industrial architecture while creating jobs and continuing to partner with the city of lowell to advance a critical economic development project, the hamilton canal district this legislation would most immediately allow the park to exchange a current surface parking lot for an equivalent number of spaces in a new garage that will be built by the city of lowell adjacent to the present parking lot. guaranteeing necessary parking spaces for park visitors while freeing the surface parking lot for incorporation into the hamilton canal district rego on the space of the current parking lot, and adjacent vacant property, the city, working with private partners, plans to construct over 400,000 square feet of commercial and r&d space, generating as many as 1,600 jobs. as muches -- as such, it is a critical piece in the master redevelopment plan for the area. this is supported by this lowell national historical park, the city of lowell and all local stake holders and has

received all major state permits and local zoning allowances. because the enabling law for the lowell national historical park only provides for the park to receive additional land, it is not allowed to exchange land. this legislation would allow this mutually agreed upon exchange and i want to stress that this legislation will cost the taxpayers absolutely nothing. i thank chairman hastings and ranking member markey as well as chairman bishop and ranking member grijalva and the committee staff for working with me to advance this bill to the floor. it is my hope that my colleagues today will appreciate the importance of passing this legislation to create jobs, continue revitalizing this historic mill city and protect a key part of our industrial heritage and economic history. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: it's another great bill. i'll yield back my time. ms. tsongas: and i'll yield

back mine. thank you so much. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2240 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until 6:30 p.m. >> the house is recessing. members will be back at 6:30 p.m. eastern to vote on measures debated today. special counsel to president nixon who pled guilty and wept

to prison for his role in the watergate coverup died this past weekend. he talked about it back in 2007. >> kissinger had the right although he abused it to come into the oval office without having somebody announce him. kissinger could walk in when he wanted to. nixon told him that because of the severity of the foreign policy issues for him to feel free and interrupt anything. he would do it for trivial things. and one day nixon was really kind of ticked off at henry for a variety of things and we were in the executive office building. the far door swung open and it was henry. nixon did not appear to look, but i know he knew it was henry and said to me, i think it is

time we use nuclear weapons. everything else has failed. and kissinger stood in the doorway absolutely paralyzed and said someone is going to hear that on the tape. everything they say is true. it was pure human our. nixon loved it. >> hear more about his political career and later work in prison reform online at the c-span video library with a quarter september try of politics and public affairs available on your computer any time. >> james murdock, the former chief executive testified before a panel today. he described his meetings with politicians as legitimate advocacy. this part of the inquiry is about midway of the day. about an hour, 15 minutes.

>> the emails at pages 167 and 17 didn't go to you. appears that behind the scenes efforts were made to work out a deal. the answer came at page 18, email that did go to you. mission accomplished. this is mr. michelle to you. former employee with major

centers in his constituency will contact ask him to bear in mind the economic investor point of view. especially in times of austerity and very difficult economic environment for those areas. he would emphasize the opportunity to show the maturity as coalition partners looking for long-term and second bullet point, it is keen to issue cables and i will call you tomorrow or wednesday. his team will brief the scottish press on the economic importance for news for scotland. you did have a conversation after that, didn't you? >> i think i did, but i think you characterized -- mischaracterized page 18,

mission accomplished, as somehow the answer to who to talk to with respect to mr. cable and i don't think the two are related. for clarity, i think the 16 is the main adviser suggesting that the lord be contacted or others and then this is a separate point on 18, which is mr. michelle, who basically started speaking to some scottish politicians and to make some of the economic arguments with respect to investment. i think we have to recall this merger was about the creation of a pan european television platform with major operations in the united kingdom and that meant potentially quite a lot of operations and increase in operations in scotland where technical support, i.t. service

centers, were located for british sky broadcasting as an important employer there. and it was normal for a business to reach out to advocate legitimately the economic benefits of a transaction or business as it were. i don't see there is anything related to the other piece in this email. this is legitimate advocacy. >> did you have thoughts of that or have any discussions with salmons thereafter? >> i did at some point thereafter, making many of the some points as well as other agenda items. >> can we look at your page 21, another email you were copied on .

discussed the state of the process. he promised to make sure he has read that this submission by thursday afternoon -- he will then schedule a face-to-face chat. >> i think that's a reference to the adviser who is going to read the submissions. the adviser did read them page 22, our page 01663, the adviser texted mr. michelle stating that it was his view, he could have a very strong case that will stand you in good sted on this. next page 01664, this time you were receiving the email on the 8 of november 2010, which was four days after mr. cable issued

a european intervention notice, do you recall that? >> yes. and the previous email is on the day or thereabouts when the european intervention notice was put. saying that our case was strong with respect to our briefing. >> the gift of the email 01664, page 23, this is a call with mr. cable's main adviser, really along the lines, if i could paraphrase it that they didn't want the meeting at that stage between news corps and mr. cable. you can see they also wanted to be able to say take an independent view and be in touch in coming weeks and provide you with any evidence or material you would like him to read. and see -- i have scheduled

this. mr. cable was taking an appropriate line, wasn't he, in terms of wishing to have a meeting and take an independent review, would you agree? >> no. i think it would be entirely appropriate and to have a meeting with mr. cable and his advisers to be able to lay out some of the issues as we saw them and to be able to lay out the rationale for the transaction and analysis of the plurality and competition concerns. it's self-evident in what emerged over the next 12 months, namely i guess it was in december but in interviews i made afterwards he was taking other people's advice, which is frustrating because all we would be able to do is sit down in a

proper way and say these are the issues, you the secretary of state should consult on this. we know you are will be listening and informed by the different noise around, please sit us down and let us make our case. >> page 24, 01665, mr. michelle to you, mr. michelle had a meeting with rupert harrison i think we established before lunch is the special adviser to mr. george osbourn, right? >> yes. >> this was a way into finding what was going on at the high level and we can see that from the text of the email. confirmed tensions and his current policy positions. vince made a political decision, this is the issue, probably without reading the legal advice

and confirmed also by vickie and david yesterday. do you think it's appropriate, mr. mur doc that here you are getting confidential information as to what is going on at the high level in government? >> i think -- what i was concerned here is the substance of what was being communicated not the channel. he was engaged with political vizzers with westminster to put it broadly. he reports back what he is being told. and at no point in here did he or the company put forward anything legitimate. i was concerned to hear the substance of what i was hearing. i thought you were going to ask do you think he was appropriate

to take action. that is the thing that was the substance being communicated more than reflecting on the channel. >> maybe this is your view and i'm not saying it is right or wrong. mr. harrison is ready to speak to mr. michelle, mr. michelle is simply doing his job? >> mr. michelle is reporting back what he is hearing and some cases he is calling people and others and receiving telephone calls unprompted and a channel of communication exists that is just additional to really the important channels which were the voluminous submissions we were making to the secretary of state and to his people and to whom ever else asked for them. >> mr. salmons was inside as well. that's consistent with a

previous email. turn to page 26, our page 01667. 15th of november, 2010. jeremy, that's jeremy hunt tried to call you. it looks as though mr. hunt was trying to call you directly, is that your understanding? >> that seems to be what it says, mr. hunt tried to call me. >> he received strong legal advice not to meet us today as the current process is treated as a judicial one, not a policy one and any meeting could be referred to and jeopardize the entire process. jeremy is frustrated but the secretary is now also being involved. what do you understand by that? >> i understood there was a meeting scheduled with mr. hunt and presumably advisers and i was bringing my public affairs

executive and it was canceled because of advice that as the minister he shouldn't meet with someone who had an issue before the government. >> what was the date on which mr. cable's responsibility passed on to mr. hunt? >> about a month later. >> december. >> thank you. >> and again, i was seeking to have entirely transparent conversations with policy makers around the place because at this point we were obviously frustrated by the things we were hearing. i would add that a lot of the communications that were coming back from government and politicians, i took with a grain of salt given the fact we had been hearing many, many sides and people were speaking out of both sides of their mouth with all the communications we come up to. >> aside from the point that mr. hunt didn't have carriage of the

decision. at this stage, it was mr. cable, what you were being told here was that government was receiving strong legal visas this was a judicial process. meetings were inappropriate. did you understand that to be the case? >> what i understood that was the advice he was getting and saying he was frustrated and i was frustrated and nothing inappropriate about being able to advocate a reasonable position was that the government should be applying the appropriate legal test particularly when we heard as we saw in the emp mails before that perhaps that wasn't the process that had been followed earlier. >> whatever the position before, you were being told that as this was a judicial process and not a policy issue, it was inappropriate to have certainly formal meetings and informal

meetings because that would have the pro pencity to subvert the judicial process? >> and i didn't have any informal meetings. i understood that mr. hunt wouldn't be taking direct meetings from here on in. >> so you understood that it was inappropriate because this was a judicial process to have formal meetings with the secretary of state? >> that seem to be what this says and i didn't agree with that point and i know what you are coming to. i was displeased with the decision. >> the email continues, my advice would be not to meet today and it would be counterproductive but you could have a chat with him on miss mobile and that will be fine and i will meet with his team privately as well. direct mobile contact and no one will find out about it, is that

what he was telling you? >> i didn't take it to mean that way, but maybe a small telephone call would be fine. but there was no understanding in my mine that a telephone call would replace a meeting that was to be where we could make the case we wanted to make and i'm sure there were other things on the agenda to meet with mr. hunt, the ap review, networks, legislation, all of the normal things that we weren't able to discuss at all because of this idea that we weren't able to have government meetings. >> did you have a conversation with mr. hunt on his mobile phone or otherwise? >> i believe he called me to apologize for cancelling the meeting. that's in the records. >> your reply which is the reply that might be relevant in the

early afternoon, you must be joking. fine, i will text him and find the time. >> i was displeased. >> did you get visas to what a judicial process such as this meant and also what it would be or would not be appropriate for news corps to be doing. >> the secretary of state had the responsibility to take into account that he was receiving from his advisers and receive submissions from various parties inputting that forward to him. our only concern in this and i

think a lot of these communications were really around that -- around the process itself because remember under the enterprise, this was unchartered territory and hadn't done this before. so the time tables, how many submissions, what other bodies would be consulted and what wouldn't be consulted were something that was a matter of dialogue with the relevant authorities as we went through it. >> and that is why again which is a public affairs executive does is have an understanding of what those things are and keep the process moving along. >> next few pages starting at 01668 show that mr. michelle was also trying to work on the special adviser for mr. cable

and mr. will beings -- mr. wilkes. >> are you on pages on pages 27 and 28? >> he refers, for example, to his being sure that they were equally staying within the bounds of proper conduct and warning mr. michelle to lay off, isn't he? >> i can't speculate. i wasn't on any of these emails, but given what we have see the department of business innovation and skills, didn't want any dialogue or have anyone talking to them about the process because they hadn't had one. >> page 31, 01 -- >> this email is on the bottom, mr. michelle is saying to mr. wilkes, you have not met anybody

else and asking someone point he hadly and he is saying, it happened. and of course we got the same proper conduct and the top one says, well, i understand. and i was being cheeky in a proper way and he does back off. >> next email was sent to you early evening on the 15 of november page 01672, your page 31, when mr. michelle tells you, he just had a of with vince's main adviser regarding meetings they might have had with the complainers to the transaction given rumors we hear. >> where are you in this? >> page 31.

