the presidency. [applause] more than any other office in the land, the presidency is about character, the character of your convictions, whether you put country above politics. from the very moment that from the very moment that barack obama took his hand off that bible on that cold january day on the mall, he has done just that. he has put country first. when the economy was about to go over the cliff, i watched him make some of the toughest decisions any president has had to make since franklin delano roosevelt. he saved the financial system of the nation and prevented a worldwide depression. it was not a popular decision, but it was essential, and he was right to allow credit to flow again.

he stepped up to rescue the automobile industry. it was not popular, but it was critical, saving jobs and creating 200,000 new jobs. this is the man who made the call to go after osama bin laden. it was a bold decision, a bold decision, with profound risks for our warriors as well as his presidency. but he made it and he made that decision on his own. bin laden is dead and america is more secure because of this man's decision. he passed affordable care act, a goal striven for by

presidents starting with teddy roosevelt. it required him to use up almost all of his political capital. he prevailed where no president had done before. he was right. he was right. he cut $100 billion from the federal debt over the next 10 years. he provided access to affordable health care to 30 million americans, 8 million black americans who would never have had insurance. [applause] this is a man, this is a president who has the character of his convictions. almost never since he has taken office, during this entire time, has the republican congress reached across the

aisle to help. on the recovery act, which kept us from sliding further into depression, only three republican senators and not one house member voted for it. on the affordable care act, no republican in the senate and none in the house on the final vote. but it was not just on the big- signature issues, it was on the easy, obvious things where we got no cooperation. extending the payroll tax, only seven republicans initially voted for it. lilly ledbetter equal pay, three republicans voted for it in the house. when we attempted to raise the debt limit to maintain the full faith and credit of the united states, not a single republican met the responsibility of meeting that requirement,

resulting in a negotiation that brought us to the brink of disaster, ultimately causing america's credit rating to be lowered for the first time. it was not until later that we learned this was a plan, obstructionism was the plan from the outset. according to a recent book by robert draper, the author stated in a meeting the night of inauguration, according to draper, republican leaders from paul ryan to eric cantor to kevin mccarthy, mccarthy is reported to have said if you act like you are a minority, you are going to be in the minority. "we have to challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."

newt gingrich, who was also there, said, and he was prophetic, "you will remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sewn." mitch mcconnell said, "the single most important we want to achieve is for president obama to be a one-term president" -- not to get us out of this recession, not to promote jobs, not to do the things that needed to be done, but make barack obama a one-term president. and, folks, their discipline is amazing. they have never let up. but neither has my guy, neither

has president barack obama. he has not given up. he continues to be driven by the character of his convictions, and, folks, in the end, that is what the presidency is all about, your character, your convictions, and one more important thing -- it is about your vision for the future of america. and here, the candidates for president have fundamentally different visions for the future of this country. by the way, i think mitt romney is a fine family man. at least he is driven by what he believes. but the differences are so basic about how we view that america.

let me give you a few examples. on education, we see education as central to the vision of how do we assure america's ascendancy throughout the 21st century. we see it as the most important criteria for minority children. we see education, a future where once again america has the highest percentage of college graduates in the world, a future where high school graduation rates are not a matter of what neighborhood you come from, what your economic circumstances are, but a future where everyone has access to education beyond high school because six out of 10 jobs the coming decade are going to require more than a high-school diploma. a future where everyone can find a decent job, where

quality, early education is available to our children, increasing exponentially the chances to succeed in school, where class sizes are small so kids can get personalized attention they need, where we demand more of our teachers and we treat them like they are professionals -- high standards, and pay equal to other professions. look, education does not play a central role in the romney republican vision of the future of america. it is on the back burner. it is not a priority. you doubt me? just look at the budget for the future. massive cuts in early education, the one thing all educators agree on is the important initiative to deal right upfront with the

achievement gap. elimination of the tuition tax credit for families, cuts in pell grant scholarships for children of low-income families, cuts in title one funding for lowest-performing schools, cuts of $2.7 billion, cuts in special education funding. in my view, backing away from the proposition we have held for years and years, that children should be educated to the degree to which they are educable. cuts by $2.2 billion, cuts in job training. listen to what they say, when he says. he says the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps. tell that all those private schools. tell that all those parents.

energy -- we envision a future where clean, energy represents an increasingly large share of energy consumed in america. we see a nation that breathes clear air, where cities are not polluted, where asthma does not claim the lives of african- american children four times greater than it does of other children because of the environment in which they live. romney sees a different energy future, where renewable energy is not a priority, where romney's allies in the congress oppose any incentives to invest in clean energy, but insist on retaining a $4 billion tax cut for the oil industry, a tax cut even they acknowledge they do not need. women's rights -- we see an america where no woman pays more for health care than any man in america, where women have

access to quality childcare, where women receive equal pay for equal work. we see a future where the barriers are removed for women and girls who want to participate in science, technology, engineering, and the math fields, where the violence against women act is not just a law, but a part of american culture, where the government does not make choices for women, where every woman has unfettered access to contraception and family planning if she desires it. in short, we see an america where our daughters have every opportunity our sons have.

governor romney and his allies in the congress envision a different future for women in america. the governor is not sure what his position is on the violence against women act. he is not sure whether or not lilly ledbetter law that we passed is good. planned parenthood -- get rid of it. innovation and medical research, we see an america where hiv is a thing of the past, where infant mortality is drastically reduced. that is why we continue to invest in basic research, the national science foundation, the research universities.

romney sees a very different future, where he cuts funding for nih and the national science foundation. health care, we see a future where everyone has access to affordable health care, where seniors have access to prescription drugs at a lower cost, they have access to preventive care, making their lives more livable and reducing costs, where insurance companies cannot deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition, where there are no limits on insurance policies, where children can stay with their parents on their policy until they are 26, where medicare is guaranteed and medicaid is expanded, were no americans face the possibility of bankruptcy

because they get sick. romney's allies see health care a different way -- controlled by the insurance companies, where pregnancy is a pre-existing condition, where coverage can be taken away if you sick or hit your limit, where medicare is voucherized, 19 million people are cut off from medicaid, where millions of people will have to wait another generation before they can get a decent chance at health care. on the tax system, we see a system where everybody pays their fair share, where the middle class tax cut is maintained and where no one making a million dollars a year or more pays a lower percentage than middle-class or lower-lass

families, where the college tuition tax credit is made permanent, where the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit are preserved, where everybody, and i mean everyone, has skin in the game and no one gets played for a sucker. the tax code that governor romney and his allies envision continue to be skewed to help the very wealthy -- $530 billion of that tax cut over the next 10 years going to just 120,000 households in america, while we cut and put into disarray all these other programs, while the debt continues to climb.

he proposes a $1.6 trillion tax cut and the people who can qualify are the people who make only $1 million or more. he eliminates college tuition tax credits, the lower income tax credit, and the child tax credit are cut. the result? 2.2 million african-american working families will see a tax increase if he succeeds. that is a fact. on foreign policy, we see a future where we, the president and i and the democratic party, see a future where american leads by the power of example as well as the example of its power, where the democracies of the world join to share the burden of maintaining world peace, where we continue to reduce

nuclear arms around the world, where responsibility is turned over to the afghans and american troops can start to come home. governor romney and his allies see a different future for america's involvement in the world, one that still has combat troops in iraq. remember, he criticized us for bringing them home? where we set no date for leaving afghanistan, we stay, and he does not say how long, where the new start treaty with russia, endorsed by every former secretary of state, secretary of defense, national security advisers, where he said he would have voted against it, and i suspect means where he would abandon it,

where russia is viewed in his mind as the greatest geopolitical threat america faces. we are in the future, where we once decided to go it alone. this guy's vision of american foreign policy is mired in the cold war, and the cold war is over. on civil rights, your r'aison d'etre, your reason for existence, remember what this organization is all about.

it was about the franchise, the right to vote, because when you have the right to vote, you have the right to change things. [cheers] and we, the president and i, and all of us, we see a future where those rights are expanded, not diminished, where racial profiling is a thing of the past, where access to the ballot is expanded and unencumbered, where there are no distinctions made on the basis of race or gender in access to housing and lending. did you think we would be fighting these battles again? i was chairman of the judiciary

committee for 17 years. we went through these battles. i did not think we would be back. i remember working with republicans, republicans, and by the way, this ain't your father's republican party. remember? remember working with republicans on motor voter, on expanding the franchise on early voting, on voting by mail? some of these were republican ideas. but this is not the republican party view today, nor romney's. they see a different future, where voting is not easier, where the justice department is

prohibited from challenging those efforts to suppress the vote. but i know you know, but i am not sure -- the house of representatives voted affirmatively to prevent the justice department from even investigating whether or not there was voter suppression? folks, there is a lot more to say, but this is preaching to the choir. let me close, my friends, by saying i want you -- i mean this sincerely -- to close your eyes and imagine, imagine what

the romney justice department will look like. imagine when his senior adviser on constitutional issues is robert bork, imagine the recommendations for who is likely to be picked as head of the civil rights division or those other incredibly important positions at justice, imagine, and i mean this to me is one of the most critical issues in this election -- imagine what the supreme court will look like after four years of a romney presidency. folks, this election in my view is a fight for the heart and soul of america. [applause] these guys just have a fundamentally different view.

the best way to sum up the president's view, my view, and i think your view, is we see an america where, in the words of the scripture, what you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me. as president barack obama says, we are our brothers' keeper, we are our sisters' keeper, we have an obligation that at the outset, as i said, i believe this election will come down to character, conviction, and vision, and it will not surprise you, and i do not think it is even a close call. so it is time for the naacp to do what has always done, what it did for me in delaware -- to inspire a generation, stand our ground, and make a vision for america. god bless you all, and may god

bless our troops. thank you. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> you can see more of vice president joe biden here tomorrow on the c-span networks. he will talk about issues affecting the seniors. watch his remarks live at 11:45 eastern on c-span2. >> this weekend, on "american history tv." >> the collection goes from the very beginning of the nation and right up to the present. that is important because we are

trying to keep this large tradition full and documented and reflect the larger story of american democracy. >> on "american artifacts" -- a look at the smithsonian institute's american campaign memorabilia. also, more from "the contenders." those who ran for president and lost but changed american history. this week, wendell willkie. he never ran before getting the republican nomination and would never hold office. he would become an unlikely ally to fdr. that's at 7:30 this weekend on c-span3. >> next, we're going to show you last week of a tax cut proposal from president obama and reaction throughout the week from congress. on monday, the president proposed extending tax cuts for people who make less than 200 to thousand dollars a year.

following the president's announcement on monday, we will show you reaction from senate majority leader, harry reid, and minority leader, mitch mcconnell on the senate floor. house speaker john boehner and debate on the house floor between majority leader erik cantor and minority whip, steny hoyer. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much.

everybody have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. i'm glad things have cooled off a little bit. i know folks were hot. we are here today to talk about taxes, something everybody obviously cares deeply about. i have often said that our biggest challenge right now is not just to reclaim all of the jobs we lost to the recession, it is to reclaim the security that so many middle-class americans have lost over the past decade. our core mission as an administration and as a country has to be yes, putting people back to work, but also rebuilding an economy where that work pays off. and the economy where everyone can have the confidence that if you work hard, you can get ahead. what is holding us back from

meeting this challenge is not a lack of a plan or lack of ideas, it is a stalemate in this town, in washington, between two very different views about which direction we should go in as a country. no where is that still made more pronounced than on the issue of taxes. many members of the other party believe prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spent trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth. i disagree. i think they are wrong. i believe our prosperity has always come from an economy that is built on a strong and growing middle class. one that can afford to buy the products that are businesses sell. a middle-class that can own homes, send their kids to college, save enough to retire on.

that is why i have cut middle- class taxes every year i have been president. $3,600 for the typical american middle-class family. let me repeat. since i have been in office, we have cut taxes for the typical middle-class family by $3,600. [applause] i want to repeat that. moreover, we have tried it their way. it did not work. at the beginning of last decade, congress passed tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest americans more than anybody else. we were told it would lead to

more jobs and higher incomes for everybody and prosperity will start at top but then trickle down. what happened? the wealthy got wealthier, but most americans struggled. instead of creating more jobs, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. instead of widespread prosperity, the typical family sought its income fall. in just a few years, we went from surpluses under bill clinton to record deficits we are now still struggling to pay off today. we don't need more top-down economics. we tried that. we have seen what happens. we cannot afford to go back. we need policies that grow and strengthen the middle-class. policies that help create jobs and make education and training more affordable, that encourage businesses to start up and create jobs in the united

states. that is why i believe it is time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, folks like myself, to expire. [applause] i might feel differently because like i like to pay taxes. i might feel differently if we were still in surplus. but we have this huge deficit and everyone agrees we need to do something about these deficits and debts. the money we are spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor to our deficit, costing us a trillion dollars over the next decade. by the way, these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans are also the tax cuts least likely to promote growth.

we cannot afford to keep that up. not right now. i am not proposing anything radical. i just believe anybody making over two minutes $50,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under bill clinton. back when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs. the biggest black -- the biggest budget surplus in history and plenty of millionaires to boot. this is not just my opinion. the american people are with me on this. poll after poll shows that is the case. there are plenty of patriotic and very successful, very wealthy americans to also agree because they know by making that kind of contribution they are making the country as a whole stronger. at the same time, most people agree we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses.

now when so many folks are trying to get by, still digging themselves out of all was created by this great recession we have. and at a time when the recovery is still fragile. that is why i am calling on congress to keep the tax cuts for 90% of americans to make less than $250,000 per year. [applause] if congress does not do this, millions of american families, including these good-looking people behind me, could see their taxes go up by $2,200. that would be a big blow to

working families. and it would be a drag on the entire economy. we can already anticipate, we know what those who are opposed to letting high-end tax cuts expire will say. they will say we cannot tax the job creators. they will try to explain how this would be bad for small businesses. let me tell you -- the folks who create most new jobs in america are america's small business owners. i have cut taxes for small business owners 18 times since i have been in office. [applause] i have also asked congress repeatedly to pass new tax cuts for entrepreneurs to hire new workers and raise the workers -- -- will raise a worker's wages. but here's what you have to remember -- the proposal i make today would extend these tax

cuts for 97% of all small business owners in america. in other words, 90% of -- 97% of small businesses fall under the two -$50,000 threshold. [applause] this is not about taxing job creators. this is about helping job creators. i want to give them relief. i want to give those 97% a sense of purpose. i believe we should be able to come together and get this done. while i disagree on extending tax cuts for the wealthy because we cannot afford them, i recognize, but not everybody agrees with me on this. we all say we should extend the tax cuts for 90% of the american people. everybody says that. the republicans say they do not want to raise taxes on middle- class. i don't want to raise taxes on the middle-class.

so we should all agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle- class. let's agree to do what we agree on, right? [applause] that is what compromise is all about. let's not hold the vast majority of the american economy hostage while we debate tax cuts for the wealthy. we can have that debate. let's not hold up working on the thing we already agree on. the tax cut for the wealthiest american will be decided by the next election. my opponent will fight to keep them in place. i will fight to end them.

that argument should not threaten you. it should not threaten the 90% of americans who just want to other taxes will go up next year. middle-class family and small business owners deserve that guarantee. they deserve that certainty. it will be good for the economy and it will be good for you and we should give you that certainty now. we should do it now. it will be good for you, it will be good for the economy as a whole. [applause] my message to congress is this. pass a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle-class. i will sign it tomorrow. pass it next week, i will sign it next week. you get the idea.

as soon as that gets done, we can continue to have a debate about whether it's a good idea to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i will have one position, the other side will have another and we will have that debate and the american people can listen to them debate. then once the election is over, things have calmed down a little bit, based on what the american people have said and how they have spoken during the election, we will be in a good position to try to decide how to reform in a simple way that helps our economy. right now, our priority has to be giving middle-class families what they deserve. you are driving this economy forward.

