effect on such wages. and you also fail to mention that the majority of economists who write on this issue, such as david carr, giovanni perry, rachel freeburg, jennifer hunt, gerald james, differ from boarhaus and conclude that immigration has actually had a positive effect on the wages of most if not all americans, and this is because, for one, immigrants buy things and increase demand on products and services, secondly, immigrants tend to work in industries that,

like agriculture and landscaping and certain parents of the u.s. would become unviable without their labor, and thirdly, immigrants tend to complement american workers rather than directly compete against them. and let's just take the example of agriculture. we do have exceedingly high unemployment levels right now, but for all the unemployment out there, americans are not running back to the fields to do certain manual labor. and this has been highlighted by the take our jobs campaign being run by the united farm workers and discussed on the stephen colbert show. farm workers are saying to america, you want our jobs, come take it. but after months of advertising this particular campaign where they actually encouraged people to come take these jobs, only 60 people signed up and only three have made it to the fields. and, in fact, there are estimates that there are 2.5 million undocumented farm

workers and their families in the u.s., but without them, we don't grow citrus, berries, tomato tomatoes, and other fruit. our food would not be able to compete with the cheaper food from overseas, and if our farms go away, it's not just farm work that goes away, it's all the jobs that go along with it, such as packaging, processing, trucking, accounting, advertising. that all goes away, and these are jobs that are actually held by americans. in other words, if you send the farm workers home, you eliminate millions of american jobs. any farmer will tell you that. so, dr. edwards, what would you have to say about the fact that most labor economistins have fod that immigration has had a positive effect on the wages of americans, and also if we lost the undocumented farm workers, would you still be in favor of rounding them up and shipping them home, considering so many

americans in complementary jobs would lose their jobs? where would we get the people to perform the jobs of farm workers? >> again, where do i start? if you take boarhaus' work as a whole, including his entire work, his book called "heaven's door" and other of his scholarly publications -- i've read a good bit of boarhaus and other economists in general -- this is the case that where there are more people in the labor force there are lower wages. where there are the ability to substitute capital for labor, that is mechanicization, which happened in the tomato industry, we ended up with fewer jobs in california particularly and the tomato industry, but they were higher-paying jobs, they were better-quality jobs, there was

much more productivity and output. and this is a much more complicated subject than i can answer in 30 seconds. but the truth is that there are plenty of people who would, if the wages naturally were to rise because of the tighter labor market, might be attracted to different sectors. maybe not as stoop labor but for other mechanized jobs in the agriculture sector. >> reverend staver? >> thank you. i think the idea that if you just simply -- this is not -- that this is going to adversely affect the economy is an oversight, because anybody who's lived in florida or texas or some of these other agricultural states -- and i was raised in florida -- knows that there's a lot of vegetables and flowers and agriculture that's grown there, and a lot of these individuals are illegal. they're undocumented workers.

if you all of a sudden ship them back to wherever they have originated from, you're simply not going to have those fields and those employers filled with individuals clamoring to go out there and give us what we enjoy as americans when we eat a watermelon or a tomato or have salads. those come from someplace. they don't come out of thin air. and if we were just to simply ship everyone back, that's going to have a negative impact on our economy and on our way of life. i think that what we ultimately see is that argument being used throughout history. we have continually addressed this issue of immigration. we have historically been opposed to immigration against various kinds of identifiable groups, whether they are italians at one particular time that have our disfavor, whether they're asians that have our disfavor or japanese or chinese or other people of asian descent or jews during the holocaust, now it seems as though it's the latinos. and those primarily coming from

mexico. every time we've had that issue we've always raised the issue that if we allow these individuals they're going to take our jobs. historically that has been absolutely proven incorrect. moreover, i think we need to not stereotype every one of these that are illegal or undocumented workers or immigrants here. that's not just mexicans. it's not just italians. there are some other individuals from all different kinds of descents, from all different spectrums of the world. and we can't just have this cookie-cutter approach to simply say because they will affect our jobs we will ship them all back overseas. i think that's not appropriate. it's not a just, not a moral, not an ethical approach. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. we have, smaflt, aas a matter o all of the members have had an opportunity to ask questions. i understand miss jackson lee has a unanimous consent request. >> i ask unanimous consent to conclude with a comment i did not get a chance for my opening

comment. i just want mod make one brief comment. >> without objection, the gentlelady is granted one minute. >> thank you. to all of the participants and panelists, let me thank you very much. and president land, because of our houston connection, let me make it very clear how excited i am about the bipartisanship of our congregations, many of whom i worship with, and of course many constituents in my own district are republicans because they're americans. what i would ask, as you proceed, and what i wanted the action item to be is to be ever pressing on those names and others classified in one party, i'm talking to everyone, to give them the message that you're giving, otherwise we will not move forward, and to give dr. edwards a rebuttal answer to what he has articulated, because with much respect, it is wrong. when we had low unemployment, republicans blocked us from moving. and i'm speaking not of the

constituency but of the elected body. what i would pray for, and i truly pray for it, that we distinguish the 12 million undocumented here in the country. that is where the crisis is, and we made it very clear, put them on the back of the line, let them work. when they work, others work. it is well-known. so my challenge to you and my question, and i would like to be part of it, is to convince dr. edwards, because he carries the banner for those who think they can hide under this banner of religiousness, i would ask that we work with those who are blocking us in the senate and blocking us many the house in a -- >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> i yield back. >> i would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. a lot of people don't realize the witnesses come as volunteers to help our country, and i think you all have helped our country today. with your testimony, both oral and written, it's thoughtful, and it's been very helpful. a little housekeeping here. the members of the subcommittee

will have five legislative days to submit any additional written questions to you, and if that occur, we would request that you answer those promptly so that they can be made part of the record. and without objection, the record will remain open for five legislative days for the submission of any other additional materials. i would just like to note that i learned some things today. it's always a good day when you learn something. and as i listen to you, i became hopeful. too often here in washington we're at loggerheads, but i think what i heard today is that people who can disagree on many, many other things can come together in a thoughtful, rational, cool-headed manner to say what's good for our country, how do we solve problems? that's our job. and i think you are leading us in that regard. as mr. berman said, doing

nothing is the soft amnesty. you know, anywhere i go, no one says do nothing about this, whatever people think on the subject. so i do hope that we will be able to pull together across the aisle and across our country. obviously, america has the right to decide who's going to come and join us and become americans here with us. that is an obligation that we have. but our rich history shows that we are made stronger by immigration. i think of my own grandfather who got off the boat at age 16 because he wanted to be free. he wanted to be here in america. because of his bravery, i'm sitting here today, and i give thanks for that. so this hearing is adjourned. thank you to all of the witnesses.