>> i have the page. >> i read out the first sentence. >> at one stage, there was a meeting between mr. cable and the complainers to the transaction, wasn't there? >> we understand that to be the case but saying it didn't happen here. >> this group of people, had very publicly come together. i think they called themselves an alliance and capitalized it and p.r. firm that was doing -- >> you gave a speech in barcelona. >> presentation at an investor conference. >> you appreciate that presentation was interpreted by some as a threat to government over a reference to the

competition commission, wasn't it? >> it was miscast as that in the u.k. press. at the time the initial wire stories and i have gone back and looked at it, it was simply an argument about the economic benefits and potential disincentives to invest around certain regulatory processes. >> that wasn't a gentle message to government to get on with it? >> it was a fair message to say uncertain regulatory processes was a disincentive to invest and made it harder to invest around the world particularly news corporation to make decisions to invest in those areas where that uncertainty existed. anyone would think it entirely reasonable to advocate that position. >> page 32, 01673, email, mr.

michelle to you, 19th of november. told today by cable's adviser to approach any meeting with the lord and introdiscussion on rubicon is that the internal company name? >> it was a project code name on internal documents. >> on the proper way forward. next email. update on the process and next steps. why was there continual interaction with mr. hunt at this stage when he didn't have responsibility for deciding the bid? >> i think the view was we wanted any interested party and policy making to be able to see the relevant arguments and the

relevant submissions given we were concerned about the process and wanted to make sure that the right process and relevant legal tests were applied, so we were happy to provide documents, copies of submissions, et cetera, if minister's advisers wanted them. >> the email continues, jeremy has asked me to send him relevant documents privately. do you know which documents those were? >> i would imagine it was things like submissions. >> do you know whether that happened? >> i don't. i think so -- in reading all of these the other day that they read them but i don't know if it's the advisers or who. >> page 36, our page 01677, mr. michelle reporting back to you,

2 december, 2010. michelle has spoken to the advisers about the deputy prime minister and the prime minister, do you see that? >> yes >> particularly the imboldened bullet point, message coming from the deputy prime minister's adviser on the importance of getting labour on board comfortable with the transaction because they influence cable a lot. that is demonstrating the importance of the political demen shon. >> -- difficult men shon. >> which she were telling us to focus on. >> look, please, at page 38, 01679. 14 december, in order to

understand this, you have to look at the chronology, 10 december, it published an issues letter, which would need to be addressed in relation to the merger. we know that from another exhibit. we aren't going to look at it. the right border, reading these emails, can you look at the email -- second email on page 38, 01679 because that one comes first in time. >> yes. >> michelle to you, very good debrief with hunt on the issues letter. he is pretty amazed by nindings, methodology and clear bias and

he shares argue on it. and going to meet with him one-to-one before christmas because we don't know whether that reference to mr. hunt is to mr. hunt in person or his special adviser, do we? >> or his office in general. >> this general question, when you were getting these emails through, did you interpret all the references to mr. hunt as to him personally or did you interpret them more widely as being a reference to his adviser or to his office? >> i assumed he was communicating through his office. i would have assumed that that the minister is busy, all the things that a minister has to do. so i didn't assume it was all direct. >> but i think you can

appreciate just again the channel wasn't my primary concern but the content of these which were confirming our concerns or at least providing other people seemed to agree about our concerns about the process. >> this time, the issues letter eminates -- doesn't have anything to do with government, does it? >> i believe it's an issues letter in response to the intervention notice to the secretary of state that had made a little while before. the issues letter identifies issues and then comes out and then people offer opinions and then issue a formal report and that didn't come until the end december and the issues letter is part of the process and gives interested parties about what sort of things they will be weighing up and thinking about in terms of how they determine what to do.

>> we understand it's purpose. but if you read through the email upward, mr. michelle -- it's rebecca brooks mr. michelle forwarding adding an email, isn't it? >> might be a separate one. >> i don't think it matters much. rebecca brooks one three minutes later sending an email to you and mr. michelle, clear that rebecca brooks has spoken to either george osbourn or his office. total bafflement at response. so you are getting insight about what mr. osbourn is thinking about the issues letter, aren't

you? >> there was a general bafflement at the view because most people assumed that we controlled sky already. >> mr. osbourn's list of meetings with propertyors, this conversation with mrs. brooks is described as a general discussion or maybe you can consider that. higher up the page, mr. michelle is e mailing you and mrs. brooks , referring to feedback from a spokesman to mr. cable. the response and you are told that mr. michelle has spoken to the adviser.

put forward a meeting and likely to work. there is a possibility of a meeting in mid-january. >> again, i took a lot of the communication coming from the politicians with a bit of a grain of salt because this is now six months into this process. we hadn't been able to get a meeting with the relevant adviser and heard conflicting accounts as to whether he was willing to look at evidence or not willing to look at evidence. we had an issues letter that was hard to understand where they were going. so the whole thing at this point was very frustrating. >> next page, page 40, 10681, mr. michelle to you, he just had a chat with the chief of staff regarding the ongoing process. he was surprised and i pointed out to him that cable would be

able to take a decision with a lot of political influence. it's a matter for the secretary of state in owe accordance with his statutory obligations and said he was unclear why news corps is seeking views of people that have no influence in the decision-making process. why were you doing that? >> vince's main adviser many months before had advised us to do so. >> to paraphrase the rest, mr. cable was keen to make up his own mind and not be influenced by anyone. but yet you were influencing him, weren't you? >> we were trying to make the case that a clear process should

be put in place around this and a relevant legal task that is clearly understood should be applied. i don't think that's influencing. that's saying let us make the side of the argument one way or the other so he can have the right inputs to make a decision. >> page 41, 01682, now the early evening of 21 december, 2010, mr. cable's remarks to two persons posing as a member of his constituency but in fact journalists, it's clear that mr. michelle had spoken to either mr. klegg's chief of staff or his special adviser, just spoke. he is absolutely furious, mr. klegg is absolutely furious. said cable's comments

unacceptable. i ran through telegraph. cable about to be blackmailed. do you know what that was about? >> blackmailed? i think it's because when the comments came out, they had been -- they came out -- i guess it was on tv, but the bbc's blog "the telegraph" who did a recording around liberal democrats had gotten this recording and published it as the full transcript but without the full piece of news corporation. mr. cable said something like, they are under attack from everywhere and i have declared war on mr. murdoch and will stop

the transaction and said that's the reason why it's good to be in coalition government because they can do things like this. i'm paraphrasing. that whole piece is left out of "the telegraph" and given their prominent role in the so-called alliance. that was a concern of ours and we thought it was pretty inappropriate. and when i met with lord, there was suggestions made of divesting the times and other things like that that i just wouldn't engage in because i thought only the relevant legal text should be the matter at hand for me. >> the renchts there to mr. klegg's office being furious and

mr. cable's comments being unacceptable, that must be a reference to mr. cable's remark that he wanted to declare war on murdoch. >> or that he had. it was a measure of acute bias. >> page 42, 01683, we are now christmas eve, mr. michelle emailing you and others. mr. michelle, just spoke to j.h. and this is the last of the communications which is with mr. hunt directly, according to mr. michelle's witness statement, that he was very happy for me to be point of contact with him. adam is the special adviser of mr. hunt on behalf of j.l.m.

going forward. very important to avoid giving the ante any opportunity to attack the fairness of the process and that political level while the legal teams are in touch. so to be clear, by this stage mr. hunt is now being seized with responsibility for making the decision, isn't he? >> that's right. and my understanding is that we had sought to understand what the right way to liase with. >> so the answer seems to be, there can't be direct contact, mr. hunt and mr. murdo crmp h but indirect contact through mr. michelle and mr. hunt's special adviser, mr. adam smith, isn't it? >> direct contact between mr. smith and mr. michelle, i read

it to be nothing inappropriate there but to say that people's advisers and their staff would coordinate and communicate throughout the process. >> i'm not quite sure this is what is saying. mr. michelle is saying avoid giving the a nmp te any opportunity to attack the fairness of the process. he is saying if there were direct contact with mr. murdoch, that would give the ante the opportunity to attack the process. but if we do it with the adviser or mr. michelle, well, then, that risk is reduced. >> mr. hunt in january did meet with me and all of his advisers and in those meetings you referred to earlier and a formal meeting process where we could make our case.