[applause] you are the ones driving their recovery forward. i think it is time to widen the circle opportunity and help more americans to work hard to get ahead. it is time we learned the lessons of our past and lay the foundations for a better future. that is what i am focused on every day and i hope congress will join me in doing the right thing. thank you very much for being here. thank you. [applause]

>> >> , senate majority leader harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell debate the president's tax cut proposal on the senate floor. this is from wednesday and this is about 20 minutes. >> over the last few years, americans who are very, very wealthy have taken on the greatest share of the nation's income since the 1920's. that is 90 years, madam president. a larger percentage of what is out there. the rich are getting richer and the poor being squeezed, a middle-class getting squeezed, but the rich are doing really well. world bank accounts of a few fortunate americans have grown, the tax bills have not. the wealthiest americans now pay a lowest tax rates in more than

30 years. while less generous tax cuts have been good for their bottom lines, it has not been good for america's bottom line. hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts, some say more than a trillion dollars, and about this proportionally to the rich by the previous administration, and this has fueled skyrocketing deficits and a growing national debt. democrats and republicans alike agree we have to reduce the deficit and rein in the debt. unfortunately, the same republicans say we have to get our fiscal house and orders also claim millionaires and billionaires cannot afford to contribute even a tiny bit more to share the efforts before this country. these same republicans say multimillionaires like mitt romney needed lower taxes. even lower than the only tax return we have been able to see from governor romney, which showed his rate at 16%.

we do not know what in the other tax returns that he should make public. the same tax returns made public by his father who started the everyone who has run for president since then, he set the example condition of it -- his son should follow. we would like to know what is in those tax returns he refuses to show the american public. did he pay any taxes? i suggest to everyone that mitt romney doesn't need another tax break. in fact, he has so much money that he doesn't know where it all located. switzerland? the cayman islands? bermuda? no wonder she does not want -- no wonder he does not want america to see his tax returns. mitt romney is doing fine and so were all of the other millionaires and billionaires. it is the middle class i am worried about, not the very

wealthy. we all know times have been tough the last few years for ordinary americans struggling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table and that is the literal truth. the last thing middle-class families can enjoy now is a tax increase. that's why democrats want to keep taxes low for 90% of americans, including almost 90 percent of small businesses. everyone making less than $250,000 a year. while democrats are focused on how we can help 90% of americans, republicans are focused on how they can help mitt romney and the rest of the top 2%. they are willing to hold tax cuts for every one hostage just to get tax breaks for the top 2%. democrats did not agree the top 2 percent of wage earners can afford to pay the same tax rate when bill clinton was president. that was when the budget was balanced and we were actually paying down the debt and some

complained we were paying down the debt to quickly. eight years of the bush administration took care of that. $seven trillion surplus was wiped out. we're still willing to have that debate with republican colleagues and willing to discuss it reasonably. but we do not believe the middle-class families should wait, wonder, watch and worry whether the taxes are about to go up while congress has the conversation. we should not wait until the last second to act. here's what one major newspaper wrote. "the majority of americans and the broader economy should not be held hostage again to another debate over the merits of tax cuts for the wealthy. there will never be a consensus for solving the nation's budget problems without and the lavish tax breaks at the top." i call on my republican colleagues to help us give 90% of american families the

certainty and security they need and do it now, right away. i call on them to help us pass a tax cut that will benefit the middle class without bankrupting our nation because it is time we face the facts -- if we're serious of reducing the deficit, we cannot keep handing out more tax breaks to the richest of the rich. we have to make difficult decisions about where to cut and invest to keep our nation strong, but whether we keep taxes low for middle-class families should not be one of the difficult decisions we make. i have not heard anyone, a democrat, republican, independent say we should raise taxes on middle-class families. i have not heard anyone say that. this is an area where we can easily find common ground -- find common ground, so what is stopping us from doing the right thing and doing it now? i hope will be more republican hostage-taking on behalf of the 2%. >> madam president. earlier this week, the president created -- reiterated his longstanding desire to raise

taxes on small businesses earning over $250,000 a year. i and all of republican colleagues for pope -- oppose the tax hike for the same reason the president himself opposed it just two years ago. because raising taxes would only make a bad economy worse. but here comes again, sort of like a bad penny. the liberal crusade for more government, regardless of the circumstances, the impact it would have on working americans or the broader economy. on monday, the president issued the following reckless ultimatum -- let me raise taxes on about 1 million businesses, the president said, let me raise taxes on 1 million business owners and i promise i won't raise taxes on anybody else. in the face of 41 straight months of unemployment above 8%,

the president is begging congress to let him raise taxes on the very businesses the american people are counting on to create jobs. it was the exact opposite of what is needed. for some reason, he thinks a tax hike is his ticket to reelection. he says it is fair. i don't think most americans think it's particularly fair for a government that doesn't do a thing to live within its means to take even more money away from those who have worked and sacrificed to earn it. only to waste on some solar company or one more government program we can't afford. we have seen this movie too many times in the past. frankly, we don't have the luxury to waste any more time arguing about a question that's already settled for most people. the problem here isn't that the

government taxes too little, but that it spends too much. with the american people need right now isn't an election isn't that lecture on fairness, they would like to have some certainty. that's why i am going to call on the senate to provide just that. i have already called for a one- year extension of all the current income tax rates. today, i will go further by asking consent that we set up to vote in the senate -- one on the president's proposal to raise taxes on nearly 1 million business owners and the middle of the worst economic recovery of modern times, and another that would extend current income tax rates for one year and passed the finance committee to produce a bill that would enact fundamental pro-growth tax reform. extend the current tax rates for one year and charge the finance

committee with coming with a proposal with in that year for pro-growth tax reform. it has been over a quarter century since we last did a comprehensive tax reform. we all agree on a bipartisan basis that we need to again. the senate should make itself clear which policy it supports and this is our chance to do it. on monday, the president said if the senate passes this tax hike on small businesses, he would sign it right away. that's what he said two days ago. i can't see why our friends on the other side would not want to give him the chance. with that, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 2:00 today, the motion to proceed to s2237 and the first order be the hatch-mcconnell

amendment which would provide for the extension of current rates while we work on tax reform and a designee of them and to enact the president's proposal, which as i have said, would impose job killing taxes on nearly 1 million business owners. >> is there an objection? >> we have been here before, madam president. we try to legislate here the program and there republicans have tried to obstruct. we have before this body and i ask the presiding officer what you doing here today? we are on small business jobs bill. a pretty simple piece of legislation but pretty important. it would give businesses across america, small businesses, 500

employees, it would give them, that is where most jobs are created -- it would give them a 10% tax cut for hiring more people and the ability to purchase equipment and write it off. it would be great for the economy. we are told by outside experts it would create about a million jobs. what we have before us is something the republicans and house have sent us their version of this. it is the help paris hilton legislation. it would give people like her a tax break. for doing nothing. nothing. $46 billion of the american people's money to help paris hilton and others. it would give people a tax break for doing nothing. nothing. and for my friend, the republican leader, to talk about small business is being hurt with the proposal is not true.

as i said in my opening statement, 98% of the american people have the benefit of that tax benefit. 97.5% of small businesses would benefit. madam president, we are in a situation where my friend talks about the fact that we have not had enough job creation and i acknowledge that and i certainly -- that is true and the president acknowledges that. we have a hole to pull ourselves out of. during the prior eight years, 8 million jobs plus were lost. we have filled that whole, more than half way, 4.5 million new jobs have been created. we have had 28 months of private sector job growth, 28 months in a row.

we're making progress and we have a long way to go, but i object. >> the objection is heard. >> let me simplify this forever betty. the president on monday asked that we have the vote that i have just offered to the majority, we have a clear contrast year, we have 41 straight months of unemployment over 8%, if this is a recovery, it's the most tepid recovery in modern times. the president's solution is to raise taxes on about a million small business owners representing about 53% of small business and come and 25 percent, the workforce. we are on a different bill that my friend, the majority leader is talking about that would be loose lit by the house in any event. we are having a political discussion, not seriously

legislating. my recommendation as we give the president when he asks for. if he wants to have a vote on raising taxes on individuals making over two under $50,000 a year, which includes all with a million small businesses that pay taxes that if individuals and corporations, the most successful small businesses in america, in fact, that is a vote we welcome. it is a vote the president is asking for. it's a vote i just ask for. senator hatch, our leader of the finance committee behind me here today, has advocated that we extend the current tax rates for one-year, the same thing the president, with a to my friend from utah wanted to do two years ago. at that time, arguing it would be bad for the economy not to do that.

the growth that was better than it is now. we think we ought to vote on that. it would give senator hatch and the people in the finance committee one year to work us through a comprehensive tax reform began. has been a quarter of a century since we've done that. why not have those votes today? that is what my consent agreement was about. i'm all a little surprised we're not willing to give the president when he asked for. which is of the on a clear distinction for the american people, they can understand how the two sides look at this important issue. could not be more clear. madam president, i yield the floor. >> madame president. the american people should see again, and, again, it again.

we are engaged in a filibuster. a way to divert attention from what we're doing today, to obstruct as indicated in the oxford english dictionary -- a filibuster is to obstruct progress in the legislative a cent -- legislative assembly. madam president, why should we pass this bill before the body today and help a million businesses -- create a million jobs. it gives small business, not paris hilton small businesses across america today, a tax credit for hiring new people? it will allow them to write off things they purchased which would create more jobs. madam president, we have here in big, las vegas, neon flashing on and off science that says grover norquist has won again. to the people out there watching -- who is grover norquist?

he is this guy that goes to the republicans and says what to be kind enough to sign a pledge for me. that pledge says i want you to do with the american people don't want, and that is we will not tax the rich at all. not even a tiny bit. sign the pledge. and they all signed it. the american people, madam president, democrats, independents, and republicans agree that the richest of the rich should pay all but more. but we are now involved in a filibuster to divert attention from an important piece of legislation. let's pass this legislation. we will have this tax debate. we're happy to that. but let's get this done first. madam president, as most people know, i appreciate my friend,

the republican leader, i know he has a job to do. but let's get away from his pledge and let's start to legislating and not have to break filibusters on virtually everything we do. >> madam president -- i think we just witnessed a new definition of a filibuster. my good friend, the majority leader, is accusing me of filibustering when i am trying to get a vote, not one, but to. but what he says he is for, what the president says he is for, and now what republicans are for. so we have here a brand new definition of a filibuster. even when you are trying to give boats and their objected to by the other side, somehow that is a filibuster. my good friend talks about what would help small businesses. i think we ought to ask them. would they prefer the underlying bill which the majority leader has called up and we voted to proceed to or would they prefer

not to have their taxes go up at the end of the year? talk about a no-brainer. i don't think there's any question what small businesses would rather have. we're certainly not filibustering. we enjoy discussing our differences of opinion on the tax issue. there could not be anything more important to the american people. if we're going to get this economy going again. certainly trying to set up to vote on the president is asking for and what republicans think is a better alternative could not in my view meet that definition of a filibuster. senator hatch is here and the majority leader can speak again if he wishes, but senator hatch is going to address the matter as well and i want to thank him again for his conspicuous leadership on the finance committee. we are looking to him to work us through this comprehensive tax reform matter again.

it's going to be an extremely important thing for the country and i thank him for his good work. >> madame president, when i came here this morning, i repeat for the third time, i asked what the business was before this party -- the small business jobs bill. of course, there has been a direct attack by saying let's do something else. we will do something else. i understand the definition of filibuster. i understand very clearly. from the dutch -- one of a class of protocol adventures who engages in unauthorized and irregular warfare unauthorized irregular warfare against foreign states. they go on to say to practice obstructionism.

to steal're trying legislation and move to something else. they will do anything they can, as my friend the republican leader has said the beginning of this congress, to divert attention from the fact that president obama should be reelected. --y're not concerned about i'll send this soon. if governor romney came before this body to be a cabinet officer, he couldn't get approved. he won't show anybody his income tax report. so he does not qualified to be a camera officer. so how does it qualify to be president? we will get to the tax issues. that we will be able to talk in more detail about governor romney's taxes. >> house speaker john boehner responded to the president's

proposal on monday. he said that it makes no economic sense to tax the people expected to create jobs. >> good morning, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you. he may be thinking about the things you doing your communities to help get the economy going again. you will not hear about this in washington because most people in washington have never had a real job and don't really understand that you have to risk your life's savings, risk capital, take out loans, to start a business to hire employees, to buy equipment and hope that you will find a customer, hoping you will find some business. most people here in washington don't understand the risk that is involved in what you do to help grow the american economy. but as one who took the same

kind of risks that all of you did, i just want to say thank you for all that to do for our country and what you do for the communities in which to operate your businesses. listen, as you know, i came here as a small business guy. i came here to fight for a smaller, less costly and more accountable government. but you know, many in washington have not quite seen the light as yet. the president and i get along just fine. but we have some really different views about how our economy works. as a product of the free enterprise system, i am a big believer in the free enterprise system and in limited government here in washington. the president's instinct is to metal, micromanage, manipulate -- just look at the stimulus bill but we have seen with obamacare, again, is it is driving up the cost of health care and making it harder for small businesses to create jobs.