he took meetings with other constituents in this whole piece, people who were against the deal and so on and so forth. but that coordination sort of -- coordination by staff was normal part of making sure that process moved along. >> mr. hunt must have taken advice at the formal meeting. we have seen the minutes of those meetings, 6 january, 20 january of 2011 that would not impugn the process. was there informal contact of the sort we are seeing here would be inappropriate and the way to avoid the appearance of that is let the informal contact take place secretly between mr. michelle and the special adviser. do you see that point. >> i disagree with that point. he was having informal contact between me, mr. hunt and others

would raise eyebrows but general contact at the political level, staff level around process, around document submissions, around just to give color around these things, that that was something that was acceptable and part of the process he was setting up. >> may depend on what the contact was about, would you agree? >> i suppose so. and i assume we will keep going through this. >> there was a contact displayed. we might begin to see whether they fell into the appropriate box or the inappropriate box. let's look at the next one. new year's eve, page 43, 10684. you are not party to this one. jeremy hunt and his team have not received it yet. the it, if you just bear with me

was the report on the bid, which was published that day. letting you know, privately, jeremy will not look at it until next wednesday, not to be repeated. what do you dedues from that? >> they were keeping us informed and mr. hunt's office was in a dialogue and waiting for this report to be released so we could understand what the issues may be. and i think earlier on it said that mr. hunt was away or something like that. he is away and not going to read it right away. >> move forward to page 46, 01687.

mr. michelle spoke the to -- spoke to hunt, we must read that as hunt's office or hunt's adviser more likely than not mr. hunt directly. you are getting insight here into mr. hunt's current thinking. he is relaxed. amazed by watson sending the confidential email to "guardian." that related to phone-hacking issues and reuters and hoping to launch inquiry into it. saying that they were still doing the session and shall not tell anyone. and little bit later on he understands, hunt understands -- >> that we should tell everyone

and put it out there. >> he understands the cost of the cc referral and potential damage for the bid. so this is hunt, mr. hunt's insight as to current state of affairs which you are receiving directly from his special adviser, aren't you? >> as i understand it, this is the feedback that we heard. i think the important thing here is to look weber remembers working for the parties against the associated newspaper's british telecom -- who else was in there. b.b.c. was in there "the guardian" was in there and that group of complainants. but the pmple r. firm regarding

the proposal we were making. there were lots of selective leaking going on around this time and through the spring around the issue of plurality. we were dealing with incomplete information and we didn't foe what information people were seeing but we were told quite a lot. >> with you are being given confidential information here as to mr. hunt's discussion. look at the bottom of the email. we see that. he challenged ed on the rationale. ed repeated the same concerns which were in the report. did you think it was appropriate that you were receiving insight into private conversations between them? >> i'm not sure how accurate

they were any ways. as i told you before, all of this was taken with a grain of salt given what we were going through. mr. hunt took the advice all the way up until with withdrew the transaction. this may have just been coming tr his advisor trying to make nice while hyped the scenes they were going to follow everything they said, which is exactly what happened. >> you didn't know the accuracy at the time? >> i had taken all of it with a grain of salt because we were dealing with politicians and we have seen in earlier emails they will spin one way and then the next trying to have the conversation. and mr. michelle, who is a public affairs executive, his job is to have that conversation and listen and come back.

>> look at pages 48 and 49, our pages 01689 and 01690, you see the example of a different sort of email that mr. smith sent to mr. michelle. much more formal email, isn't it? >> uh-huh. >> an email which could have been sent and received while the informal and did you notice the difference in a tone? >> this is a formal letter about the process. again, most of these emails in here and as we continue to go through them are really about the process and our concern that

the appropriate things were being considered that they were being considered in the appropriate way and that our legal arguments were heard around the place. this is a large-scale transaction that was in the hands with respect to the decision-making process of the department of agriculture media and sport were going to get into the undertakings that were taken, the remedy, if you will and entirely reasonable to try and communicate with the relevant party makers about the merits of what we were proposing. >> we can see at page 51, 01692, an example of a rather different email where mr. michelle is

reporting back on discussions he had with mr. hunt's special adviser as to what was going to happen next. given detail here, confidential basis of time tables and indeed mr. hunt's view of the merits of your case. look at the middle of the page, it says his view, that's mr. hunt's view, once he announced publicly and strong undertakings, almost game over for the opposition. >> it was already game over once we offered it because we won. we said irresponsive of the merits of the plurelt of the conclusion, we will take pluringt off the table by

removing sky news the only change in plur atlanta that could possibly -- plurality that could possibly come tr this transaction. it removed sky news from the transaction. it was spun as a separate entity and have no change to its ownership structure. mr. hunt was trying to say he was being helpful but he had already extracted a structural solution that was very, very robust and on the face of it dealt with the problem. mr. hunt was acting in a quasi-judicial role and still hadn't granted you the bid, as it were, and letting you what his game is. >> yes. the undertaking was strong and i would have thought that the opposition actually, we would have won the arguments with the opposition because they had

gotten to have what they wanted rfment >> if there is a difference between you having that view and then the judge is going to decide the case telling you behind the scenes, what the judge's view as well that you are going to win. do you see the difference between the two? >> the primary case that i was concerned with here was whether or not an undertaking would be required at all. given the strength of the undertaking, i saw that the end of the process and this was about negotiating some of the details around the undertaking going forward. the game had been over because the undertaking had been ex stracted and that was so strong. >> your answer is on the basis is news corps' case was a brilliant case. but there is a difference thinking you had a brilliant case and the judge telling you

that you had a brilliant case and that's what you are saying in the email. >> there are two cases here. >> would you answer yes or no. >> mr. jay, i apologize but there are two cases here. there was a case which was really about whether or not there was insufficiency of plurality with respect to this transaction completing. and i did think we had a strong case and i still believed it was a strong case. that case was lost essentially when the reports were written which i thought had flaws and submitted work on that and been through it and we conceded that we would not be able to win that argument and the case was lost. at this point we enter a new case and the only case really is how to negotiate the undertakings and those pieces that were starting and the undertakings were very strong.

they structurally -- >> this is the third time you have told us that. i understood it that time. you are telling us how good your case was. you were learning also that the judge was saying it was a good case. >> i took it was a grain of salt. actually all the way through this, there was never any inch of -- he only just took the advice of the outcome at every turn. >> look at what we see later on which may resonate at least part of the truth. he under stood fully our concerns regarding the publication of the report and consultation in the process but he wants to take the heat with him in the next two weeks. so he wants it to be shared. he said very specifically he was keen to get to the same outcome and wanted him to understand he

needs to build some political cover on the process. >> which i took to mean basically he didn't want to take any heat alone. never met a politician who did and he was about to do something we wouldn't like and wanted us to be quiet about it while he went out and consulted on the undertaking. >> but he said he would get there at the end and he shared our objective. >> again, all of these things from the politician's view you take with a grain of salt. >> if it weren't for the public relations disaster on 5 july, 2011, you would have gotten the remaining shares, wouldn't you? >> i can't speculate. he never ended up making that decision. >> well, you have read the

emails as i have, the wind at that point was blowing very firmly in your direction? >> the legal text had been examined and the undertaking in lieu was strong enough and i had hoped to be able to proceed with the transaction. >> mr. hunt as well or his office, page 52, 01693, mr. michelle to you, subject, confidential. i have constructive conversation with jay tonight. keen to look at the agreement and concerned we would have a meeting with him on the business plan later in the week. i read on, he confirmed yesterday choosing with the publication of the report and announced he is looking at you.

he did not say that his mind is to accept and will not say he will accept the statement, but the statement is a public statement, is president it? >> i believe so. >> legal letter on process early tomorrow morning. i have run through it and he recognizes the strength of our arguments especially on the report publication. so -- your letter on process before he receives it is transmitted to him or the gift of it is transmitted to mr. hunt? >> just in terms -- this is way we are and a letter putting together, is that helpful enough? it's a staff conversation as i understand it about process. and again, process the undertaking was -- again, we were in new territory in terms

of time tables. in terms of who mr. hunt had to consult with, how to run those consultation, process was on top of our minds. >> the publication of the report is a departure from the sky tv process got to buy him some time and give him time for the debate. keen for me to work with his team on the statement during the course of tomorrow and offer some possible language. that's really good news. the public statement of mr. hunt is going to put out is one which is going to be a collaborative effort between mr. hunt's team and your team, isn't it? >> not necessarily that the statement by hunt, it seems a statement by news corporation, that they were tying to influence us in the statement.

that's my reading of that. he is keen with me to work on his team and offer some possible language. . >> didn't you feel by this point that in effect although this was going to take some time, this deal was in the bag? >> i didn't actually. i was very worried about this transaction because while we had done as much as we could do, it just seemed to be interm nabble and the more consultations went on and the longer the process lasted, the more i was concerned. the whole point of the undertaking was to avoid the 32 weeks or more of the process. nid t was becoming difficult for so as it took longer and longer the value of that diminish understand and it was bnging

difficult for us. >> it does look, if you look towards the bottom of the e-mail, do you see the paragraph beginning -- >> now, i've just seen that. >> that is mr. hunt statement. >> i just don't know. again, it was a while ago. >> look at the e-mail on page 54, 01695, in the middle of the page, 21st junior, mr. michel to you. confidential, jh statement, managed to get some info on the plans for tomorrow. brackets, although absolutely illegal. what do you make of it? >> i thought it was a joke. greater than an exclamation point there, a wink, it is a joke. >> it was absently illegal. it was unethical, wasn't it? >> i'm not so sure.

look, mr. jay, i'm really not, i have to say i'm not familiar with the sort of ins and outs of westminster protocol, and i know that, you know, the rules around lobbying and all of those bits and pieces are some, you know, some debate. and it's really not my profession but it seems to me, and again as i was going through these, my fundamental concern was that a process is sound and that the appropriate things were being considered and that it was becoming politicized. i think in the context of everything we have seen today in this evidence, that was a very legitimate concern that the company had. and our representatives sought to gain as much information. they could have a dialogue in the right way. they tried to find out things were going. >> let me preview the secretary of state, press statements and statements of parliament. you were given the gist of it here. we can read for ourselves in this e-mail, can't we? >> a dialogue in the first few

pages ago, yes, this was a question of the process going forward, and the outline to us, this is the timetable on tuesday, we'll be there thursday and that's how this process will work. so that both sides could prepare. i understand, i've looked, or then told any, more recently in a judgment, for example, sometimes it's customary for the wo sides of course the judge has reached a decision, without covert submissions, by the party. but the reason why -- hold on. the reason why it's a poor nail ji is that this zwrurge

analogy, is that this judge was in contact through his special advisor with him directly. so you were having covert interactions with him, weren't you? >> i never saw them as necessarily covert and i would have expected that his advisors were communicating with other parties around this transaction as well. it was hotly contested and very high-profile transaction and there was quite a lot going on. i mentioned before certain briefing notes being leaked, briefings going given to the press selectively. these things were very, very difficult to cope with and i assume that mr. hunt's office as the center of it was trying to coordinate, have a discussion with all of the relevant parties as well as agencies so that it could be kept in line and move the thing along. >> is it your evidence then that you assume that mr. hunt's office was having the same sort of syrup tishes conversation with the alliance against news corps? >> i haven't seen that evidence

but i assume that conversations were going on. >> there's another insight into mr. hunt's private thinking, assuming that the special adviser is correctly communicating it. page 63, 0714, j.h. just said, there was plenty of support for the remedy in the statement, potential to mitigate problems. he can't say they are too brilliant otherwise people will call for them to be published. you see that? >> i do see it, yes. >> it's obvious what's going on here, isn't it? he's giving you a [inaudible] and a wink -- a nod and a wink. >> i don't think so. i think his office is trying to cover themselves. they don't know what their decision is going to be. they have a decision, they have a decision to be made. and at every part in this process they followed the

advice of the o.f.t. and it was for us to negotiate and i think it's crucial you mentioned earlier in the sort of preamble to this evidence, to take into account the enormous amount of documentary submissions, official legal backs and forths in the negotiation with both the o.f.t. and offcom and dcmss at this time. so this is a side of that where they're saying, no, it's not as bad as you think when we were asserting that it actually -- there were problems. >> page 66-01 -- pardon me, 01 707 -- >> which page, sorry? >> 66 in your version. just had an update on today's events with j.h. we seem to have been able to weaken most of the arguments of the complaints and labor and expose the political vast approach and to take and

mention including independent board and sky news which is not unhelpful. given the opposition has very few arguments on the plurality, they decided to focus on the process and political bias. and then at the end, j.h. believes we're in a good place tonight. you're being given private information about the secretary of state's current view, aren't you? >> i think it's a private view. i think they're just saying, calm down, it's still, you know, we're still -- if we were upset about this combifpk what else was going on out there and can't remember exactly the sequence, what was confidential and what wasn't at this point with respect to the undertaking and the details around it because there were some commercial issues around it, that this was a question of this debate now being very public and arguments being made

by others and hopefully we were doing a reasonable job to defend the undertaking that the secretary of state was consulting on. >> move forward to page 71. we're not going to cover all these emails. 01712. 4th of february. confidential, j.h., please read. why do you think he's putting confidential on all these emails? >> i think it was customary in a lot of these -- in any sort of transaction like this or whatever it is that pretty much everything i would think was marked confidential if it could be. certainly in my experience, in business in general, lots of things are commercially sensitive or what have you. >> mr. hunt's view is he feels overall the process is in a

good place, need your attention on the remedy has disappeared, officials have been very clear that offcomhas to respect its remitt. he's fully aware of the nine questions, those are the questions sent by o.f.t. to news corps on the first of february. we have wires on, completely agree with our fears, given the toxic relationship and mistrust of offcom. he's received enormous pressure to take into consideration their evidence and then a bit later on, i'm trying to get the documents but it might be difficult. so, on your behalf he's trying to get documents which aren't yet in the public domain, isn't he? >> i think this refers to what i was talking about before with respect to briefings and submissions being made by and conversations being had with -- in terms of pressure here, for

example, from enders and slaughters and may which i think is more than just documents, it's pressure, which is on the other side of this. and then what we wanted to do was we really wanted to see their arguments. i don't think we ever managed to. they were leaked selectively to the press at various times. but i don't recall ever actually seeing them but we asked people if they would share them with us. i don't think anybody did. >> so you don't believe that mr. michael was successful in attaining these documents from the secretary of state's team, is that right? >> i don't recall -- and from anywhere, i should say, from press, etc., where we asked. if you look again, you know this goes, this email really again is about the process here and the understanding of our frustrations but it also goes on to really describe the political pressure and the heat it says from the guardian, the independent, the telegraph, once the u.i.l. is known and so on and so forth. so it really speaks, i think,

to that relationship between the pressure that the other newspapers were putting on mr. hunt, presumably through coverage, etc., to pursue a commercial objection to this transaction. >> page 76, 0717, michelle to you, 7:4 in the evening, confidential, -- 2:24 -- 7:24 in the evening, confidential, agreed on the call, that must have been a previous conversation you had, is that correct? >> i don't remember. >> i've managed to get j.h. quickly before he went in to see "swan lake" and have further chat. we may have to discover in due course whether it was j.h. or who went to see "swan lake" or mr. adam smith who went to see "swan lake."

how did you interpret this at the time >> again, i thought that these -- the conversations were going through the staff level and i think when you interweave and i've been told some of the text messages and other things that are between mr. smith and mr. michelle, it would support that i think mr. smith and i shouldn't speculate, i think mr. smith and mr. hunt worked et -- were at "swan lake" together. >> that answers that. has with previous emails, i don't know that i'm going to dwell on the detail, you've been given further insights as to mr. hunt's then current view, weren't you? >> this is about feedback around the negotiation with various parties, the o.f.t. and offcom on the undertaking. which was a lengthy negotiating

process. i mean, we're now in almost the middle of february. >> page 78, 07179, michelle to you, i met with alex samon's advisor today. he will call hunt whenever we need him to. what do you think that was about? >> i think it was previously when i went understand and had seen mr. salmon to talk about the economic benefits and i ran him through the had plurality arguments if he was asked, he had offered to be supportived a a scottish politician and leader. now the responsibility had shifted to mr. hunt, we were in then undertakings phase, there was economic arguments still stood and if you see previously in other places, mr. hunt's advisors and others say, suggest that we should try to find allies, people who can advocate who aren't just us talking our book and mr. salmon had already said that he thought that this might be a

good transaction for scotland. >> that's supposed to be a personal and quasi-judicial decision made by the secretary of state alone, isn't it? >> as we were told about mr. cable's advisor as well as mr. hunt's, having an atmosphere of more support around this transaction would be helpful to them for their own political purposes. >> look at point one, he noticed a major change in the son's coverage recently. that's the sun in scotland, isn't it? >> that is the scottish sun, yeah, because he's talking about the daily record there as well. >> major change was that the sun in scotland was being supportive of him, wasn't it? >> i'm not sure at that time but mr. salmon always talked about the way he was covered in the newspapers particularly the scottish sun and he had a relationship with the editor there that was ondiagnose. >> doesn't this give rise to at least the perception that the favorable coverage of mr.

salmon in the scottic sun means that mr. salmon is more willing and more likely to want to call mr. hunt, quote, whenever we need him to? >> if the insination was that there was any prid kyo woe -- quid pro quo with that coverage, i can tell yous that false. there's no connection. as we discussed earlier in the section more broadly around politicians, you know, politicians seek favor of the press at all times. and don't think i've had a conversation with mr. salmon or others where it didn't come up either complaining about how they were covered or saying that they liked so and so, so this is always something that was on their agenda. and there was no way to avoid it. >> to be clear, is it your evidence to us that there

wasn't a deliberate policy at news corps that news international's scottish paper, the sun, would improve its coverage of mr. salmon with the expected quid pro quo that mr. salmon would then call mr. hunt whenever we needed him to? >> that was absolutely not news corporation's policy and i wouldn't do business like that. >> point two, he believed the time has come to organize a first ministerial debate between him and ian gray, the labor leader, they were the only two possible candidates. he would be very keen for sky news to organize it with adam, is that adam boldin of sky news? >> i don't know. it could be. i just don't know. but sky news as you know had been a driving force behind the organization of the debates the

previous year. and mr. salmon always raised it with me and with sky and everyone that he thought we -- they should have scottish debates and they should put them on sky news. this was a standing agenda item for him and i believe they did eventually. >> i think that's a convenient moment to have a break, an hour and a quarter. we'll give you a break as well. just a few minutes. >> thank you. >> there will be more testimony on the british phone hacking investigation tomorrow and thursday with the founder c.e.o. and chairman rupert murdock starting live at 5:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a hearing today on arizona's

-- arizona's immigration law which will come before the supreme court tomorrow. the law allows local police officers to check the immigration status of someone they think could be an illegal immigrant. no republicans attended the hearing. "the hill" called the republicans' absence a boycott. in a statement, senator john cornyn, the top g.o.p. member on the subcommittee, said, this is not an attempt to have a sincere hearing on the merits. unfortunately the democrat majority seems to have embraced president obama's manana approach toimgration reform. we'll watch this hearing until live coverage of the house. >> good morning, everybody. the hearing will come to order. and today's hearing we will be discussing the constitutionality and prudence of the many state and local immigration laws enacted during the past few years. in 2011 alone state legislators from across the country introduced 1,607 bills and resolutions relating to immigration.