so, tomorrow, the house, once again, will vote to repeal all of obamacare. [applause] sunnymead ask -- some in the media ask, why? you have already voted to repeal or dismantle obamacare. after the supreme court ruling, we announced we would vote again. and they ask why? why? why? [laughter] it really boils down to one simple word. resolved. we are resolved to get rid of a law that will ruin the best health care delivery system the world has ever seen. it will bankrupt our country and it will make it impossible to grow our economy. that is why we're doing it. [applause] later this month, we will take another amount of bills to the

floor to rein in the regulatory nightmare that is going on here in washington, d.c. it is not just obamacare, but it is 159 boards, commissions and band-aids. it is the epa that is driving many businesses out of america. it is the dodd-frank regulation that has another 358 mandates in that bill, rules and regulations of coming. so we will bring another round of bills to the floor along with another 40 bills that are sitting in the united states senate. there were all rain in the regulatory nightmare in washington and make it easier for businesses in america to expand their businesses and hire more workers. this is all our plan for america's job creators. the president has a different plan. he started talking about it yesterday again. for four years, the president has been on this crusade to make

those who make $250,000 or more pay higher taxes. he talked about it in 2008 when he ran piggy talk about it in 2009, 2010, -- when he ran. he talked about it in 2009 and again in 2010. let's look at what the president wants to do. by raising taxes on those who two hundred $50,000, mow thmany of them will be small business owners. i know a chapter s corporation. why we would want to tax the very people that we expect to create jobs in this country makes no economic sense. maybe he will do it because it will have some impact on the deficit. congressional budget office

looked at this and the impact on the budget deficits is negligible. you cannot hardly even counted. so why is the president once again out there beating on this mantra? the president cannot run on his record because his policies, his economic policies have failed and made things worse. as a result, he has turned to the politics of every individual. that is what this is about. pure politics. the american people vote with their wallets. and this will be a referendum in november of the president's economic policies. the house will vote of the end of this month to extend all of the current tax rate because it will help us give more certainty to small businesses in our country and help create more jobs here in america, which is what the american people want so you will see a rise up and took one more time and send it over to the senate and hope that they will take some action. listen, we cannot raise taxes on

the very people we expect to create jobs. i am a small businessmen at heart. you know that. i don't feel one bit differently than the first day i got your back to or what i am here to accomplish. it is about reining in the size of government here in washington so that we can allow the free enterprise system to grow, allow the free enterprise system to create opportunities that gave everyone of us in this room a chance at the american dream. listen, i came here because, if we don't get government and washington under control, the future for my kids and your kids, my grand kids, if i ever have any, and your grandkids will not be there. we will snuff out those opportunities. i was born with the glass half full. i am an optimist. if i were not, i would not have come to washington and i would not have come and stay this long. you have to fight every day and

stand up for america's small business people and do everything we can to preserve those freedoms that we are all entitled to and, frankly, all accustomed to. god bless you and god bless our country. [applause] >> on thursday, house majority leader kantor and minority whip steny hoyer debated to extend all of the bush attacks cuts and said it would come up for a vote the week of july 29. mr. hoyer said that the majority leader was taking a "my way or the highway" approach. and commented on the lack of markup for the republican bill. >> the house speaker legislativ

business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on friday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension -- excuse me -- madam speaker, the house will consider a number of bills unde list of which will be announced by the close of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider h.r. -- mr. hoyer: madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house will come to order. members, please take their conversations off the floor. mr. hoyer: i again yield to the majority leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank you. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 5872, the sequestration transparency act sponsored by congressman jeb hensarling. this is a bill that will bring

needed transparency to the administration's process for implementing devastating cuts to our national defense and many social programs on january 2. chairman paul ryan and the budget committee passed this bill in a bipartisan fashion, so i expect it to be brought up under suspension of the rules. finally, and in keeping with funding our national security, the house will consider h.r. 5856, the department of defense appropriations act, sponsored by congressman bill young. this will be the house's seventh appropriations bill of the year. i expect the defense funding bill to be on the floor for the balance of the week. members should be aware that late evening votes are possible on wednesday, july 18, and thursday, july 19. i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that scheduling information. as the gentleman knows, we have -- as i calculate, 12 legislative days left to go in

july and the beginning of august of which three of those days we will be coming in at 6:30. as a result, we don't have much time left. i would ask the gentleman if there is any expectation of having bills other than the -- i understand one of those weeks will be the regulatory week. other than the regulatory bills, will we have any jobs legislation on the floor? mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the question. madam speaker, we've been, as the gentleman knows, very transparent about scheduling the floor, sending out a memo, making members aware of where we're headed for the remainder of the summer -- remainder of the july period. i would say to the gentleman, after next week, we will be focusing on cutting red tape, reducing the regulatory burden on our job creators. as we know, the regulatory atmosphere in this country is

making it more difficult, more expensive for small businesses and lawyers to create jobs. we will be focusing on that, and the following week, madam speaker, will be the week in which we'll bring forward a piece of legislation to stop the tax hikes to ensure that all americans know we are not going to see taxes go up for them at the end of this year. in addition to that, we'll bring forward a bill that will be focused on how we get to a pro-growth tax system in this country, laying out the principles for tax reform and suggesting an expedited procedure so that we can actually achieve results for the american people so that our job creators and working families can get back to work. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i understand the gentleman's answer and i think we have

consensus on this floor by cutting red tape and facilitating decisions by the federal government or by the state government or by local governments. we have all heard that complaint throughout our careers. i think that's a legitimate concern for us to have. however, when i ask about a jobs bill, the gentleman responds on the -- couple of levels. i think i may have mentioned this before, but what concerns me is that bruce bartlett, who i think the gentleman probably knows, former reagan and president george h.w. bush official saying that no claim for regulatory issues have increased. he says this. republicans have embraced the idea that this is holding back employment. they assert that barack obama has unleashed a tidal wave of new regulation which created uncertainty of business and prevents them from investing in

hiring. as i said, he said, no hard evidence is offered for this claim. he then says, in my opinion that means -- bruce bartlett -- not my opinion, regulatory system is a kenard used by republicans to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. nornede, it's a case of political opportumism. that's his opinion. not mine. my concern is if you ask economists on whether or not legislation -- many pieces of legislation that we baffed called jobs bills -- the gentleman has pointed that out -- economists say in the short term which is really what we need to do, we need to do in the short term and the long term is not going to create jobs. . this week we haven't done anything to create jobs. might i ask the gentleman, i

didn't see it next week, do we expect the 32nd or 33rd vote on repealing the affordable care act either next week or week after or week after that? as the gentleman knows, c.b.s. opines we spent some 80 hours on that issue with whatever cost is attendant to that, do we -- you can answer both questions, i suppose, but certainly i would be interested and members would be interested to know whether or not we are going to have another vote on repealing the affordable care act. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would say to the gentleman about this week's vote, in fact today, today we voted on a bill that will help us mine it in america. the gentleman likes to speak about making it in america. why shouldn't we also be mining it in america? so it's very much a bill to facilitate that business and industry in this country, in an

environmentally sensitive way. and in fact 22 of the gentleman's caucus members joined us in that vote. mine it in america, madam speaker. as to the gentleman's question about the suggestion that perhaps the regulatory environment does not affect the potential growth or real growth in this countryle is something that i really -- i don't believe the gentleman agrees totally with that statement. i know he and i both have worked on trying to streamline regulations here. we don't want overly burdensome regulations on small or large businesses or working families. so again, i would take issue with the suggestion that economists would say that regulatory atmosphere and framework doesn't have anything to do with job creation. of course it does. it has to do with the environment for, one torques take a risk, for investors to

put capital to work, for entrepreneurs to go out, sign their name on the dotted line with the bank. of course regulation has something to do with job creation and growth. that is exactly our point. and i hope the gentleman will join us in the week that we bring these red tape reduction bills to the floor to help us accomplish something so that we can roll back the unduel -- unduly burdensome frakework and make sure we have a smart framework of regulation so we can see america grow. i'd say to the gentleman's final question about scheduling another repeal vote of obamacare. if the gentleman would like to do so, i'm happy to meet with him right now, as the gentleman knows, we have done that this week. and i would say to the gentleman the reason why, perhaps we spend so much time on that issue, it is the most personal issue to many millions of americans.

it's their health care. it's their families' health care. and at the end of the day this election season will underscore the importance of people engaging in this discussion and participating in our democracy because the kind of health care that we will have in this country will be determined by the outcome of the election. and the real question is, madam speaker, are we going to have washington-based health care or patient-based health care? that's what it comes down to. who is in the driver's seat? patient and their doctors or washington-based bureaucrats deciding what kind of coverage we can have. and we all know what's happened with that approach under obamacare. costs have gone up, employers will be getting a plan. people will not be able to have the health care they have. that's why we spent the time we have on this bill. i yield back. mr. hoyer: the gentleman knows full well i think you have wasted a lot of time on this house floor. wasted a lot of effort on this house floor knowing full well

that that had no chance of passage you were simply appealing to the base you are just appealing to. this the gentleman believes what you would do if your bills passed you would take away benefits from millions and millions and millions of people. i think that's incontestable. it's incontestable that seniors who are now getting more help with the doughnut hole for the prescription drugs which enhance their quality and length of life would lose it if we repealed the affordable care act. it is incontrovertible, i will tell my friend, that millions of young people who can't find a job, unfortunately in this economy, we haven't gotten any immediate jobs legislation that was offered by the president on this floor to even consider, pass or fail. millions of young people would lose their insurance. millions of children who have a

pre-existing condition who now under the affordable care act cannot be precluded by the insurance companies was really who you want -- not you personally, but who the defeat of the affordable care act would put insurance companies back in charge. not government bureaucrats but insurance companies. so many of your republican governors don't want to set up the exchanges. all the exchanges are is setting up a free market of private sector insurers where people can make a judgment do they like policy a, b, or c. it's very tough for consumers to determine right now whether they are getting a good bargain for the price they are paying for their health insurance which is very expensive. i will tell the gentleman that the affordable care act will also create, c.b.o. says, economists say, millions of jobs in the health care area. so contrary to the gentleman's assertion that we are taking away care, in fact we are adding 30 million people to access to

affordable quality health care. as mr. romney said, we require responsibilities so everybody takes personal responsibility to make sure that if they can they want to insure themselves, so what? so the rest of us don't have to pay when they get sick. if they need help, as mr. romney said in massachusetts when romney care was adopted, a model just like we have adopted for the nation, it's important to make sure that they get some help. that's what that bill does. in addition to that, we have made sure that people didn't have a serious illness and have the insurance companies, not government bureaucrats, not the government, but insurance companies say, you're too sick. we are not going to cover you anymore. i will tell my friend, he and i have a radically different view on what the consequences of the -- this 31 votes that we have had, that the gentleman knew

were not going to pass the senate, knew the president wasn't going to sign, and knew you didn't have the votes to override. you are making a political point. i understand that. there are people who disagree with the affordable care act. i understand that as well. i frankly think had we dealt with jobs legislation during that 0 hours and considered the president's jobs bill, we would have millions of people employed today in america right now. now, let me just -- so there is no misunderstanding so i don't neglect to respond to the gentleman's assertion. he's right. he and i agree. we need to cut government red tape. we need to speed approvals. we need to make sure that we do not impede by regulation the growth of our economy and the growth of jobs. i couldn't agree with him more. and i think we ought to deal with that in a bipartisan basis and hopefully we will continue or perhaps start to do that, i might say, or continue to do that in some instances.

the gentleman is correct. let me ask you something, however, about the tax vote, you also mentioned bringing taxes down. let me ask you something. do you expect that vote to come the last week that we are in session before the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i'd say to -- madam speaker, to the gentleman, can he repeat the question? mr. hoyer: yes, do you expect the vote on taxes which you have referred to to occur the last week on which i believe is the 29th of july, the week of 29 july, to be on that week? mr. cantor: i respond to the gentleman, madam speaker, yes, we have scheduled for that week a vote on a bill to extend the existing rates and we'll also be bringing up a bill. that extension will be for a year. we'll also be bringing up a bill that will outline the principles for tax reform that i know the gentleman also has said we need to reform our tax code so that we can help make it fairer, more

simple, and so we can see the economy grow again. those vehicles will be brought up that week, yes, madam speaker. mr. hoyer: i look forward to seeing the latter bill because the gentleman's correct. i think we do need to reform our tax system. we need to make it simpler. would like to see us reduce preference items and bring rates down as the bowles-simpson, gang of six, whoever you want to refer to as suggested. that's moving in the proper direction. i also think we have to, however, frankly, make sure that we bring down the deficit and debt confronting this nation. i think as bowles-simpson pointed out, you got to do that in a balanced way. let me ask you something on the packages that you said are coming that last week. there have not yet been hearings on the ramifications of either of those bills, as i understand, the ways and means committee. does the gentleman expect there

to be hearings on those? and does the gentleman expect there to be a markup of either one of those bills in the ways and means committee? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i say to the gentleman, i think -- i disagree with the gentleman's hearings. i think the last year and a half chairman camp and his committee have been about looking at the tax code, talking about tax reform, divulging what it would mean for us to have an increased tax environment for this economy. we have been all about the economy and growth. i say to the gentleman, he likes to say, why can't we do jobs bills, we have been doing jobs bills. he complains about the 30-some bills we have been doing relating to obamacare. i would say we have done even more than that relating to jobs. i would ask the gentleman to just remember where those bills sit right now. they are on the doorstep of the

senate and the leader over there refuses to bring them up. and so again i say to the gentleman we stand ready to work together so that we can produce results for the people that sent us here. and that is the purpose of bringing forward the bills that have been talked about, have been dissected in terms of existing tax rates, where they may or may not go, how they affect growth in this economy. that's what we are doing. we have had multiple votes, multiple hearings on tax reform, on what the tax rates mean, and this vote will be very clear. if you want to stop the tax hike for all americans at all income levels, you'll vote for the bill. if you want to engage in tax reform, if you feel the tax code is too complicated, it needs to be simplified, loopholes closed, you'll vote for the bill.

it's that simple. i yield back. mr. hoyer: when you say -- i presume as the gentleman said we are talking about two different bills, are we not? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, that is correct. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that clarification. let me say to the gentleman when the gentleman says there have been hrings on tax reform, i think that's probably accurate. what there has not been in my view and in mr. levin, who is the ranking member of the committee's view, there's been no hearing on the ramifications of the bill which apparently is going to be brought to the floor which simply extends all the bush era tax cuts, ramifications to the deficit, ramifications to the debt, and indeed ramifications to the economy. i would say with all due respect my friend the majority leader, i don't believe there have been hearings on that issue. there have been issues should we reform the tax code. the gentleman, i agree, we should simplify, we should reform the tax bill. we should make it more compatible with economic growth

and very frankly for average individual americans to -- who want to pay their taxes like to pay as little as possible, all of us would like to do that, but want to support their country as well. so i don't really share the gentleman's view that there have been hearings on the ramifications of the bill that the gentleman says is going to bring to the floor. that's what i asked. let me ask you the other question, which was the second part of it, are there going to be -- is there going to be a markup of the bill which you're going to bring to the floor in terms of taxes? to clarify, so that members on both sides of the sle will have an opportunity to offer amendments in committee, make observations in committee as to the ramifications of that action, and that members will have an opportunity to reflect on that bill. mr. cantor: i would say -- madam speaker, i would say to the gentleman this is a very simple

and clear choice here. given this economy, if one wants to raise taxes on all americans, you vote against the bill. if you want to go and help folks through a more simple tax code and you want to look towards tax reform, you vote for the next bill. straight up or down. there have been enough discussion, enough hearings in this -- in the ways and means committee as well as the budget committee. these issues were central to our budget. you are a member on a budget committee as well as ours, had a full, open hearing on that budget document and markup, we believe now is not the time to raise taxes on working people, small businesses, and large. the economy is anemic. we don't have enough job growth. why do we want to take more people's hard earned money? that's why we are bringing this bill forward. this bill is straight up or down. stop the tax hike or not. i yield back. .