by the end of the year, 42 states had enacted 197 new laws. tomorrow the supreme court is going to be considering whether the arizona law, known as sb-1070, is constitutional. specifically the court will be deciding if states can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation of illegal immigrants. five states, alabama, georgia, indiana, south carolina and utah, have crafted laws following arizona's example. court challenges have been filed against all five of those laws and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the supreme court's decision in the arizona case. discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws is necessary because the supreme court will base its decision on -- upon what the senate had previously said about the role of state and local government in enforcing federal immigration

law. the wisdom of the arizona law is also currently being debated around the country. for instance, sbland 70 has recently been endorsed as a model for the country by mitt romney, the republican nominee for president, other such as marco rubio have said they do not believe the arizona law should be expanded nationwide. in my view, these state laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional. in terms of being counterproductive, the statistics couldn't be any clearer in terms of the economic damage these laws cause. in arizona studies have thousand that after sb-1070 was passed, the convention in tourism industries lost as much as 140 -- $140 million. moreover, the agriculture industry has seen much of their crops destroyed due to a lack of labor. and in alabama a study by the university of alabama found that the alabama laws projected to shrink alabama's economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the state $70,000 per

year. sorry, 70,000 jobs per year. in terms of being unconstitutional, our founding fathers gave congress power over immigration law. the supreme court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in article 1 to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government. even though some on the other side want to limit the federal government's power and increase the power of the states, immigration is not and never has been an area where states are able to exercise independent authority. this makes sense. both legally as a matter of constitutional interpretation, and practically as a matter of sound public policy. immigration involves international commercial and sensitive foreign relations. just as we would never allow 50 states to have their own

inconsistent and independent trade laws, we shouldn't have 50 states establishing and enforcing their own inconsistent immigration laws and even if states like arizona say they are only helping the federal government, tone force the law, this issue is much like federal tax law. where the federal internal revenue service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to five state -- 50 state agencies going to people's houses to ensure that they properly filed their federal tax returns. only federal comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish the three objectives most americans want to seay cheeved with regard to immigration. first, ending illegal immigration. second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system. and, third, addressing the status of people here without legal status. in 2010 many of my democratic colleagues on this committee released a white paper with me outlining our proposal for

immigration reform. then as a good faith down payment to encourage negotiations with those who said fix the border first, we passed a $600 million supplemental border security act that added 1,500 troops on the border, deployed unmanned aerial drones and increased border fencing and technology. the border bill was hailed by my arizona colleagues as a significant border security accomplishment that they were proud to co-sponsor. as a result of this bill, arizona's 373-mile border with mexico is now patrolled by over 5,200 border patrol agents and 300 national guardsmen. a 31% increase from 2008. which has resulted in a 61% reduction in unlawful border crossings over the same period. and yesterday a hispanic study reported that immigration from mexico has dropped to net zero

when comparing the number of people entering the u.s. from mexico to the number of people returning to mexico. some in arizona might wish to take credit for this, but the study shows this is a national trend. based on increased federal enforcement at the southern border and decreased availability of jobs for foreign workers. and this deals with -- this chart reveals immigration to the u.s. from mexico. it's national. and because of what we've done on the border, as you can see, the number has gone sickly -- significantly down from a high of 770,000 people in 2002, to now 140,000 people in 2010. that's a dramatic drop. we've repeatedly invited our republican colleagues to sit down with us and discuss how best to reform our broken immigration system in a manner both parties can support. it will only pass if it's bipartisan. to this date, our colleagues will not even sit down with us

and discuss comprehensive immigration reform legislation. finally, when small noncontroversial immigration matters are proposed that can help create jobs, they are blocked in the senate. consequently, states are now taking matters into their own hands and are passing a multitude of immigration laws that touch upon a variety of subjects such as employment authorization and verification, border security, work visas and higher education, areas that have always been the exclusive province of the federal government. i believe it's simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy. i also believe that congress has clearly and repeatedly indicated its intent to preempt states from creating their own immigration enforcement regimes which is why i believe sb-70 and laws like it are unconstitutional. for instance, in 1997 congress

passed section 287-g of the immigration and nagsality act which allows state and local law enforcement to enter into partnerships with i.c.e. to conduct immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. in enacting 287-g, congress made it clear it did not want the states, like arizona, taking immigration enforcement matters into their own hands and instead wanted state officials to act with guidance, training and supervision of the federal government. in addition, congress explicitly wrote employment verification laws that were designed to punish employers rather than please for violations of immigration law. arizona by contrast has decided to criminalize the individuals who seek work to feed their families. this conflict of law plainly contravenes our stated intent in passing numeral federal immigration workplace statutes. i am therefore announcing that should the supreme court choose

to ignore these plain and unambiguous statements of congressional intent and uphold sb-1070, i'll introduce legislation that will reiterate that congress does not intend for states to enact their own immigration enforcement schemes. my legislation will re-emphasize that state officials can only engage in the detection, apprehension and detention of unlawfully present individuals if they're doing so pursuant to an explicit agreement with the federal government rand being supervised and trained by federal officials. states like arizona and alabama will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply -- simply helping the federal government, quote-unquote, to enforce the law when they were really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained officers with a mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant. my legislation will always re-emphasize that state and local governments are preempted from enacting their own employment verification laws

and penalties, federal preemption of employment verification laws has been endorsed by the u.s. chamber of commerce and many other business groups and trade associations. and i hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in this effort, in the event it becomes necessary which i hope and believe it won't because i do believe the supreme court will decide that sb-1070 is not constitutional. based on the evidence that is all on one side here. i now look forward to hearing from our -- i now would like to turn it over to senator durbin for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for calling this hearing of the immigration subcommittee. on the question of sb-1070, the aurs immigration law, which i join you in hoping that the supreme court finds unconstitutional. under our constitution states do not have the right to pass their own laws preempting

federal laws on immigration. it is wrong and counterproductive to criminalize people because of their status, their immigration status. law enforcement incidentally does not have the time or resources to prosecute or incarcerate every undocumented immigrant. the arizona immigration law will simply deter undocumented immigrants from being part of the community and cooperating with law enforcement where necessary. don't take my word for it. ask the arizona association of chiefs of police who oppose s-1070. there's another troubling aspect of the arizona immigration law. according to experts, this law encourages racial profiling. last week i held a hearing on racial profiling, the first one in 10 years, on capitol hill. we heard testimony about the provision in this law, arizona's immigration law, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of

any individual if they have, quote, reasonable suspicion that the person is an undocumented immigrant. the explanation of the law went further to say how you can gather this notion of reasonable suspicion and it went on to say by the way a person dresses or by their command of the english language. now, one of the withins -- witnesses at this racial profiling hearing was ron davis, he's the chief of police of east palo alto, california. chief davis, an african-american, along with 16 other chief law enforcement officers, and major city's chief of police association, filed a brief in the arizona case before the supreme court. this is what they said. quote, the statutory standard of reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the united states will as a practical matter produce a focus on minorities and specifically la tinows, end of quote -- latinos, end of quote. now instead of measures that

hurt law enforcement and promote racial profiling like s.b. 1070, we need practical solutions to fix our broken immigration system. i could not agree with my colleague, senator schumer, more. congress needs to face its responsibility to pass immigration reform. 11 years ago i introduced the dream act. this legislation would allow a select group of immigrant students who grew up in this country, came here as infants and children, but would give them a chance to earn their way to citizenship. by attending college or serving in the military. 11 years we have been struggling to pass this. we've had majority votes on the senate floor but never the magic 60 number that we need to pass it. the best way i've said to my colleagues to understand what the dream act is about is to get the -- to get to meet the young people who would qualify for this legislation. as senator rubio of florida has

said, let's let these young people get right with their -- what their parents got wrong. these people called themselves dreamers. of the arizona law, these young people, s.b. 1070, under the arizona law, these young people would be targets for prosecution and incarceration. why? it's beyond reasonable suspicion. they have stood up and said, we are undocumented, we are dream students, we want a chance to become american citizens. under the dream act, they would be future citizens. who would make our country a better place. i want you to meet six startings -- targets of this bill, the arizona immigration law. each and every one of them is as remain dent of arizona. they have stepped up publicly to tell their stories about being brought to the united states by their parents as infants and children, now begging for a chance to earn their way to legal status and

citizenship. the first, dolce. she graduated from arizona state university with a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. she co-founded the arizona dream act coalition, an organization of more than 200 dream act students. last week she was named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by "time" magazine. she is a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet myra garcia. she's president of the cotton wood youth advisory commission in her home town of cottonwood, arizona. she graduated from high school in 2010 with a 3.98 g.p.a. she's now a sophomore at a prestigious university in california. she would be a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet hahnryows. in high school juan was a

leader in the junior r. rotc. he graduated from arizona state university with a degree in nautical engineering. since graduation, he has put his life on hold because of american law, he cannot enlist in our military or work in the aerospace industry. juan is a target of the arizona immigration law. now meet jose migana. jose graduated as valedictorian at his high school. at arizona state university, he joined the speech and debate team where he ranked fifth in the nation. in 2008 jose graduated with a major in business management from arizona state university. later this year jose will graduate from baylor university law school in waco, texas. he cannot be licensed to practice law in the united states because he has no country. jose is a target of the arizona immigration law. finally, meet angelica

hernandez. in high school she served in the junior rotc and was president of the national honor society. last year she graduated from arizona state university as the outstanding senior in the mechanical engineering department. angel can is a target of the arizona -- angelica is a target of the arizona immigration law. the dream act is a practical solution to a serious problem which treats these young people and thousands of others in a humane and just way. s.b. 1070 would harm law enforcement and encourage racial profiling going after the very people that you have just met. that is not consistent with our values as a nation, it is not consistent with our constitutional values. mr. chairman, thank you for this hearing. >> thank you, senator durbin, for an excellent and heartfelt statement. we will, having no other people here, we'll turn to our panelists.

i'm going to introduce each of them, their entire statements will be read into the record and then we will let each of them make a statement. russell pierce is currently the president of ban amnesty -- banamnestynow.com. he was the former president of the arizona state senate, a position he held until november, 2011. he's most widely known as the author of s.b. 1070, the arizona law whose constitutionality is being decided by the supreme court and that is the subject of the hearing today. he was originally elected to the arizona house of representatives in 2000 and the ares senate in 2008. he also served as the director of arizona's motor vehicle division, the director of the governor's office of highway safety and is a deputy for 23 years with the maricopa county sheriff's office. dennis d. casini served in the

arizona senate. prior to that he served as pima county attorney, the chief prosecution and civil attorney for the county and school districts within the tucson border area. he currently seves as a partner in a law firm, with offices in tucson, phoenix and washington, d.c. state senator steve gallardo is representing district 13. he previously served in the arizona house of representatives from 2003 through 2009. he has served on numerous state and local boards and committees and is the leading sponsor of the state senate bill, arizona state senate bill, that would repeal s.b. 1070. todd landfreed is the executive director of arizona employers for immigration reform, a grassroots organization con priced of businesses committed to federal immigration -- sensive federal immigration

policy. mr. landfreed's organization filed an amy cuss brief with the u.s. supreme court in opposition to s.b. 1070. gentlemen, your entire statements will be read into the record and we'll first call on mr. pearce. you may proceed as you wish, sir. >> good morning. i'm russell pierce, the author and driving force behind s.b. 1070. which is overwhelmingly supported by citizens across this nation. thank you, chairman schumer, for inviting me here and before this honorable committee. it is an honor for me to appear. as you know, illegal alien problem is a critical issue not just in arizona but across this nation. and the effects of a ripple throughout society. in addressing this problem we must begin by remembering that we are a nation of laws, we must encourage, have the courage to, thed for feud to enforce with compassion, without apology, those laws to protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our citizens from those who break our laws.