mr. hoyer: i take it the answer is no that there won't be a markup on a bill that will have consequences to all americans and extraordinary consequences to the deficit and debt and to our economy. is that -- am i correct in interpreting your answer is, no, there will not be a markup of this very important bill, you bring it straight to the floor without committee consideration, is that an accurate interpretation? mr. cantor: madam speaker. mr. hoyer: i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i think the gentleman has heard my response. mr. hoyer: well, i heard your response and i accurately characterized it. i think that's a shame, mr. majority leader. mr. boehner said we were going to be an open house, that we were going to consider matters and that everybody would have their opportunity to have their input. usually tax bills are brought to the floor not subject to amendment. you have just said, as i understand what you said, this

bill, our way or the highway. you couldn't like the bill the way we brought it to the floor, you're out of luck. you won't have an option. you can't put any of your ideas in the bill. if that's the way you intend to consider this bill, mr. leader, i think that's unfortunate. and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, the gentleman knows that his side of the aisle will have an opportunity to deposit their position on taxes through the regular process of a motion to recommit. and as i have said publicly yesterday when asked, are the democrats in the house going to be able to offer the president tax proposals? i said, absolutely they will. so we'll see. we'll see, madam speaker, if the gentleman decides to put forward the president's tax proposal, calling for a tax hike on american small businesses. we'll see if that happens, madam speaker. but we'll see and that will be the week it will happen. you're either for stopping tax hikes or you're not.

i yield back. mr. hoyer: my way or the highway, that's what you said, mr. leader. very frankly in my view we have agreement. we have agreement on something that you won't bring to the floor and it is that all middle-class working americans will not get a tax hike. all of them. and everybody up to $250,000 of income will have no tax increase. but we have a big deficit and a big debt. and we need to pay our bills. we have a debt limit vote coming up at the end of this year. very frankly we took the country to the brink of default, and very adversely affected our economy by undermining confidence. you talked a lot about confidence in the last campaign, mr. leader. i agreed with you. i think we need to instill confidence, not undermine confidence, but i will tell my friend, if you wanted to work together as you've said on a number of occasions now, as much as we did with the

export-import bank, the bills that you sent over there, we didn't work together on. they were passed on a partisan vote for the most part. not all of them. and some votes were overwhelmingly bipartisan. and guess what happened? they became law. the president signed them. export-import bank, the jobs bank that you were -- not the jobs bank -- the jobs bill that you promoted and which i voted for, you said you want to work together. now, it's interesting when you say work together because what you say you're going to give is a motion to recommit, and what you will instruct is for all of your members to vote no. it is a purely procedural vote. and as you have for the last 18 months, your members will vote no on motions to recommit. notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the substance. and the fact of the matter is, mr. leader, we can have a vote that passed with 435 votes. 435 votes. everybody in this congress says

that we ought to not have a tax increase on working americans, on working americans making less than $250,000 in taxable income. as you know that's more income. but we won't get that vote except on an m.t.r. vote no. it's a procedural vote only. it's not a substantive vote. i say not only to my friend, will you not allow us an amendment on the floor, it appears, but you won't allow an amendment to be offered in committee so we can vote on that. yes, we have about disagreement, but you're prepared to hold hostage working americans by saying, if the richest people in america might have a little bit of a tax increase, then the everybody else is going to get a tax increase. you said it a different way. i understand it. but the -- but the reality and the ramifications of the actions that you are proposing to follow will mean that we will not get a vote, which i think there's overwhelming

support of and making sure that working americans and, yes, small -- 97% of small businesses don't get any tax increase at all. we have agreement on that, mr. leader. why don't we bring that to the floor and show the american public that, yes, we can come together as you have suggested, yes, we can agree and yes, we can make sure they don't get a tax increase. and, yes, we can have a debate on the balance and you will take one position. i may take another position and the american public will see that and they can make a judgment on -- with whom they agree. now, my view is an overwhelming majority of the public would agree with me and you will think the overwhelming majority of the american public will agree with you. that's what democracy is about. let us have this debate. let us have this vote. let us make sure that working americans aren't held hostage to the wealthiest in our country. i yield if the gentleman wants to respond. mr. cantor: madam speaker, what

i say to the gentleman is holding hostage working families is denying them a job. it's about jobs. and, you know, the gentleman can play with the statistics all he wants and claimed that 97% of the small businesses will get a tax break this way and let's leave the others for later. but the significant fact is it's the others -- it's the others is where the significant job growth can be. why would we want to go and tax job creators. we know that 50% of the people that will get a tax hike under the president's proposal get at least a quarter of their income from small business. and the more their income the more the percentage. that means the jobs. so why would we want to stop job creators from hiring people because washington takes more of their money? why would we want tax rates to go up on anybody in this anemic economy? and why would we want to go and raise taxes when we haven't put an end to the out-of-control

spending in washington because what you're doing is digging the hole deeper? that's our position, madam speaker. and so i would ask the gentleman straight up, is the gentleman going to bring to the floor a motion to recommit for his proposal, the president's proposal? is that going to be the motion to recommit? will the gentleman actually put his words to work and have that be their motion to recommit? i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. if the gentleman is asking if i will bring forward the president's proposal the answer is absolutely yes. i don't want the gentleman confused in any way. if the motion to recommit is the only option we have available, we are certainly going to discuss that option. but we don't -- we're not going to pretend either to ourselves or to the american people that's a real vote. you want to put it on the floor as an amendment. you want to have a real debate on it, not five minutes on one side and five minutes on the other side which the motion to recommit is limited to, you're

shutting us down, you're gagging us and, yes, you are putting middle class taxpayers at risk because you know, i know and the american people know the president of the united states has said he will veto your bill. he has said he will sign a bill that together we could pass making sure that 98% of americans do not get a tax increase. but what you will -- are proposing to do, mr. leader, is to bring to the floor a bill which simply protects the 2%. 2% should not pay more and the gentleman says, oh, they're great job creators. i understand what the gentleman is saying but, by the way, the program you're going to offer, it was in place. it was in place from 2001, 2003 to 2009, and and i both know what happened is not solely because it was in place, of course, but -- i'll stimulate

to that. but the fact is we had the deepest recession in year lifetime and my lifetime and the lifetime of anybody who is younger than 90 years of age under the program that you're proposing we'll continue with. i tell you, mr. leader, i don't think that's a great way to proceed. at least we ought to have opportunity to debate. at least we ought to have five minutes more. it's a procedural vote, don't vote for it. i will tell the gentleman with all clarity that the consequences of your act and you do it knowledgeablely, it will be that middle class taxpayers will be put at risk. why? whether you agree with it or not, the president will veto it. the senate i don't think will pass it. and the fact of the matter is

we can do for 98% of america that which we agree on. you don't want them to have a tax increase. i don't want them to have a tax increase. we agree on that. the americans can't understand, can't understand when we agree on that why we can't at least pass something on which we agree which will help 98% of america. in this struggling economy, as you clearly point out. now, you point out that -- you didn't use the term, we only had 80,000 jobs last month. i was disappointed by that. that was unfortunate. but in the last month of the previous administration, we lost 818,000 jobs in one month with your program in place. that's 189,000, almost 900,000 turn-around from 818,000 to 80

,000 minus. not enough. not enough by far. and i want to work with the gentleman to create many more, work with them on jobs legislation, economic growth legislation, make it in america legislation. if we could get some of that legislation to the floor, we think it would be helpful. so i say to my friend that i feel very strongly as you can tell that if we're going to have this vote, with is an extraordinarily consequential vote, at least we ought to have a substitute, not just an m.t.r., not just a procedural vote, not just a five-minute debate on my side, five-minute debate on your side. don't you think americans expkt more in terms of a very -- expect more in terms of a very substantive vote in a legislative policy form, and i ask the gentleman to consider that objective.

>> more on taxes and the economy to more at the brookings institution. patty murray discusses ways to reduce the deficit and encourage growth. join us live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. congress returns this week with the senate gambling in tomorrow to discuss a judicial nomination and campaign finance disclosure. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. and the house is back on tuesday on the agenda. the 2013 defense spending bill and a request to the white house on how sequestration is applied. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> immigrations and customs

enforcement director john martin testified about u.s. immigration policy last week. he talked about border security and cooperative agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, such as the secure communities program. it also answered questions about the supreme court arizona immigration ruling. this is just over one hour. >> the meeting will come to order. the said committee is meeting today to examine how the department of homeland security can better leverage state and local partnerships through programs like safe and secure communities. john morton, director of immigration and customs enforcement, i would begin by welcoming the director. we are appreciative of his participation today and we also want to extend our condolences on the recent shooting ice agent

keldon harrison, which demonstrates the danger that our men and women on the front lines are facing a day. we certainly pray for his speedy recovery. again, i want to thank the director and the men and women of immigration and customs enforcement. tangible border security requires that we take a leave approach and not just solely focused on the line in the san that separates us from mexico. we have a long and often look would border that we share with canada and thousands of miles of coastline. the truth is, despite our best efforts and the billions we spend on personal, infrastructure and technology, drug in humans mullers and others will inevitably try to find -- drug and human smugglers

and others will inevitably try to find a way. they come in with such sincere -- with less sincere of innovations to prey on innocent. visa security cannot be overlooked good many who enter the country illegally walking through the front door. and they never leave following expiration of their visas. we saw that with several of the 9/11 terrorist and even with the recent capital bomber. tracking down the cell overstays and tracking down dangerous criminals and recent border crossers is probably the most critical lawyer. i would remind my colleagues as well that every single person who crosses the border illegally, of course, has committed a crime and cannot ignore the fact or sweep it under the rug appeared sending a message, unless you commit a serious crime and, we will not

deport you is dangerous. ice as well cannot ignore low level criminals because of the very real potential the bill will go on to commit real serious crimes. -- that they will go on to commit real serious crimes. the scope of the immigration border security problem is very large for them to tackle alone. we can certainly debate the merits and the tough immigration laws. we have seen some delays in the role audit of the communities in alabama because of the disagreement with the top state law. we have also seen a go-slow

approach to the rollout in illinois come in cook county in particular which refuses to -- i am sure we will have some questions for the director of those two incidents as well. immigration enforcement is certainly a federal responsibility and the congress has authorized state and local law enforcements. secure communities and the true 70 program and others are critical components in the last line of defense. congress secure communities and 2008 a pilot program to establish all criminal or potential criminal aliens at the time of arrest. inactivated jurisdictions, which is about 97% of the entire country, all of those arrested have their fingerprints running in databases to determine whether they are in the country illegally or not. a permit program is in operation in all of these jurisdictions

nationwide with the goal of having it all my nationwide by the end of this year. since the program was activated, it has led to the removal of 141,000 convicted criminals who were unlawfully present in this country. i find it amazing, really, that there was so much opposition to this program. 94% of the aliens supported by this program were either convicted criminals or be sent overseas. -- or recent visa overstays. my only concern with the secure

communities program is that we have heard reports of aliens who have been convicted of lower level offenses and have generally been ignored with law enforcement action taken against that group. without taking enforcement action against all criminal aliens, programs such as secure communities may result in large numbers of identify criminal aliens being released back into society, which is an unacceptable outcome for our communities. the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the work that ice is doing to leverage local and state resources. congress is eager and willing to facilitate cooperative efforts to secure the border, to remove dangerous murder aliens from the streets and to help the department of homeland security to secure our agents homeland -- our nation's homeland. >> thank you for holding this hearing today. i would like to thank director morton for joining us today.

i look for to his testimony. before we begin, i would like to express my condolences to the family of the border patrol agent who died in the line of duty on july 6 after an accident near fort hancock in west texas. i also would like to wish a quick recovery to a special agent harris and was shot in the line of duty in texas. i believe your head of the to visit the family and him also appeared i think he was shot there last week. thank you. one of the counties that are represent. this is a stark reminder that the men and women that dhs land enforcement law enforcement put their lives on the line every day to make our country more safe every day. we appreciate their service and sacrifice. the purpose of today's hearing is to examine the status of ice secure communities program.

removing criminal aliens from the u.s. has been a congressional party since 1986 with the passage of the immigration reform control act. the department of homeland security and its predecessor agency have operated program starting criminal aliens for removal since 1988 been taken under the secure communities program, for dissipating law enforcement agencies submit the fingerprints of arrestees for criminal background check. the fingerprints are not automatically sent to dhs where ice check against them on dhs data bases. i wanted to have all of my congressional district -- we told the folks that it was a simple thing. when the but the fingerprint, you just check the background could but once in jail and they give their fingerprint, they said of the immigration status

and it is a very common-sense approach. in all counties and texas and states that we want to talk about in a few minutes. the nice reports show that, through march 31 of 2012, more than 135,000 immigrants convicted of crimes including more than 49,000 convicted of aggravated felony offenses like murder or rape or removed. my brother, who is a border sheriff, was given as an example of how they stop somebody. they had somebody in jail and it turned out he was there for murder in another state. so secure communities does help and it helps the local border law enforcement. given the limited resources, prioritizing criminals, particularly the serious criminals for removal keeps our communities safer and is the best use of taxpayer dollars.

the secure communities program has not been without controversy i do understand that. and i am pleased to say that i spend under the direction of morton's leadership, i was in houston with sheriff garcia who was telling me about the task force that they put together to make sure that ice was working to improve its communication with state and local jurisdictions, not only in houston in harris county, but in other parts. we want to thank you and make sure that we have been revised concerns for the possibility of racial profiling in the program. by her -- i hope to hear from director martin about these particular records. i also hope to hear how intends to ensure that it focuses on criminal serial millions for removal of this country. we want to make sure that the

agencies understand what is your core mission. and make sure you accomplish those objectives. i know how important programs like secure communities are in addressing the issues of illegal immigration. i hope we can have a thoughtful and focused discussion ought to care communities today. a look for to having a productive dialogue with you, deborah martin. -- director morton. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from mr. mississippi, mr. thompson for his statement. >> thank you. welcome, director morton. good to see you again. let me start by saying that i strongly support the administration's decision to help identify and remove aliens who may pose a threat to national security or public safety. i believe it is imperative that

programs like secure communities be focused first and foremost on removing serious criminal offenders given eyespots limited enforcement resources. the program must be administered to guard against racial profiling and protect community police relations. in september 2011, the homeland security advisory council task force on secure communities made important recommendations to improve the program. i wholeheartedly agree with this recommendation of that ice develop good working relationships with participating states, cities and communities, implement mechanisms to ensure the program prioritizes those who pose a risk to public secure national security. and most importantly, strengthen the mechanism to prevent civil rights and celebrities violations.