s.b. 1070 removes the political handcuffs from law enforcement. all law enforcement agencies have legal authority and moral obligation to uphold our laws just like sheriff joe who keeps and does the job he was hired to do. the invasion of illegal aliens we face today, convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers, even terrorists, pose one of the greatest threats to our nation in terms of political, economic and national security. drurg the debate of s.b. 1070, a rancher, friend of mine, rob crans, was murdered on the border by an illegal alien. i have attended the funerals of citizens and law enforcement officers murdered by illegal aliens. i are have a son who was critically wounded in a gun battle with illegal aliens while serving a warrant. i too was critically wounded and shot in the chest and the hand in the line of dutyy. i've seen the real damage caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this country.

in arizona the annual cost of illegal immigration prok is -- problem is approximately $2.6 billion. that is just to educate, medicate and i.r.s. cars rate. and those numbers don't -- incarcerate. and that doesn't count jobs lost by residents. the terrorist attacks of september 11, 2001, underscore for all americans the link between immigration law enforcement and terrorism. four of the five leaders of the 9/11 attack were in violation of our immigration laws and kept contact with law enforcement and were not arrested the failure tone force immigration law was -- laws was instrumental in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on that tragic day in america. under federal law, sanctuary policies are imlegal but the obama administration does not sue those cities that adopt such illegal policies. instead it chooses to sue arizona for enforcing the law, protecting its citizens, protecting jobs for lawful

residents and protecting the taxpayers and the citizens of this republic in attempting to secure our borders. during my 11 years in arizona, i authored numerous legislative initiatives it designed to protect the state of arizona from adverse effects of illegal immigration and most importantly to uphold the rule of law. they include in 2004, voter i.d. at the polls, passed by 57% of the voters. in 2006 a constitutional amendment denying bond to illegal aliens who commit serious crime. passed by 78% of the voters, 60% of hispanics. also in 2006 illegal aliens who sue american citizens cannot receive punitive damages, passed by 75% of the voters. in 2007 protecting american jobs and honest employers by mandating the use of everify for every business in the state of arizona. i'm also proud to say that each of these initiatives have

become law and survived the various legal challenges. in fact, the last time i was in washington, the supreme court upheld the everify law against the unpatriotic challenge of the chamber and the obama stradition -- obama administration. because most provisions of s.b. 1070 are in effect the citizens of arizona are safer. according to phoenix law enforcement association, which represents the rank and file police officers, and i quote, since s.b. 1070, phoenix has experienced a 30-year low crime rate. 600 police vacancies, budget cuts and old policing strategies did not brink about these dropping crime rates. s.b. 1070 did. the deterrence factor of this legislation brought about was clearly instrumental in our unprecedented drop in crime. all of this without a single civil rights racial profiling or biased police complaint. simply put, s.b. 1070 has clearly worked. and arizona has acted within

its authority. the supreme court has held the states can utilize their inherently power to enforce immigration laws. s.b. 1070, excuse me, directs arizona law enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal authorities regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws, it imposes penalties and arizona law for noncompliance. it is only these simple and clear law enforcement measures that are before the supreme court. this commonsense law is fully within the authority of arizona as it protects the citizens from the effects of illegal immigration and upholds the rule of law and protecting our citizens is the highest dutyy of any public official. thank you, god bless, may god continue to bless this -- bless this republic. >> thank you, mr. pierce. next we'll go to senator. >> mr. chairman, senator durbin, i want to thank you very much for an opportunity to address this very important issue. not only to my home state of arizona, but to our nation.

the constitutionality and prudence of federal immigration enforcement laws by state and local governments is indeed a complex issue. mr. chairman, i'm a native arizona resident, i grew up in that state, i came from neighborhoods and business and law practice with a multitude of hispanic and mexican friends , investors, what have you. we worked together we shared each other's heritage and experience, the culture of our state reflects the rich history of the latino influence. but during the last two years, mr. chairman, we have unduly harmed our legal latino residents in this process. the solution of the problems coming into this country illegally, we have let rhetoric and political advantage cloud this sound judgment. -- >> you can see all of this hearing here on spee and the

supreme court's oral argument on the arizona imdepration law on friday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. the house is coming in now for a vote on a measure debated earlier today. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house success pepped the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 376, the nays are two. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourp to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow for morning hour debate and 1:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: frrp does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous concept that all members be allowed to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on my one minute about pastor joel osteen and co-pastor victoria osteen from houston, texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection. the house is not in order. please take your conversations off the floor.

the gentleman will proceed. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise to hop nor the 100th arkansas county bank as a charter institution. they began with humble origins at the end of their first year of business they had just over $64,000 in total deposits. by 1919, they have $119,000 and have grown ever since. today they also have a branch that serves stutgart community. getting back -- giving back to the community, its employees volunteer other 1,000 volunteer hours throughout the community. they are looking to the past to

build for the future. they are dedicated to building a second century of community go congratulations again to the leadership and employees and family of arkansas county bank on 100 years of business. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: when lawless drug dealers, wife betters, bandits and drug dealers threaten our community, peace officers are the first ones to track them down. they are the last strand of wire in the fence between good and evil. these men and women put themselves in danger every day in order to protect us and our families. some put on the uniform and badge and do not return home after their shift.

there have been an alarming 75% increase in police officer deaths since 2008. 2011 was the first time more officers died at the hands of street thugs than in car crashes and in many instances the killers were repeat offenders who shouldn't have been roaming the streets in the first place. as we approach peace officer' memorial tai in may, we have to support these and those who protect the home front. they are what separate us from the outlaws and the anarchy of the lawless and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields pack. -- yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, more and more americans are discovering a

provision in the new health care law that prevents them buying simple, over the counter medications using their health care savings accounts or flexible spending accounts unless they get a doctor's scription. so instead of walking into their drugstore, they are forced to visit the doctor and pay a standard co-pay before buying advil or claritin. does this sound burdensome? it absolutely is. millions of americans use h.s.a.'s and f.s.a.'s for their flexibility and portability, yet this new health care law is now taking that away and it's wreaking havoc on patients and increasing burdens on physicians. we need to repeal this onerous provision and that's why i introduced legislation that does exactly that with bipartisan support. this week, the house ways and means committee will hold a hearing on the use of h.s.a.'s and f.s.a.'s in over the

counter medications. it's time to do away with this onerous scription requirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. miller: i rise to express my support for the student loan interest rates. every young american who works hard and studies hard deserves a shot at the american dream. unfortunately, the economy, led by president barack obama, is denying them their dream. over 53% of young college graduates age 25 or under, which is 1.5 million young americans are unemployed or they hold low-wage jobs that don't require them to use the degree they just obtained. our approach to help young people is about more than just the interest rate they pay on their loans. it's about creating an economy that gives them the chance to

apply the knowledge they work sod hard to learn and that means not raising taxes or imposing new regulations on the very job creators that will offer opportunities to our young people. it means opening up energy reserves to lower prices at the pump because guess what, young people are also paying these high gas prices as well. let's stop the rise in student loan interest rates and let's get the economy moving so america's young people can achieve their dreams. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? if not, the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. griffin of arkansas for today, mr. mo reno for today and the balance of the week, mr. schiff of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

under the speaker's announced policy, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, isres. -- is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. we're here today, tuesday, april 24, to talk about an issue which, again, middle class families across america are watching closely. as the chart next to me indicates, in 67 days, the interest rates on the stafford student loan program, a loan program which serves over seven million college students across america is slated to increase its interest rate from 3.4% to 6.8%. this program which over time today has served roughly about 35 million to ho million americans is a critical

component for middle class families to provide affordable higher education which today in the 21st century is almost as important as having a high school education. in 2007, as a result of passage of the college cost reduction act, a must be measure which cut the rate if 6 ppt 8% to 3347b9% unlike this congress, it was a bipartisan effort, 77 house republicans voted for that measure. 35 republican senators voted for that measure. george bush, george w. bush signed it into law, president bush, to his credit, and it provided, again, great relief for students all across america for an issue which we now know from the federal reserve bank is threatened -- which threatness the financial sol venn soif america's middle class. college student loan debt exceeds credit card debt,

exceeds car loan debt and one of the few safe harbors that exists in the system for students is in fabt the stafford student loan program. it has great bipartisan genealogy and sources, stafford was actually a senator, robert stafford, from vermont a republican, who again believed in education and was somebody who understood that the cost of college and university education is not what it used to be and that we had to give, again, middle class families better tools to pay for it. anyone who has dealt with the private student loan market knows the rates today are roughly about 9% to 10%. interest accumulates from the day the loan is taken out, so if you're a freshman at a four-year university you accumulate interest for the entire time your in college using those loans, there's no fore bearance, no time frame in terms of repayment and again the -- it is nondischargeable in bankruptcy if a person get

into great financial difficulty. the stafford student loan program, in contrast, has affordable rates, 3.4%, there's a fore bearance period of six months after graduation before payments commence and no interest accumulates during the time the student is in college. if there are financial problems that occur, there are systems for deferring payments and in fact there is income-based repayment formulas so that no more than 10% of your income can be devoted to repayment of stafford student loans. this is really, again, a measure which affects a broad swath of america in terms of millions of students, millions of families, it is really about the only avenue that young people facing the formidable challenge, almost like buying a house when you go to college, yet we stand here today, 67 days away from having these rates increase. now, for those who have been watching this issue, president obama right from that podium at

the state of the union address challenged this congress back in january to address this issue, to avoid a doubling of interest rates and to date, the majority party in this house, the republican majority, has not taken up a single bill, even though we hear some nice words on the other side, there's no measure they have come toward, the -- forward, the chairman of the education committee was yoted as saying that protecting this rate at 3.4% was bad policy and we have the words of the chairwoman, upside down right now, let me fix that, the chairwoman of the house education subcommittee from north carolina, who stated in a radio program a couple of months ago, i have very little tolerance for people who tell me they graduate with $200,000 of debt or even $80,000 of debt because there's no reason for that. i would challenge that member to talk to a new dentist or a new dental student graduates or