-- and civil liberties violations. is plans to implement several changes to the secure communities program to address the task force's recommendation. i look forward to hearing from director morton today about these efforts and what we should expect. unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the i'll continue to subscribe isaf's partial risk-based approach to the removal of undocumented aliens as administrative amnesty. as i have said before, unless and until congress opprobrious sufficient funds for ice to apprehend and remove every undocumented alien in the country, we should support the agency's efforts to focus its limited resources on removing those undocumented aliens who pose the greatest threat to our

nation. it is also worth reiterating that, under current administration, ice has removed more criminal aliens and more aliens total than under the bush administration or any other prior administration, democrat or republican. with that, madam chair, i would again like to recommend -- recognize director martin for the job he is doing. and i look forward to hearing from him can certainly, he will provide the subcommittee with very -- with valuable insight on a complex issue of immigration enforcement. and i yield back. >> other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements might be submitted for the record. again, our full witnessed today is mr. john morton, director of medication and customs enforcement, which is the principal investigative arm of homeland security. it is the second-largest investigative agency in the federal government. the agency's primary mission is

to promote home massacred in public-sector the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws, governing border control, customs, trade and immigration. during his tenure, director morton has strengthened investigative efforts with a particular emphasis on border crime, export control, intellectual property enforcement and child exploitation. again, we welcome you to the committee. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me here today to talk about secure communities and our other related initiatives. but the start by saying that i think secure communities is an excellent program and i think it represents one of the most important efforts by the congress to focus eyespots agreement on criminal offenders. as it -- to focus ice's enforcement on criminal offenders.

congress instructed eyes to identify all convicted criminals and prioritize their identification and removal based on the severity of the aliens crimes print congress has reiterated that direction in every single one of our subsequent appropriations and has consistently focused our attention resources accordingly. secure communities was launched in harris county, texas in october 2008. we have come a long way since that time. secure communities is now deployed in every state in the union and fully deployed in every state save alabama and illinois. put another way, secure communities has been deployed to 3074 of a remarkable achievement in just under four years. i am confident we will complete full deployment in the near future, starting with remaining jurisdictions in alabama when

the 11th circuit rules over alabama's immigration law. for the first time in our nation's history, we can uniformly identify individuals who are here unlawfully and subsequently are arrested for a crime provided their fingerprints are on file with the fbi and vhs. -- and dhs. this permits ice to identify large number of criminal offenders subject to removal as well as individuals who have been previously removed or have an outstanding final order of removal. the results have been significant both in terms of immigration enforcement and public safety. we have removed to enter 2000 through the channels alone and -- this year, 75 percent of the individuals remove had a criminal conviction and of the remaining quarter, the overwhelming majority were either at gondar's, immigration

few ships, or had illegally entered the country after having previously been deported one or more times. contrary to what critics allege, the single largest category remove from secure communities are aggregated felons. 17,000 to date, this year alone. madame chair, that it -- that is good law enforcement. as the program has expanded, we have taken care to raise concerns in certain jurisdictions. in particular, we have made important improvements, including considering minor traffic offenses only upon conviction, creating a 24 hour hot line for anyone who believes they have been improperly served, and assuring victims and witnesses are not inadvertently placed and removal proceedings and making sure detainers are valid for no more than 48 hours and developing a strong oversight program in coordination with department -- with the department of one

security. with regard to that program, we have 68 active of grievance. 40 are in a jail sentence. eight of them involve both. the gl model continues to be the most productive, accounting for a little over 9000 of the 900 -- of the 9500 rubles this year. the task force model has proved much less productive with just 361 removals nationwide. we are phasing out such agreements as a result. of the task force agreements that just ended in arizona, six of the seven result in no removal of any kind for the last two years. with regard to over one forssmann, i think we will end the fiscal year with similar results to last year, about 400,000 removals. like last year, this will focus on for some priorities. over half left criminal convictions and the best majority of the rest will be

those who have ignored the final order and those who have been deported before. i am cautiously optimistic we will remove the highest number of aggregate -- of aggravated felons and our history. i want to thank the committee for its thoughtful bipartisan approach. i have always on the committee's oversight of ice to have been firm but fair. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much. i would start off talking about secure communities. it has been a successful program. that was one of the reasons we want to call this hearing today, to do our congressional oversight and italy with the program, how it rolled out, what were some of the hiccups we encountered along the way, and i

think highlight the successful part of this program. everything we're doing with regard to border security is not as successful a secure communities, so it's good to amplify this message about what a successful program it has been. i think a critical component in the way -- and make-up why has been successful is the engagement, a force multiplier that you find by using state and local law enforcement. one thing we always talk about in this committee, a critical element of the 9/11 report we don't want to forget is where they said we have to go from the need to note to the need to share. -- the need to know to the need to share. the various agencies, i think the critical component of our approach to or security and law enforcement. have heard as was mentioned, you

have a pretty good buy in, an excellent buy in across the entire nation. the banking member and i were talking about an art district, local sheriffs are very enthusiastic about this program. it allows them to utilize technology and assuring the fingerprints in the database to know that if they have pulled someone over for a routine traffic stop and they are in the database as a visa overstate or in the country illegally, they are able to contact your agents have looked for deportation. however, we have a situation in alabama which sounds now like it is going to resolve itself hopefully in the fall. the big hold out that we see, so are there are some municipalities in california, the big holdout is the largest county in the nation, the county illinois, which has essentially become a sanctuary city.

and yet the community is looking for federal dollars to pay for detainee's they have in their jails, but they do not want to participate in the secure communities eighth. whether they are releasing these criminal aliens or what have you, i am looking for some response -- just to clarify the alabama situation but what the cook county situation is. >> with regard to alabama, i think that will be resolved and i think we will see full deployment in mr. rogers's home state. i expect the 11th circuit to rule fairly shortly. a think the supreme court decision in arizona will lead us to a place where the 11th

circuit will rule and we will fully deployed in the remaining count these of alabama over the autumn. with regard to illinois, it is a little more of a difficult situation. cook county has one of the largest detention systems and the country. they have adopted an ordinance that prohibits all cooperation with ice even with regard to violent offenders. i have written a number of public letters to the county and i'm very much opposed to their approach. i think it is the wrong way to approach public safety. i am quite confident their approach will ultimately lead to additional crime in cook county that would have been prevented had we that able to enforce the law as presently written.

in very large jurisdictions in the united states, the rate of recidivism can be as high as 50% or more. when we can come in and remove offenders from a given community, guess what, we take that recidivism rate to zero. if you have 100 criminal offenders that we are able to remove them, that is 50 crimes that will not happen because of our enforcement efforts. that is the power of secure communities. it's a direct way to support public safety in a thoughtful manner. what are we trying tutu to to resolve the situation? we have been working with the county to see if there isn't some solution. i won't sugarcoat it. i do not think that approach is going to work and we're going to need the help of others. we have been exploring our

options under federal law with the department of justice and we will see where that goes. with regard to the annual request to be reimbursed for the costs of detaining individuals here unlawfully who have committed crimes, i find that position to be completely inconsistent with and not allowing us access to removing these very same individuals and we will be taking a hard look at their requests. my own position will be if we do not have access to those individuals, we cannot verify their requests for the year. >> i can't tell you how delighted i have to hear you make that candid assessment of what's happening in the cook county and exploring options with regard to financial

assistance. we do want to work with cook county. they need to work with us as well. if they are not going to assist us, because they want to have their city become a sanctuary, government cannot stand idly by and allow that to happen. i'm very appreciative of what you are saying. is there anything further congress can assist you with in that particular instance? if so, we are all ears because we need to resolve that in the correct way. i think cook county has to realize the federal government is very serious about secure committed for a boss -- about secure communities. we cannot have a hold out or they will become a magnet for all kinds of situations there.

going tod say we're give it a very good effort to try to resolve the situation directly with the county and with the department of justice. if we cannot do that, i think we would be happy to come back and explore further options with the committee. from our perspective, the federal law is very clear on the question of cooperation with federal authorities. we think the ordnance is inconsistent with the terms of federal law and i think we share the same aims with the authorities in cook county and that is public safety for the people who live there. it does not make sense to release to the streets similar -- serious criminal offenders should not be released in the first place given the rate of recidivism.

>> you were mentioning the percentage of those that have been previously removed and picked up again. 16% you are picking up had been previously removed, which begs the question about some of the effectiveness we have around border security. were you surprised by that number? >> some of the criticism of secured communities has been that it identifies and removes certain individuals prior to conviction. it does do that, but it does that in circumstances that make a lot of sense from an enforcement perspective. when you look at who are these people, they are people that have already been removed from

the country and have come back unlawfully or they have been through the immigration system and have a final order and ignore the final order. the only way you can identify it is to be identified for a crime. we are talking about people who have been in the criminal justice system and have been previously removed. congress has been very clear with regard to both of those categories of people, that their removal is a priority and so of course we focus on those two categories even if they do not have a criminal conviction. otherwise we would release to the streets and in have deported before. it is a felony to re-enter the country after a priority deportation. it's not right not to focus on those priorities for those individuals. >> the chair recognizes the

right member. >> i certainly want to congratulate you on the great work you have been doing. if you lucked at the jurisdiction -- there is a map here and you can see everything here that shows it is a 97%. it is a pretty amazing, particularly the ones we have been focusing on. i want to congratulate you. i ask you to look at the written testimony because he doesn't talk about the efficiency and that there is the transparency and the safeguards the sheriff had talked about.

to make sure they do the work and make sure there is no profiling involved. the input is a very important and i certainly want to thank you on that. besides alabama and illinois, i believe there were a couple of jurisdictions that have passed ordinances -- california, san francisco, again, to follow up, it makes common sense. when i did the tour, the county's i represent, i was traveling in rural areas, urban areas -- they like it because if you are a small community, it is important you get this help. it was -- you are able to remove

those folks who need to be removed. for a rural community, that means a lot. the other thing is that it is just common sense. if you have somebody there and they are wanted for something else, it is only common sense. that communication part, i think you are working to make sure there are folks at the state and local level and i appreciate that but sometimes state politicians have a way of attacking the federal government and at the same time, they have one hand out there and i don't to point out my state of texas but they say don't do this and then they wait for the money. i think you need to do -- i don't represent those communities, but they can't say we don't want you to do secure

communities and then at the same time they are requesting federal daughter -- federal dollars for holding those persons in there and asking for reimbursements. i would ask you to look at those communities very carefully because they can't say we don't want you here. they cannot be selective in what moneys. federal law should prevent what they are doing their unless it is under article 10 and we understand that, but just look at those carefully because it would be unfair to say we don't want you bet than have the handout for getting a reimbursement. i don't have any questions to ask that i just want to say i think you are doing a great job. it's a very balanced approach you are doing out there. it can become political sometimes and it's not your job to be political but you are

doing this in a very transparent, fair and focused way to make sure we get people who are not supposed to be in the united states and get them out. criminals are not supposed to be here. we appreciate your good work. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the chair of the full committee. >> thank you. in june of 2011, a memorandum between ice and dhs indicated statistical monitoring would be used to identify possible nominees under secure communities with reports at least one supporter. what has been the result of the statistical monitoring to date? >> one of the major reforms we

undertook it to improve the transparency of the program and address concerns that somehow secure communities might have been used to promote racial profiling was to create a statistical analysis and we've teamed up with the office of civil rights and civil liberties at home led security so it was not just something i saw was doing itself. we have knowledgeable experts in this area and we help them to hire a statistician. we started statistical analyses and we are looking at the first couple of instances in which the statistics appear to be a novelist. we are doing a couple of things there. first and foremost, we are trying to work with the departments of justice in the civil rights division to use their expertise with some

modeling and to understand the statistics. there can be lots of reasons why a particular county has a statistical spikes. some of them not necessarily related to civil-rights concerns so we are working to come up with a cross department toll approached. we do not have civil rights investigative authority. the second thing we are doing is were we to identify any particular jurisdiction that does have a concern, we would work with the civil rights division to a engage in a direct investigation in the form of interviews, and on the ground inspections. we were doing our own auditing of the program.

we go around and audit the results ourselves. i am happy to say that to date, we have had the first set of results and it suggests there are some counties we need to do deeper digging to determine what is going on. >> if at some point when you have moved along with the program, some of us would be interested in seeing some of those reports for our review. >> i think we would be happy to give the committee a briefing on our results and sure exactly what we have found. >> on a local matter, adams county, mississippi, where some

are sometimess house, there was a rash of gang- related violence that led to the death of one guard and several injured. explain to me and two committee members what kind of oversight do you give private contractors that have contracts with ice? describe what you would expect of those companies in this particular instance. >> several things. we have the attention standards worked into our contract that they must abide by. many larger facilities are focused on are used, we have our

employees their in addition to the contractors. we routinely visit them. with regard to gang violence, what we do is, just as in the criminal justice system, we screen for gang affiliations at intake, so we classify people based on their criminal convictions, but we are looking for gang affiliations as well and we do what we can to separate gang members so we do not create an undue concentration in a particular facility. not everybody volunteers. the less of that -- the use of tattoos is less than it was in the past, but we do our best. >> it i would like to get with you to further this discussion

about this particular facility. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> it is interesting constitutional debate raging across the country right now in the wake of the supreme court ruling on the arizona law. i bring that up because i think there will be future supreme court rulings on this. i want to point to justice scalia's dissenting opinion where he talks about the rise of the sovereign states and what rights the states have and the enforcement of federal law and what rights do states have in securing their own borders. i would point to read that if

you have not because it's very interesting going forward. i was reading the memorandum from march 2, 2011, where you point out some priorities. thank you for what you do and what the agency does and i also want to mention the fallen officer mentioned earlier. our condolences to his family. but going back to the priorities -- it's interesting that you have a recent illegal entrants -- that need to someone just entered the country and is apprehended, they get priority to be taken back to their home country. then in the june 17 memorandum,

it talks about the length of presence in the united states. someone that broke the same law and crossed the border, just because they have been in the country longer than someone else, they are given priority. can you explain the reasoning behind that? >> sure. we start out and the beginning equation is what can we do with their resources congress has provided us? on average, we can remove about 400,000 people per year with the resources we have. our statutory direction is broader than that. to me, the question is who are those 400,000 people going to be? i think in a world of limited resources, you have to say it will be the 400,000 people who make the most sense --

>> i don't mean to interrupt you. you are having to use their resources but apprehension as apprehension whether they've been here 10 years or whether they have just crossed the border. in your priority, if they have been here longer, you will let them go if they just across the border, you are going to send back? >> not quite. it's not a question of apprehension but tensions and ultimate removal. we have to get a removal order before we can remove somebody from the united states. we have a limited number of detention beds. do we focus on someone who just came across the border as opposed to someone who just came across 10 years ago and has two children and three cars in the driveway? in those circumstances, we focus on the person who violated the

law most recently and focus on those who committed a crime. if i have to pick between putting a criminal and detention space or someone who has been here long time, going to pick criminal everytime because of much greater effect on public safety and emigration of enforcement what i do that. >> >> where do the overstays, in that hierarchy? >> there -- they are a very difficult situation. it is a real challenge for us. i do not want to minimize it. roughly 40% of the people who are in the country unlawfully originally came on visa. the short answer to question is the fall and the other question is the fault in the second player to station -- pric

oritization and the other question is have they been here a relatively recent amount of time or long amount of time? today half other equities? to they have united states citizen children, are they married to a u.s. citizen. those are the real world decisions we have to make when using the resources congress gives us. there are more people than we can put in beds. and was reading about fingerprint data. >> as the chairman noted, right after 9/11, congress mandated information sharing. not only do we use it for purposes overseas, it is the basis for secure communities. it is challenging in that typically the address we will i-94 if someone is

going to disneyland, they list a hotel. that is the last record we have to go from. then we have to do database searches and determine where the person lives. it is a challenging enforcement regime. we do have access to the database. >> my time is up. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. it is good to see you again. you stated the program is an essential component of the comprehensive immigration enforcement strategy. do you still agree with that assessment? >> i do, particularly for the jail model where it has proven to be a good use of our resources and taxpayer dollars. i do not feel that way with

regard to many of the task force agreements that have become unproductive and resulted in no removals. >> on the ice website and in your statement, there is a lot of very positive statements regarding the 287-g agreements and help is greatly kenaf federal state and local law- enforcement agencies working together. -- and how it is great that you can have federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies working together. you recently got rid of that agreement with arizona, state and local law-enforcement agencies. what is the reasoning behind it? why pick arizona as the sole

one to remove a program that you said is an essential component s'sthe chess's -- dh comprehensive enforcement strategy. >> the agreements we terminated were task force agreements. we did not terminate the jail model agreements. they continue to be in place. why did we terminate those models? because they were leading to know removals. we view them as unproductive and not a good use of taxpayer resources. >> the timing of this, it was within a couple of hours after the supreme court ruled the main portion of arizona state law, when it secretary of napolitano made the statement, did they contact you about why they would do it in such close proximity to

the supreme court ruling and if they would remove the task force agreement if the supreme court ruled differently? what was the conversation? the timing is extraordinarily curious. if the task force were not operating in the manner you would have liked or that dhs would have liked, would it have been sooner or later? but within hours after the supreme court ruled, that is a very interesting timeline. i would love to hear what they spoke to you about. i would like to hear about going forward. >> we had discussions under way with the department for some time on the phone. of the task force's. in the president's budget request for this year, the department and omb are seeking fewer dollars for the 287-g program precisely because the

model has proved to be unproductive. we were not going to remove the agreements that were rescinded in arizona for the next fiscal year. we were going to terminate them in a few months. in discussions, we decided it made sense upon the supreme court ruling not to have a series of truncated efforts that were producing zero removals 47 years running in 67 cases. we decided to do it all at once. >> there was a concerted effort and conscious decision that because of the decision by the supreme court, we wanted to do it quickly after that. i do not understand why it was necessary unless for political reasons from the administration.

>> we thought it made the most sense to do it at the same time. we knew we were going to terminate those agreements. they were producing no removals. we knew there would be questions about how things would operate. we wanted to set the record very clear going forward. you can call the law enforcement support center 24 hours a day for assistance. we will respond to law- enforcement queries in arizona pursuant to our priorities. we will not continue or suggest we will continue with task forces that were not a good use of taxpayer resources. i think the record is very clear on that. anything -- spending money on something that leads to zero removals in two years does not make sense. >> in looking at the crux of the

law and trying to cooperate with federal law enforcement officials to a year to federal law, the chairwoman was mentioning earlier cook county not being cooperative with the secure communities, have you heard of any action the government will take against cook county? will they sue? will they have the doj take them to court? they are contradicting federal law rather than trying to aid federal law-enforcement officials. i want to know if you have heard anything about that. >> the short answer is i have personally met with the department of justice to raise my concerns. those concerns are shared by the secretary. she has testified to that. we're in discussions with the

department of justice to see what we can do on many fronts to come to a better resolution in secure communities in cook county. i think we all agree the present approach is not a good one. i do not know if you heard my answer before on the question of if we can work with the department of justice to look at individual options we may have to get to a better place with the county but also to look at the county's annual requests for reimbursement for the individuals they detained. in past years, cook county has received several million dollars each year from the federal government to reimburse it for the costs of detaining people. >> you have not heard anything about a federal lawsuit. it was swift when arizona passed their own law. the doj came in quickly.

you have had serious issues with county and discussions with doj. is there a lawsuit pending? >> i have not heard back from the department of justice. we have only been meeting for the last couple of months. they wanted to see how certain pieces of certain court decisions came out. i expect to hear from them shortly. i can tell you resolving the issue in cook county is very important for me. it is one of the largest detention systems in the country. it is not a question of cook county releasing some individuals to us. they are releasing no individuals to us, including violent offenders. i do not think that is good policy. >> my time is expired. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the

gentle lady from texas, sheila jackson lee. >> thank you. welcome director morton and thank you for your service. let me offer my concern for the officers involved in an incident of violence to their families, who were impacted, to their families and your organization. we must always look to thanking those on the front lines for us. i want to make sure that i do so. i believe the work you have been doing is very important, but i have never come to an immigration hearing in judiciary or homeland security, what this

country needs is comprehensive immigration reform so we are not confusing and juxtaposing benefits and the right opportunity for those who want to emigrate to this country and enforcement against those who would want to do less harm. -- to do us harm. your community has its failures and its value. i think it is important we tried to determine lessons we have learned and how we can be more effective. i support the president's decision on the dream act. living in a state like texas, we have seen 99% good as opposed to harm. many of us have met the students that will be impacted. i appreciate there has been the

utilization of powers under the law that your agency has been effective in utilizing. i think this executive order will be helpful to all of us. it would be better under comprehensive immigration reform. i will speak to two issues quickly. a 14-year-old girl was mistakenly reported to colombia by immigration agents. she gave agents a fake name that belonged to a 22-year-old illegal alien with warrants for her arrest. she was held in the harris county jail. ice agents took her fingerprints but did not confirm her identity before deporting her. according to media reports, the chicago-area resident born in india and naturalized as a citizen was flagged as an illegal immigrant after a drug- related arrest because the federal government never updated his immigration status. he was held in a maximum

security prison before ice acknowledge the error and canceled the detention order. both cases are troubling. my office engaged ice on one of these troubling stories, the one in houston. what failures would allow u.s. citizen to detain -- to be detained? share the outreach efforts initiated through secure communities, if at all, and lessons learned on both cases. thank you. >> let me start with the database issue. one of the lessons that has become clear is that when you have an information sharing system that depends on information in databases, the sharing and results are only as good as the information in the

system. we have to have accurate records in place. the chicago case is under litigation. i have got to be careful about what i say in that case. i do think it highlights the need to have accurate records from all the pieces of the puzzle. part of secure communities is congress mandated the sharing of information. it is all across the department of homeland security and the federal government. we need to make sure the information is correct. with regard to the 14-year-old, five view that case as a very sad -- i view that case is a very sad case. the young ladies history was somewhat troubled. there were many steps along the way from the moment she was

arrested by the local police, she managed to fool the judge, a prosecutor, her own defense attorney, ultimately ice, and ultimately columbian authorities. she got residency upon -- in her time there. we did meet with you and other members of the caucus. we took a hard look. it told us with regard to juvenile offenders, when we have some sense that something is awry, we've got to go the extra mile with juveniles to make sure we're not making a mistake. that is why i am a big believer in improved transparency of the secure communities program.

we as an agency were not as transparent as we should have been. we should have had better our reach. in many communities, it is misunderstood. there is rumor, innuendo, concerns. the best way to answer those criticisms is to have outreach and meet with people. we are doing that, and then to involve members such as yourself. a very much appreciate the assistance you gave us in texas when we have the outreach. to guard -- when we had it out reach with regard to the dream act kids. i think those things are very helpful. we have got to get out there. when the mistake is made, not run from that mistake. own i.d., try to improve the system. operates on a large scale. mistakes will happen. get out and explain to people why we're doing things the way

we are. we need to do that in a dispassionate and professionally. >> thank you for your indulgence. there was one element where the fingerprints were not checked. are you going to be more persistent in looking at those elements to ascertain what condition this person is in? >> we are. one of the tricks and her case is that she had never been encountered in a way that led to fingerprinting. there was no prior fingerprint to compare against. the fingerprint taken at harris county was the first time she had been fingerprinted in a way that i could check. we need to figure out a way, particularly with young juveniles, to have extra

procedures in place. i have never seen a case like hers in my entire time in the federal government. she was able to adopt an identity that many parts of the system believed. that is not a perfect answer. the result needs to be that the system needs to deal with that even when a troubled person adopts an identity like that. i will say i think it is a relatively rare case. >> we are going to be closing. >> i think this has been a very helpful hearing. i appreciate the director's comments. with new technology and everything, young people being more mature, we need to be focused on being attentive to

those kinds of cases. i would ask if the chair and ranking member would consider incidents occurring at the border. there are lawsuits going on with respect to leadership of the border. there are some troubling incidences where documented u.s. citizens papers are being taken away. they are being forced to sign papers they are not u.s. citizen. we want to make sure we do not have illegal entry, but we also are concerned that our u.s. citizens that may decide to temporarily live in mexico are having their documents voided out of pressure and intimidation. i believe is a valuable inquiry to make. i will write a letter to that extent and ask for further opportunity to look into that. i yield back. i hope you both consider that as an important hearing.

we give resources to customs, cbp. i think those resources should be used in illegal way. i think these incidences require our viewing. i yield back. >> i would comment to all members that the record will be held open for 10 days. any other additional comments or questions can be submitted for the record. i want to thank director morton for attending today. i think this was an excellent hearing. a lot of questions, a lot of good answers. a lot of challenges ahead for your agency, for this committee, for the nation as we try to do our best to make sure we have secure borders. i know you are running for an airplane. we have tried to be timely and cognizant of that fact. we appreciate your service. on behalf of a grateful nation, we appreciate the men and women

in your agency that worked diligently every day to keep our country safe. this subcommittee will stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> tomorrow, we will bring you two live events from the woodrow wilson center.

the conversation on the future of syria at noon on c-span. if you want to care more about the topic of homeland security, we will take you to a forum on border security. officials from the homeland security department talk about developing border strategies. that is live at 2:00 eastern on c-span3. >> hitler realized these armies were not coming to his aid and were trying to escape to the west. that is when he realized it was going to come to an end and it was only a question of suicide. >> a new look at the second world war from eight of hitler's rise to power to his dark final days. >> his main objective was to not be kept alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a cage and

being ridiculed. he was determined to die. eva braun was determined to die with him. >> tonight at 8:00. next, highlights from question time in the australian parliament. cabinet members answered questions. members also debated the government's position on the immigration policy. this 20-minute program is courtesy of australia's public affairs channel. >> we are going to show you highlights of the australian parliament. it has been a busy time in australian politics.

the influx of asylum seekers has heightened political tensions in this parliament. during june, a number of votes arise. two -- during june, a number of boats arrived. two collapsed. both agree sending them to another country to have claims processed would deter people trying to make the journey here. but they cannot agree on where this offshore processing should take place. we saw in the debate and emotional and heated exchange over what to do about this problem. also, we now have a carbon price in australia from july 1. the carbon tax came into effect. it is being strongly opposed by the opposition. here are some of the highlights. >> my question is to the acting prime minister.

can the acting prime minister name a single head of government at the g-20 government -- of the g-20 conference who has hit workers and families of a carbon tax of a least $23 a ton? >> order. does the opposition want to hear an answer or not? >> i have been to a few g-20 conferences. those around the table know there is no stronger developed country in the g-20 than australia. but of course, what do we do? what do we get here? day after day, the opposition comes into this house and those around the community and talks

our economy down, deliberately insulting those hard-working businesses and millions of workers that have worked hard to make our economy strong. i have been asked by the leader of the opposition how many countries are at the g-20 table putting in place policies to deal with dangerous climate change and putting in place -- >> order. >> can i just say this? >> the acting prime minister has the call. >> 17 of the g-20 members or 85% are putting in place trading schemes and a national or sub- national level. that is what is going on in the g-20. you would be terribly embarrassed. the g-20 nations and developed

and developing economies and to appreciate the need to deal with reducing carbon pollution and are putting in place and emissions trading scheme. let's go specifically to some of the countries around the table. >> the leader of the opposition on a point of order. >> i asked if he could name a single country with a $23 a ton carbon tax. a single one. >> the acting prime minister is answering questions and has the call. >> i would be happy to address it. over the four years to july of 2011, european carbon prices have traded in the range of $16 to $50. what countries might be in that situation? france, italy, the united

kingdom, a range of developing economies that are part of the europeans came. they will come into this house and maintained european prices are low at the moment. there is no reason it will stay there. we do know the carbon prices in the european zone have traded between $16.50 dollars over the four years through to the middle of 2011. i think that answers that question clearly. you are so embarrassed for your performance here. countries around the world are putting in place trading schemes because they understand the importance of dealing with dangerous climate change. >> it was the immigration issue that became the main focus during the june sitting of the australian parliament. two boats capsized on their way to australia carrying asylum seekers. about 100 people feared drowned. the two sides of politics cannot

agree on what to do about this. it was an emotion-charged debate. a bill did pass the lower house but not the senate, the upper house. a political stalemate continues. >> on behalf of the house, i want to abolish the dreadful tragedy that happened thursday last week when an asylum-seeker boat capsized with considerable loss of life. deputies speaker, the precise details of this matter still remain unknown. what we do know is there were likely to be over 200 people on board this boat, including 113- year-old boy. it did capsize with a considerable loss of life. survivors were rescued. at this stage, we are unable to determine how many lost their lives. 110 survivors have been transferred to authorities on