a nurse anesthetist who was in my office the other day who is carrying over $80,000 in debt. the fact of the matter is, in terms of trying to get, again, skills for this, the modern american work force that is a reality that students and families confront day in and day out yet the leadership of the majority of this congress is basically turning its back on the bipartisan tradition of the stafford student loan program with its really pioneering member of the senate, robert stafford, with the bipartisan support for the college cost reduction act, passed with strong bipartisan votes and signed into law by republican president george bush and basically saying it's bad policy and we're not going to do it. since last week, and again, we did one of these special order, one-hour sessions with a countdown clock, some things are starting to change. yesterday, the republican frontrunner effective nominee for president, mitt romney, during the middle of a press

conference, finished up, turned around, was walking away and turned on his heel and came back and said, i want to say that i support president obama's proposal to block the increase in interest rates at 3.4%. this is the leader of the republican party nationally. so there does seem to be some hope. now it may be connected to the fact that the president was yesterday at the university of north carolina talking to young people in this country who know exactly what he is talking about in terms of higher education costs and the need to protect affordable loan programs to pay for college and that earlier tonight he -- later tonight he is going to be at the university of colorado talking to students at colorado about exactly this same issue and tomorrow he's going to be at iowa state university. so there's clearly a bit of politics that's swirling around here. if you look at mr. romney's comments on this issue, over the last few months or so, he has in fact said exactly the

opposite. indeed, he's come out in support of the ryan budget, the republican budget resolution which was passed in this chamber a few weeks ago and in this budget resolution that 6.% rate increase is locked in under the ryan budget plan and not only does it lock in the highest cost of the stafford student loan program, it cuts the pell grant program. that's the other work horse of college affordability in this country, named after senator claiborne powell of -- claiborne pell of rhode island, a grant program to help the most needy students pay for college, it's up to $6 hourks -- up to $6,000, hardly enough to pay for most colleges, the ryan budget cuts the grant level down to $5,000. unbelievable at a time when we're seeing college student loan debts skyrocket in this country, and sadly, at a time when america's graduation rates, which was number one in the 1980's, has now fall ton

number 12. that -- for the folks who are listening here today, that's a trend of mediocrity for this country. that's not a trend of growth, that's not a trend of innovation for the future. that's a trend which basically says we are basically going to surrender to the forces of mediocrity in this country and that's not acceptable to this country and it's certainly not acceptable to all of us as americans and it resonates all across america. again, i come from the northeast, up in connecticut, we're joined here today by a great congresswoman from the state of texas, sheila jackson lee and i yield to congresswoman lee to talk about your perspective from the great state of texas. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank the gentleman from connecticut for untiring and unceasing in his work and the reach that he has made to this issue, to really touch the harets and minds -- hearts and minds of those who believe that

education is opportunity and it is something that we need to plant the seeds for those who are now following forward for their destiny. i'm delighted to be on the floor as well with another leader in education, the honorable danny davis. and i will say to you that i took the oath and this whole four days when i was in my district, everywhere i went i touched the hearts of young and old when i reported to them that while their children are struggling, working hard, trying to get good grades and higher education, and when they go good faith took out loans of about 2.8% just a few years back, somewhere between that and 3.4%, and now within days this is going to double, and that we are here fighting in washington to ensure that the doors of opportunity are not closed. so i think it is very important, you're absolutely right, to take note that the

potential or soon to be republican nominee for president has recognized the foolishness unfortunately of stalling in this house, that we have not simply passed a bipartisan effort, your legislation that i am a co-sponsor of, that simply indicates that we will not see the doubling of those interest rates. i have universities, if i down the call them all, from the university of houston to texas southern university, rice university, houston community college, lone star college, houston baptist, st. thomas, in and around the 18th congressional district, university of texas, texas a&m, and others, around that state and young people who are attempting to achieve the american dream, and individuals who are going back to school, even though our g.i.'s with the g.i. bill, some who are extending their degrees hand to take out loans. so i join you and my good

friend from chicago to indicate that i'm going to join the army, if you will, the band of members who truly believe that there is no divide amongst us, republicans and democrats, when it comes to educating our children. many of us are parents. many of us have seen our children go through college, some having finished, some still in college, some with young children coming into college, and although we are blessed, many will have to take out loans for higher education, doctors and lawyers who we wish for higher education, will have to secure those loans. i don't want to be in the midst of a ticking time bomb. i don't want to be the barrier, i want to be the fire wall that protects them and allows them to gain an opportunity in this world. so let me just thank you for allowing me to be on the floor this evening, to indicate to my colleagues, we speak quietly and softly to tonight, because we're asking to you join -- softly tonight, because we're asking to you join us, my republican friends, take the

lead and join us so that in a few days, not 67 days, let's finish this up. let's give them a graduation present. let's tell every student coming out of high school and every college student that's in college that we are going to be your firewall, give you an opportunity for success in this great country, that has always been the country that people have either come to or people have been proud to be in because of the great opportunity to be what you are achieving or seeking to be. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. courtney: thank you, congresswoman lee. and again, just to follow up one quick point which is that there is legislation that is now pending in the house,. had r. 3826, a few minutes ago we got 146th co-sponsor to. this date, though, we are still waiting for any members on the majority side to join us in this effort. and again, 77 of them voted in

2007 to support this measure, to cut the interest rates. it's time, it's time for them to listen to whare their presumpive nominee is saying, it's time for them to prevent really the damage that this would do to middle class families and no one knows that issue better than a member of the education and work force committee who has again done great works in terms of education issues and higher education affordability. congressman davis, thank you for joining us this evening. mr. davis: thank you very much, representative courtney. i want to not only thank you, but i want to commend you for the tremendous leadership that you have displayed on so many issues, as i've watched you, since you've become a member of this house. i also want to thank you for taking on this issue, the issue of trying to assure that young people especially in our country, a country that has been dubbed the greatest nation on the face of the earth, and it got to be that way because of its emphasis on education.

and providing opportunity for individuals to begin in life anywhere in this country and move as a result of education to the highest ranks, to the highest levels, to the ability to make valuable contributions not only to the development of their own lives, but to the lives of others. i often think of things that people have said about education and something that i'm told that abram lincoln once said -- abraham lincoln once said, that education makes a man easy to lead but difficult to drive. easy to govern, but impossible to enslave. college access and success is the fundamental stepping stones toward economic security and global competitiveness, as policymakers it is imperative

that we support students in making college affordable so that our citizens can prosper. we face an immediate crisis in college cost and without congressional action, interest rates will get out of the box. i'm fortunate to represent a congressional district that has what we call an education mecca , in terms of the numbers of institutions that we have. and what we call the south loop area of chicago, which is only a few blocks long and a few blocks wide, we have more than 100,000 students just in that area. at colleges and universities like lyola, dupaul, east west

university. as a matter of fact, i was at the board meeting of east west last evening where we were reviewing our credittation standards and making sure that everything was in order so that the thousands of students who attend that university could get the very best. but unless we make sure that students can acquire the money, i've organized a little scholarship fund in honor of my parents because they believed so much in education, two of the as a matter of factest people i've ever known, my father finished fourth grade, he was 19 years old. we saw his report card. but he was a great reader and he read everything that he could get his hands on.

my mother was a little more fortunate than that. she finished eighth grade and was considered to be one of the more educated people in our community. but they pushed for education. they knew that if their children were going to have opportunities that they did not have, that they had to get as much education as they possibly could. and so when interest rates bar and prevent people, i just know so many students and so many families who are wondering if they're going to be able to make it last -- make it. last year i had one family who called to ask if we could help them find the money. just to get to school. i mean, they had done all of the other things that their

daughter needed to do, but they came up short with transportation resources and they were trying to keep from borrowing any additional money. and then once you get out of school, if your debt is so high when you go to try and find a job that it staggers you and pushes you back and works against your will, then it becomes even more difficult. so trying to make education affordable, just trying to give people the chance, the opportunity, something i remember a fellow named wolf said, to every man his chance, his golden opportunity, to become whatever his had manhood , talent, ambitions and hard work combines to make him, that

is the premise of america. of course if he was saying that today, he wouldn't have just said every man, he would have said every person, every woman, every body, every citizen, everybody who wants to should have that opportunity. so again i commend you for your leadership, i commend you for your tenacity. and i just like the way you work. i like what you do. i like the issues that you raised and you mentioned the pell grants. senator pell, from the same area of the country that you come from, his daughter was in my office, not very long ago, saying that she and a group of her friends were going to get very active on the whole issue of trying to make sure that individuals who were

incarcerated had an opportunity to pursue the pell grant in honor of her father and remembering the great work that he did. so i remember you for the great work that you're doing, i thank you and i'm pleased to join with you this evening. mr. courtney: great. well, that is high praise from you, congressman davis, who when i was a freshman, you know, brand new to the capitol, the education and labor committee, which you've been searching on for a number of years, it was a great honor to really observe you and to see that the college class reduction act was one of the first things that came out of the chute in january of 2007 and again your words tonight show that this has been a life-long priority and mission for you, to make sure that that happens up. mentioned abraham lincoln from your great state of illinois. you know, it's interesting to note that the college land grant system, the moral act, was actually passed in 1862, in the middle of the civil war.