christmas island. a number have been transferred to the mainland for treatment. this is a dreadful human tragedy. i know members across parliament would be feeling the weight of that. we can see many in our community who are grieving from this dreadful news >> i rise to support the remarks from the prime minister after this disaster. we mourn for the dead, we grieve for the living who have suffered much and we offer our support to the navel and other personnel who have done what they could in the search and rescue effort. if there is anyone to blame in a tragic situation like this, surely it is the people smugglers to pray on desperate people desire for a better life in australia. obviously, madam deputy speaker

call on all of us consult our consciences on what is the best course of action to take. housere all of us in this are resolved to policies in place that will end forever this evil trade. >> i believe it would be wise for the government to allow this matter to be concluded. with the minister on duty, i raise the chief government whip and i believe this matter is of such grave importance. there are very serious issues that need to be resolved. the leader is moving in motion to allow a bill to be debated that would solve the processing crisis to the extent it exists across all members of this parliament, in this house, and i would hope that the other is

offshore processing should take place at least in 148 countries have signed the refugee convention. the support of that was outlined by the prime minister who stated it was the government's's policy before the last election that she would only send people for offshore processing to a country that signed the refugee convention. there is an opportunity to pass the bill reflects the consensus and gives the government the protection than the powers they have to strengthen and restore control our borders and insure our borders can be strong and they are not compromised and they are not weakened by the continuation of the policies we have seen. time hasmber's expired. >> i would like to reiterate that this bill should pass this

parliament, not only because of events today but because of the events of the last decade. i urge all members of this house to at least allow this to be tried and, if it doesn't work, take it to the next election, take it to the people. we should allow an executive to do its job. this is in no way of running interference on community-based attention or issues of genuine refugees status in australia. it is trying to stop a loss of life for people trying to get to australia for a number of reasons. this is trying to reach bilateral agreements in the pacific region to slow the movement of people within our

region. this is attending to break criminal syndicates are running off the edges of asylum sequel -- asylum seekers and genuine refugees involved in an assiduous trade and the one that doesn't get much time in australia but should, the worst crime of all in my view, the crime of people trafficing, particularly in the sex trade in the asia-pacific region and right here in australia as well. the a strong and people are watching this parliament and asking the question will this parliament put aside partisan political divide to save lives? this parliament should today say yes. we will put aside politics of the ordinary days and put aside partisan point scoring and we

will act to save lives. >> i will not attract any thing during these debates and there's a vote at the end. minister has the call. >> their people have criticized the malaysia agreement and there are people who will continue to criticize the agreement is being too harsh. there are difficult decisions for governments and parliaments to make. there is nothing as harsh as dying on the sea. there is nothing as harsh as saying to people that you must risk your life to come to australia in order to receive australia's protection. there's nothing humanitarian about that approach and there's nothing as harsh as saying we will let that position continue. >> before question time, i was the senior opposition representative on this inquiry that looked at the disaster in

december when a boat left jakarta with what truly hundreds of boats before it. sales and arrived on christmas island. but it arrived at christmas island on a day with the worst sea state people in the island have seen in their lifetimes. other members in this chamber will recount the day where we went down to where the boat floundered and spoke to the australian personnel who -- who

had rescued the people who are on that ship. they told us specifically about when the ship came in, the state was so bad that flooded the engine of the boat. the boat had no power left to proceed under its own steam, so it could only be captured and pushed onto the rocks and taken back out and it would be pushed onto the rocks again. the australians and christmas islanders stood on the shore and they were literally the distance between myself and the government's. in fact, in some stages they

were closer. there were so close someone manage to jump, this incredibly lucky individual jumped from the vessel onto christmas island. that is how close they came to the island itself. one of the australians told me he looked at the face of a child who he could not rescue even though he could almos touch her. that child perished.

the australian forces will be dealing with similar things at the moment, and of course they dealt with a terrible tragedy. >> denied his commend all the speakers have made contributions to this extremely serious debate. when i look at this debate, i look at my own position where was 12 months ago and what my views were and where they are today, and you might ask what has changed my views. in the last 12 months, we have seen the tragic disasters of christmas island a few months ago, the tragic scene on our televisions this weekend as the young men who found themselves in a boat capsized have lost their lives. at first, we did not know how many survived but the majority we believe have not been found. the ones who did make it, i looked at their faces and being

the father of two young men myself, this is a tragedy we have to do whatever it takes to stop. what we have here before us today in this chamber is a first that. to sit here as members of parliament as we do every day when question time as on and we are debating bills and do nothing about this subject is absolutely wrong. >> i'm always reluctant to speak early in this debate because for a whole lot of personal reasons, emotions run very deep with me in relation to refugees. one member says his forbearers came here in the 1970's. my father came here as a refugee on the third of september, 1948. he came from a country where there was war. he had to wait his turn, but he

was desperate to come here. there is a great deal of hypocrisy from time to time in this debate i will say one thing to you and i will say it deliberately to this parliament -- i will never ever support a people swap where you can send a 13-year-old child on a company to a country without supervision. never. it will be over my dead body. how dare people some people say they are wrestling with their conscience. i'm not. i know exactly what i want to do.

the compromise the leader of the opposition offered today, it went some way forward to offering a solution, be it there or somewhere else, i fought with the previous prime minister, prime minister about this. i opposed it until the moment he assured me that at all times, australians would be able to supervise the people who were sent there, that they would be protected, that they would have health care and education support, until he could says -- until he could assure me those most vulnerable would be protected. that was when i agreed with him and i was prepared to cross the floor in a previous government with an absolute majority

because i disagreed with that treatment of those most vulnerable by my prime minister. until he assured me personally together with the minister of immigration that no child would never be abandoned in another country once they had come under the protection of australia, until he assured me of that, i would not support it. but he did. this government is now asking us to support a situation where a 13-year-old child could be sent to another nation without any regard to their welfare after that moment. and even if we have word from the immigration minister about a case by case basis, it back and from time to time the enactment of it is the most damning thing for our conscience. i feel it is highly

consistent and that is why was so angry about being gagged before. because i have wrestled, like many others, with their conscience on this debate. but i am entirely consistent. i will sleep easy because i know from my own background and from what i have done in the past, that i am going to be consistent, no matter how painful it might be in the electorate, no matter how hard it might be explaining it to my constituents, i rest easy on this because i am being entirely consistent with what is within my soul. >> the question is therefore resolved in the affirmative. >> that was the highlights of the australian parliament sitting in june. thank you for your company. see you next time.

>> next, the green party nominee from today's "washington journal." she talked about the green party platform and the challenges of third parties in an election year. this is 45 minutes. host: dr. jill stein is the green party presidential candidate and joins us here after being nominated yesterday in baltimore. dr. stein, tell us about the green party platform and what kind of specific changes are you proposing that would make the green party administration different than what's being proposed by the two mainstream candidates. guest: the green party, i think it's fair to say, is the only national progressive party that is not funded by corporate money. in fact, probably the only

national party that's not funded by corporate money. so that gives us incredible liberty to be able to meet the needs of the american people that are not being met currently. so we share certain things in common, i think you could say, with the democratic party platform, as it used to be at any rate. many people think we are now the real democratic party because we have the liberty to propose real solutions that meet the needs of the american people, so first and foremost, we are talking about jobs and not two or 3 million jobs, but a jobs plan that really is commensurate with the magnitude of the problem. we do have a jobs emergency. we're talking about 25 million jobs through a program we call the green new deal because it would essentially eliminate unemployment, it would jumpstart the green economy for the 21st century and in doing so, it would basically put a

halt to climbat change and make wars for oil obsolete. so that's number one. we have a jobs emergency, let's fix it, we've done it before, the model of the new deal. let's put it to work now. why aren't we doing that. we could. the stimulus package of 2009, you may recall, had a lot of tax breaks and subsidies for corporations, but unfortunately, that doesn't create jobs. it did create some, but not enough to really get us out of this very entrenched severe repression in which we have recession, sorry, in which we have so many people who are chronicle unemployed. chronically unemployed. we're talking about health care as a human right for everyone. so we're actually calling for medicare for all. it works in the way that medicare works. people love their medicare, don't want government to mess with it, even though it is a government created program.

the overhead in medicare is just 3 percent, while in our current private health care system, the overhead is 30 percent. so medicare for all basically covers everyone, comprehensively, puts you back in charge of your health care, and saves us actually trillions of dollars over the course of the next decade by eliminating that massive, wasteful health insurance bureaucracy and by putting an end to medical inflation. those are two of our major polices and i'll just mention quickly, we're also calling for free public higher education. we've done it before through the g.i. bill, we put millions of returning soldiers after world war ii through college for free and we know the numbers. for every dollar we taxpayers invested, we received about $7 worth of benefits to the economy, to tax revenues and so

on and finally, we're calling for downsizing the military. let's take it back to this before this massive expansion of the last decade where the military doubled. it hasn't made us safer. it has actually made us less secure because we're pouring effectively a trillion dollars a year into some bloated military industrial security complex. we want to bring about half of that back into our economy and give us hundreds of billions of dollars to meet our needs here at home. host: it is dr. jill stein and you are a doctor of? guest guest general medicine for adults, internal medicine. host: do you think this gives you a better perspective on how to handle or tackle the health care issue than the current president or the republican presumptive nominee? guest: you know, i think it would be fair to say that i've experienced the health care system inside out, upside down, backwards and forwards, so as a consumer, as a member of a family, and as a provider. so yes indeed.

and further, because i'm not taking money from the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies who have actually written the bills, it gives me a lot of freedom to actually do the right thing. and finally i would add that in massachusetts, we already have omabacare or romneycare, or whatever you'd like to call it, for all the difference between them and it has helped some people, particularly the poor, but it hurts other people. this is what studdies show after four years. it pits the working poor and the near poor against the poor. that's not a way to solve our health care problem. furthermore, when you get sick, you find that oh, it was great having that piece of paper but it actually doesn't cover you. people are still struggling with serious coverage problems, even under omabacare and romneycare, so it's not a solution. it's actually a distraction, intended to take the wind out of the sails of the real movement that is growing for

health care as a human right through medicare for all. host: dr. jill stein joins us in our studios to talk about the green party platform and her candidacy. she announced that she was running in october 2011, at the nomination got the nomination yesterday at the convention in baltimore and will be talking to us about what's happening with the green party and her candidacy moving forward. and some of the challenges in breaking through the two party system. if you have calls: here are the numbers:

caller: i was wondering if the green party candidate were elected as president, she would govern considering i don't think there are any green party members in congress. there are none in the house of representatives, there are 435 house of representatives, there are no green party members there, there are no green party people in the senate. and further, i just wondered, are there any green party people elected legislators in the 50 state legislatures? i sort of think you should build the party from the bottom up rather than the top down. >> guest: really good questions.

first, it is very clear that we are not really governing right now. we have two entrenched parties who are unfortunately hamstrung. they both have their arms tied really by their funders and their lobbyists and they disagree and they can't sit down and talk like human beings and figure out a solution. so in many ways exactly what we need is something from outside of that wall street sponsored two party system. and here's how it would work, and i can say that we've actually done this in massachusetts, even while being out of government and we actually see this happen. you may recall with the sopa bill and the pipa bills, the stop online piracy act that the public was so alarmed about we did not want censorship of the internet and we did not have an advocate on capitol hill and the media wasn't filling us in on it but basically every day

people got out there and blew the whistle and we mobilized ourselves, we weighed in with our elected officials and boom, it was dead. that should be the model, actually, for how we either move or don't move bills and legislation, that the public deserves to be informed and empowered and to direct their representatives to direct them. and the president, if she wanted to, could not only be commander in chief but org kneeser in chief and be sure that people knew there's a health care bill for all coming up next week, here are the three reasons why it matters to you, now go call your elected senator and your congressmen and will and let them know why you need that bill. host: james ard sent us this tweet and says mass care teaches citizens to be more like europeans and cheat the system. it's the end of civil society. guest: well, i guess that's one

point of view. on the other hand, we have a good health care system right now under medicare. that provides health care much more efficiently than the privatized system. we got something that's working, why not make it work. you can get yourself trapped into certain kinds of ideological ways of thinking that limit your use of what's actually working and not working in the real world, to take health care as an example, we know the privatized system is not working. now that the extreme court has limited the medicaid expansion. it's not going to work. we know that from massachusetts. there's a track record here we can actually look at. i'm a medical doctor. eye training, i tend to look at

the facts on the ground which is important, you know, when you go to your doctor you don't want them to ignore your blood pressure and your cholesterol, you want an evidence based approach, strategy. so we can do that in the area of policy. we can actually look at what's working and what's not, and bring our community values to bear on that, as on that. as a green i'm not anchored in a particular ideology except our community values and the understanding that in order to meet human needs and have jobs and a workable economy, we need to acknowledge that we also exist in a finite world with limited resources and those are environmental resources as well. the economy and the environment can work together. host: our next call for dr. stein comes from dorothy who identifies herself as a member of the green party. she's calling from richfield, new jersey this morning. go ahead dorothy. caller: hey mike. i heard you this morning at your convention where you were

nominate and i felt as though i was listening to myself. i've been saying the same things for years, this needs to be repealed, we need to take our country back, we have to stop calling social security, medicare and medicaid entitlements. social security is not insolvent. and we have to convince people that government is not the boogyman, government is us, and i am very inspired and i will certainly work to help organize green party members during this election cycle. host: dorothy, before we let you go, can you tell us who you voted for in the last presidential election and what appeals, what is it about dr. stein that appeals to you over the two mainstream candidates? caller: reluctantly i voted for barack obama.

because i could not vote for john mccain. but i was not thrilled with that choice. i feel that dr. stein embodies my beliefs as an american citizen because i think this is my country, it doesn't belong to the corporate entities that are running it, we've become a plutocracy, and that a plutocracy and that scares me. host: we're going to leave it there. dr. stein. guest: thank you very much, dorothy. i think the american people agree with you to look at polls, people are not happy with the choices that they have. a recent "washington post" poll around the turn of the year actually said that about 9 percent, one out of two every people, felt we need a third party and they would seriously consider voting for one.