i mean, the most catastrophic threat to our country's existence ever and yet we had a president from your great state who had the vision to understand that every state should have a land grant college which is what that bill did, and created a national commitment to higher education, again, it was committed to agricultural sciences and mechanical engineering. when an amazing -- cha what an amazing story about somebody, gosh knows, he could have been distracted with whatever was happening in that terrible conflict, and yet he still understood that we can never, ever, ever lose sight of the importance of investing in our people and that's what's made our country great and you know that better than anyone. mr. davis: you're absolutery right and i thank you again because i went to one of those land grant colleges. i along with seven of my brothers and sisters, and i can tell you that had they not existed, none of us ever probably would have gone to a

college or university and so thank you again, as i take my leave. mr. courtney: look forward to working with you on this issue. we're now joined by the gentleman from the great state of michigan, congressman hansen clarke, who is a relatively new member but who has jumped in on this issue. thank you for joining me here this evening. mr. clarke: you're very welcome, representative courtney. the gentleman from connecticut, for raising this important issue, introducing this important bill, which i'm very honored to support. we've got to keep interest rates low on student loans. 3.4% is reasonable. the federal government shouldn't be in the business of trying to make money or extract money, more, from student loan borrowers. the real problem with these interest rates is that if we allow them to go up, is that if a borrower for some reason can't make a payment because they're sick, because they got laid off, they get a divorce, that the interest rate would then compound. the interest would apply on top

of interest and the loan principal will start growing as the student loan borrower's income drops so it puts student loan borrowers in a position where it could take them decades, if ever, to pay off their loans. if they're in financial hardship. and that's not right. as the gentleman from illinois said, these loans are to provide people with educational opportunities. to give them a chance to get a degree, where otherwise they wouldn't have the money to be able to do so. instead, representative courtney, instead of these loans providing borrowers with a chance of experiencing the american dream, the debt burden is so high on many of our graduates right now that the student loan debt is actually -- has actually turned into a national nightmare. as you mentioned, over $1 trillion of debt owed by student loan borrowers.

these are just graduates. there are parents that borrow money, take out student loans to help fund the education of their kids. so their kids can have a better life. i've introduced a bill, h.r. 4170, to complement your efforts, the student loan forgiveness act of 2012. in that bill, i adopt your position on keeping the interest rates on student loans, federal student loans at 3.4%. then i also want to make student loan repayment fairer and simpler by allowing every student loan borrower who get a second chance. yes, you may have fallen behind on your pamor, maw iven be in default but i want you to have a second chance to pay off your loans and to continue your education. so under my bill, fever student loan borrower who is currently in repayment right now or has already taken out a loan will be able to repay that loan

based on their income, 10% of their discretionary income they make those payments for 10 years, they'll be eligible to have the balance of their student loans, if there's anything outstanding, to be forgiven but if you pay 10% of your discretionary income for 10 queers, you'll pay off a substantial amount of their loan if not the entire loan balance. but for those who have borrowed a lot of money, because you decided to get a graduate education or came from a family that didn't have much money so your only chance to get an education was to borrow student lobes -- loans, you won't be saddled with those loans for decades. you'll be able to pay them off for 10 years which is the standard term for student loan repayment. one thing i'd like to add about the bill is this. for giving the balance of these student loans, it's not just to help the borrower.

it's also to help our country. cutting student loan debt, keeping the interest rates down , forgiving student loans that pose an excessive burden on americans, that's the most effective, one of the most effective ways to stimulate our economy, to create jobs. think about it. a student loan borrower, instead of having to pay hundreds of dollars a month, maybe even $1,000 a month, whatever they paid it, according to their income, according to their means for 10 years, they have the balance of that forgiven so now they have this money available to use as they choose, to invest, to start their own business, and you know, think about it. our graduates, those are the ones disciplined enough to go to school. they were ambitious enough to set their sights on a goal and achieve it. those are precisely the folks we want to encourage to go into business because it's through private business, free

enterprise, we create jobs in a sustainable way in this country. let's free up people's money so they can start their own businesses and realize the american dream, not just for themselves bus for everyone else. i'm from the city of detroit. we've always been a tough place but we've got great entrepreneurs who risked everything, like henry ford, to create and expand the automobile industry in this country which created jobs for millions of americans for generations. we have so many young people right now who are ready to work, ready to start their own business. but they're not going to take any risks like that, because there's too much -- they're too much in debt. they won't buy a house because they can't afford it. many student borrowers postpone probably the most precious thing anyone can get involved in, our great institution of marriage they put that off. so the student loan debt is not only a burden on the borrowers, on the parents, it's costing our society, jobs, economic

growth, and we're costing the global market the opportunity to be benefited by the great products that our country could produce. the great services we could provide. the great technology that we could develop and create and sell it globally. we're depriving the world of that because many of our budding entrepreneurs can't take the risk of starting their own business because they're in the hock with student loan debt which is outrageous. so i want to thank you again for your leadership, for your persistent leadership on keeping student loan interest rates down at a reasonable level. as you can see, everyone around the country, including members of the other party, they understand the common sense notion of that. these loans again, since -- i'm talking to the american people they understand this. these loans that the government provides you, it's not just for

your benefit. it's to make our country stronger. there's a reason why we had the g.i. bill after world war ii. the more educated, the more trained, that emore that we're able to develop our skills to our fullest potential, we're able to do more for ourselves and our community and for our country. that's what america is all about. the reason why this is such a big deal for me is that my dad immigrated to this country in the midst of the great depression. the roughest time economically for this country. because he saw america has a -- as a land of opportunity. my mother was african-american, had to struggle for years under discrimination, segregation in detroit in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's. she was a school crossing -- crossing guard and cleaning lady who saved up all her money so i could get a chance to get an education. after i dropped out of school, after my parents died, the only

way i could return to college, i had to borrow student loans. i thank this country for having these loans available as an opportunity for me to get an education. to come here and be able to effectively represent the people of this country. but you know what the problem now is, representative? students who want the same education that i did decades ago they may not be able to afford to do it. even if they could borrow the money they can't afford the costs they'll have to endure trying to pay off that debt year after year, decade after decade. that's not right. the federal government shouldn't have that kind of power to oppress people. robbing them of their money because it's our money we're using to pay off these loans. but robbing us of our jobs and economic potential. so again, thank you again for your leadership. i'm honored to join you in your endeavor to make student loan

financing fairer for our country but also to let you know, my bill, h.r. 4170, the student loan forgiveness act, i offer it to complement your efforts to provide equal opportunity for education for all of us here in this country. thank you so much. i yield back my time. mr. courtney: thank you, congressman clarke, thank you for sharing your personal story. what's been extraordinary to me is over the past few months, our office has received communications from all over the country, folks talking about the importance of the stafford program in terms of really transforming their lives. i'll be at chamber of commerce meetings, rotary club meetings, i'll have people not on my side of the aisle politically but coming up to me and saying, this is something the congress these pay attention to and has to protect that lower rate. thank god this person has the stafford loan program available to him, just like you did and to see that rate go up to 6.8%

at a time when our economy, treasury bonds are being sold at 2% yield, you can get a 30-year fixed mortgage for under 4% right now, much lower. when you tell people that this rate is going to double to 6.8% for this one segment of the population, young americans who really are doing it for the purpose of improving their own situation, it's greeted by absolute, utter disbelief, and at a time when, as you point out, debt levels, i've got a chart here from the federal reserve which shows where we're headed right now in this country. we have got to, number one, not make the condition worse by increasing the interest rate, and again, we've run the numbers over a five-year period of time, somebody who has a stafford loan portfolio, looking at an additional $5,000 in interest payments, $12,000 over a 10-year period, normal for people paying back student

loans. we are compounding the lines that they put up to warn us, we're creating crushing debt. "the wall street journal" story about a young couple with student loan debts who basically were putting off starting a family and buying a house because of the debt levels that they were basically just working to pay for every month in terms of their burdens. and we need to be frankly, a, dealing with the issue of the rate increase in the next 67 days, but secondly we need to have a much bigger national conversation to talk about measures like your bill to create, again, a system that rewards people who are current with their payments, who are making progress in their live bus that are not going to have a ball and chain around their neck in terms of debt levels that, again, as you point out, at the end of the day, really inhibits creativity and investment and innovation, you know, for people at a time in

life when they should be spreading their wings, not dragging these huge burdens of debt that really hold them back and hole our country back. again, i appreciate your contributions here this evening and again, the clock is ticking. 67 days and counting, you know, mr. romney, yesterday, basically put up, you know a strong signal to the congressional majority in the house here, the republican congressional majority that this is something we must do and we're still waiting. 146 co-sponsors on h.r. 3826, again, i'm not somebody who has a big ego, if somebody has a counterproposal to come up with a different way to to do this, we're all ears. what we don't need is the comments of the chairwoman of the higher education subcommittee basically saying he has -- she has no tolerance for students with $80,000 in student loan debt that is a congress which is out of touch with the reality that young people are confronting these days who, again, are really

trying to improve themselves and fill the work force needs of this country. we cannot afford that type of leadership here in this congress. we need to have people focused on the real condition of the middle class in this country but also really focused, like abraham lincoln was new york 1862, about what's important in terms of the future of this country. again, if you have other comments you want to share, again, i'd be happy to yield back to you. mr. clarke:, i would like to respond to your comments. thank you, representative. your request for us to keep interest rates at 3.4% is so reasonable. that we need to act on that right now. and the point that you mentioned that we need to have these loans available for our students so they can get the training they need to be hired into jobs that are going unfilled right now. in metropolitan detroit, known for having a high unemployment rate, where people really want to go to work, there are

thousands of jobs available in metro detroit that are not being filled because employers can't find the folks that have the training and the information -- in the information technology area for software engineering. we want tone courage people to go to school, even if they don't have the money. we want them to be able to borrow loans without having to go into this type of debt. and my final point is this, too, is that if we allow borrowers to be burdened by student loan debt to such a degree they can't pay off their debt, we have we as taxpayers are on the hook for this debt. probably half a trillion dollars of it. that's taxpayer backed. we're on the hook for this one way or the other. we should give our borrowers a helping hand so they can manage their student loanry payments,

pay this debt down, and then get on with their lives and help us create jobs throughout this country, throughout this world by selling the best products that metro detroit knows how to do. thank you so much. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. clarke. in closing, i want to end where we depan, 67 days and counting. today across america, there are high school seniors who are experiences probably one of the most exciting moments in their lives, they are going to the mailbox to find out whether or not they've been accepted to a two-year school or a four-year school. i remember those days, i have a son who just finished college, i remember how exciting that was, and a daughter who is in high school, hopefully going to hear soon. the fact of the matter is, they need to have some horizon, some predictability at this critical moment to make sure they can plan and fwounlt pay for college. financial aid offices are putting up warning flags for students and theimi