your concern for health care as a human right, for a finance system that is regulated that can't exploit us, take us down with waste, fraud and abuse, the american people want to see that system regulated, we want to preserve medicare and social security. so there is enormous public agreement with you, and again, as a noncorporate funded candidate, i actually have the unique ability to bring the voice of the american people into this election and ensure that when we go into the voting booth we don't have to simply give a mandate for four more years of wall street rule that has been so destructive to our jobs, our wages, our economy, our health care system, the off shoring, the free trade agreements that continue to expand under this president. this is the kind of choice that

the american people are clamoring for, thank you. host: maverick cents this tweet and writes dr. jill stein, please give us your position on taxes, contrasted the rich, middle class and the poor. guest: yeah, well over the last several decades we've seen a real shift in the tax burden. wealthy, profitable corporations used to pay what was about 5 percent of our gdp in taxes. that's a huge it's a substantial portion of our tax base. and that has shrunk over the decades. it has shrunk, actually, to about 1 percent. so those who can most afford it are not paying their burden. over the last couple of years, we saw some of the most profitable corporations pay nothing in taxes, absolutely zero, including g.e., whose head is the chair of the president's jobs council. so you know, in addition to dodging their taxes, they're

also off shoring our jobs. so we need a tax system that meets the needs of the american people. we need for example to tax capital gains like income so, that working people aren't paying a higher percentage than millionaires and billionaires like they currently are. we also need to put a tax on wall street transactions so that we reign in this reckless speculation on wall street that's been so harmful to the economy at the same time that we bring in hundreds of billions of dollars every year to support the economy and the civil society that we all benefit from. host: next up a call from antwon, calling from washington, d.c. this morning, antwon, you're on with green party presidential candidate dr. jill stein. caller: good morning, c span, good morning, dr. stein. the first caller kind of like stole my thunder because when we first got started, i was thinking to myself like how's

there a party that wants to go to the top but hasn't have a strong foothold in america at the bottom with our state legislators and i was wondering if you can get more hold of that, then you can build your platform and then become president but because republicans and democrats are so ingrained in our psyche to the root, where you where you have to battle with small before you can battle it on the biggest stage. guest: a good call antwon and i appreciate the question and certainly in running this race we intend to do both, that is, encourage the growth of an opposition party, a party that can really stand for every day people, for the things that we need, for jobs, for affordable higher education, for health care. we want to promote those needs at every level possible.

i myself really subscribe to that theory, and for most of my activist life, i have worked at the state and local level only. what tipped the balance for me was last year, hearing the president put medicare and social security and medicaid on the chopping block and offer them up as a way to solve the debt ceiling crisis, and i kind of, you know, for me, that was just the breaking point. i said i can't be quiet about that. thank goodness, there is a national level of green party, which is effectively the only opposition party out there, thank goodness there is a national level, because i certainly wasn't part of that national level work at all, for all the reasons that you say. we need to be building locally. that's where grassroots democracy is strongest and where it builds from. and when i heard the president saying well, let's start biting into medicare and social security, i felt like oh my

god, we can't let this go unchallenged. so the reality unfortunately is that we have some real emergencies before us right now. the economy is in grave danger, you know, we have been seriously wounded economic economically by waste, fraud and abuse on wall street and it hasn't been fixed, it hasn't been contained. the dodd frank bill is extremely watered down and the process of them establishing its regulations make it even more watered down. so it's not working. we have several new crises that are just beginning to unfold now and we could get taken down again in the nigeria weeks or the next months. we're still in a very precarious position economically. we're continuing to off shore jobs, wages are continuing to decline, the president is holding up gm as the model for recovery. gm, where workers' wages have been slashed while corporate profits continue to skyrocket. this is not acceptable for the american public. we deserve a voice in this election now. host: lydia is our next caller

on other line for independents calling from woodstock, illinois this morning. good morning lydia. caller: good morning. i want to offer up a canon. you have to have an organizing principle to rally around, the following quote from dion, quote, in the end, we will conserve only what we love, love only what we understand, understand only what we are taught. that is magnificent. now, as a small business owner of not only a corporation, but another business, i will rally and produce support, i will offer up i will make sure we have some format on the square and i will develop processes not through the venue of money, which is what has happened to both parties, but i think you also need business support, and

i do feel with the canon as i proposed, we will have the opportunity to redesign our goals and the destinations that this country deserves to have. thank you. host: lydia, before dr. stein answers your question, talk to us about why you identified yourself as an independent, rather than being a member of the green party. caller: well, because i had that number available, and i worked yesterday, i did not see her program, i saw it earlier this morning, and when i called in, i called in as an independent, which i really am. i'm representing a corporation as i'm speaking right now, and i do feel you have to have corporate reform, and it has to start on the local grassroots level. host: all right we'll leave it there. guest: beautifully said. you are right on the money,

that the solutions here depend on all of us, they depend on respect, they depend on a sense of community, an understanding and love. you know, this is about reestablishing our community. and i agree with you. corporations are an economic tool, and they can be used very productively to benefit our communities. and as you said, the problem now is that the economic model has been hijacked. we have a particular form of predatory and crony capitalism which is kind of which has kind of run rampant and which is hurting small businesses, which is putting them out of business. in fact, small businesses and entrepreneurs are a threatened species in the american economy now. report been a recent documenting how they have just

their numbers have been slashed over the last couple of decades, as the big corporate multi national model has really squashed our independent small businesses. and the green new deal, which is our economic plan, would help small community based businesses become established and grow, in the same way we would also help worker cooperatives and establish public works and public services. so we're talking about a diversified economy where small businesses actually have a really critical role to play because they are a part of our communities. and i have to say that women in business and women as members of our community are really critical because of the perspective that we bring as parents, as those who are chiefly charged with rearing up our children. we bring a certain inherent community perspective to it that you bring in your voice.

and i hope you'll send your quote to my campaign website which is jillstein.org and you can send us suggestions and information there, as well as signing up to volunteer and be the campaign. so thank you so much. host: next up is carmen, carmen is calling on our line for greens from hamilton, montana this morning. go ahead, carmen. caller: good morning. i really, i think the same way the greens think. i think that, you know, america has a gigantic cancer and that's why it's dying. it's because we're all under corporate rule. and it's really sad. because so much suffering take place under that. we go to war, go steal other peoples' resources, give all the money to the corporations, they pay no taxes because they're multi nationals. people like me that go over there and facilitate, we suffer our whole life.

we've got other friends, brothers and sisters in the hospitals and nobody goes to see or anything, then they sit here the rest of their lives while the rest of the taxpayers take care of them, like the economy has walked off with about $300 trillion. host: dr. stein, go ahead. give guest carmen, i thought i heard you say that you were a vet or speaking for vet concerns. that went by me quickly. but i do want to agree with you that there's something wrong with this picture when the 1 percent has effectively tripled its income over the last couple of decades while average wages are going down and american families are struggling to hold on to their homes, one out of every three homeowners is under water, and at risk for foreclosure. the numbers who don't have health care, we have 36 million recent graduates and students who are effectively indentureed

servants because they owe these huge unforgiving loans because they can't get jobs and carry the unemployment burden, and i agree about our vets, that our servicemen and women, both while in service, as well as out of service, after service, they are not receiving the support and the respect they deserve, they have the highest the suicide rate in the armed services exceeds the rate of battlefield deaths. these servicemen and women are having to recycle their tours of duty one after the other. iss part of a system which exploiting people, exploiting the planet, exploiting our economy and the american people have had enough. and this is the time we want to turn the braking the breaking point into a tipping point. and we will do that in this election. host: we are talking with dr.

jill stein, candidate for the green party, they ran in massachusetts and received 21.3% of the vote in a three way race but boss to incumbent thomas stanley who received 56.9%, she was the green rainbow party candidate for governor of massachusetts in 2002 and finished third in the field of five candidates with 76,530 votes, about 3.5% of that vote. in 2010 she was a gubernatorial candidate and received 32,816 votes out of 2.2 million votes. she's the co author of in harm's way, taxic toxic threats to child development", published in 2000 environmental threats to aging people, published in 2009. we've got a tweet from fishing sam who wants to know do you

support a full audit of the federal reserve. guest oh my god yes guest: oh my god yes, of course, as quickly as possible. i think that the federal reserve needs to be brought into the public domain so that it actually serves the american people, not only in terms of being audited so that its actions are transparent and it is accountable, but also, so that its polices really serve the american people and our need for credit and a monetary policy that supports the needs of every day people. this phony economy of high finance, you know, is really taking over our economy. 40 percent of corporate profits now, a huge chunk of corporate profits, is now occupied by the financial services industry, which is mostly about speculation, is about rearranging the chairs on the titanic here. it's not actually about creating useful goods and services. so reforming the fed is really critical.

host: we also have a tweet from chris grey, who writes your voice is needed, hope you can make it into the debates. it would be nice to have a beauty to look at then. and along those lines, we've got a chart here which talks about ballot access. right now the green party is on the ballot in 22 of the 50 states, and the district of columbia. there is a petition in the works in 18 of those states, and you're not on the ballot in i i guess that leaves ten states. so talk to us about ballot access, access to the debates, and how it's not that easy being green. guest: and it's not that easy actually being part of the 99 percent these days, and i say it's not a coincidence that the 99 percent is struggling, and independent politics is really struggling. because the 1 percent, the very

wealthy, the economic elite, has hijacked our political system and our polices, and part of what they have been able to do is shut out the voice of every day people, including through independent noncorporate parties. so that means we have to keep track of as a national campaign that's not part of the machine, the political machine, we've got to figure out our way on to the ballot in 50 different states. they all have different rules, just a mountain of minutia that you got to keep track of. lots of signatures that have to be collected. not so bad in some states, but in others, we have to collect 80,000 signatures in a relatively short period of time, each state has its own start date and stop date and rules about who can collect and all that. so it's an elaborate system for ensuring that the political opposition can't get a foothold. host: will you have access to any of the debates featuring the other candidates?

guest: we hope so. and it's very much in our hands. the current criteria for participating in the debates is that you have to reach 15 percent in public opinion polls. so our hope is that the many people who otherwise don't have a voice, people who are trying to hang on to their homes, who can't afford health care, students who are indentured servants, people who are struggling for medical marijuana which we support and the other campaigns have been very much on the war path against, if these constituencies get word that they actually could have a voice in this election we think there will be enormous support. we could not only get to 15 percent, we could get to 50 percent, and maybe even more than that. so i really encourage people to go to our website, jillstein.org and make this campaign your own, because it is your voice, and we are here to

serve you, not corporate america and the 1 percent. host: this we got from the "new york post" this morning with all sorts of charts and numbers, and whatnot, talking about the two mainstream candidates. but here, it says among major national polls, only reuters shows president obama with a lead above three points. he's plus six, 49 43 percent. twenty two, rasmussen and the washington times, have romney up one,le real clear politics average has obama up one, 46 1/2 to 44 1/2, nowhere in there do they talk about a 15 percent approval rating or support rating for the green party candidate. guest: exactly, and it's a catch 22, because they won't much of the press won't cover you until you are known.

and if you're not covered, you won't be known. same holds for debates. how can the public even know you exist, let alone what your polices are and whether they you or not if they support you or not if they don't have the opportunity to know you? this is new. when the women used to be in control of debates the threshold was far lower and our debate the debates informed voters. look at the republican primary debates. they weren't limited to well known candidates meeting that threshold, those debates were intended to introduce a wide variety of candidates to the republican voting public. our debates ought to do the same thing. debates should not be about deciding who the winner is among a hand picked few that have been chosen by corporate america. every day people deserve to learn about lesser candidates

who simply don't have the corporate funding behind them, and then let them make that decision. so there's a bad rule to start with about 15 percent, about but it's going to be hard for us to change that rule. on the other hand, i think it's not impossible, by any means, for us to get to 15 percent. look at what happened in tahrir square and tunisia, they did not have political party support and they did not have corporate or media support, but word got out, especially among young people who did not have a future, and the support for a democratic revolution, the word went out, really fast. who tbh their right mind would who in their right mind would have thought that an entrenched dictator in egypt was going to be booted out within three weeks? it just went like that because the time was ready and in many ways, that time is right. we are heading for that breaking point. the american people are at it. and we want to turn it into a

tipping point in this election, and people can help make that happen by going to the website, jillstein.org and becoming part of the online facebook, internet communications, e mail network that gets the word out. host: back to the phones. norman, oklahoma, karen is on our line for republicans. karen, you're on the "washington journal" with dr. jill stein, green party presidential candidate. thank you for waiting. caller: good morning, dr. stein. i always hear people dog the rich but they never say thank you to people for giving up your money to pay for section eight, you know, food stamps, medicaid, and i have a couple of questions. how do you intend to pay for medicaid for all? it's only cheaper because the doctors don't get paid full price. and how long will the wait be to see a doctor when they all quit? and what even can you do with those service members that you're want to go put on the unemployment rolls? at least they get up and go to

work. host: all right karen, we'll leave it there. guest: so how do you pay for medicare for all? right now, when you pay for health care, either through the tax base or paying directly, or it's being taken out of your wages, 30 percent of your health care dollar right now is going for pushing papers. you know, when you go to the hospital and you got to fill out all those forms or are applying for insurance and you fill out all those forms, well, there's a lot of people keeping track of all those forms, so 30 percent of every health care dollar is basically going for those forms and figure out who gets paid and the rules of your insurance company and who your provider can be and if you have a heart attack which hospital you can go to and what medicines you can receive and how long you can stay in the hospital. it's just a mountain of bureaucracy. why should you be paying for bureaucracy? under medicare, people love their medicare, now, it's true, medicare has been messed with and certain things have hurt

the finances of medicare, and doctors pay doctors' pay has been limited, and but for most people, that's not the driving concern. you know, the concern is how they're going to pay for health care. and the cost of medicare went way up when this medicare part d got put into it by george bush. it's basically a giveaway to pharmaceutical companies. if we didn't have that giveaway to pharmaceutical companies, medicare would be in pretty sound financial condition. so we're talking about an improved medicare for all. it pays for itself and more. host: all right. next call comes from norm on our line for democrats, calling from collinsville, illinois. good morning norm. caller: dr. stein, congratulations on your nomination. guest: thank you norm. col i saw the presentation caller: i saw the presentation of the green party platform yesterday, i don't think that it's liberal, i don't think it's republican, i think it is common sense for everybody.

could you please comment on what needs to be done with the homeland security act and patriot act, and another thing is the green party supporting for social security, having the fica tax taken out, all the way up, no matter how much somebody makes? it's ridiculous. we could finance social security for the rest of this century. thank you very much and good luck. guest: thank you very much, appreciate it. and your response, norm, is what we hear all the time from democrats, from republicans, from tea partiers, from right to lifers, from independents, that we can have differences around the margins in particular polices but people are so hungry for a human scale politics, for a politics that's real, that's not 100 percent scripted, and polished, and where the script is being

written by the corporations. you know, people want to take their democracy back and this is our chance to do it. so thank you for recognizing that and for being a part of that. yes, social security is under attack. there's absolutely no reason why people are even talking about social security being insolvent. because as you say, there is this giveaway in the tax base for social security, in the employment taxes, so working people are paying a much higher percent of their wages than the rich. so absolutely take the cap off of it and the problem is gone. the issues on homeland security, on the patriot act, and i would add to that the national defense authorization act and hr347 which is the criminalization of protests, our civil liberties are under attack. and i would adhere that a lot

of libertarians are agreeing with our campaign as well, that we need to restore the basic fundamental american principles of a government which is of, by and for the people and not bought and paid for by wall street. and we also need to restore and protect our civil liberties which are gravely under attack. they are under attack by george bush. many people thought by voting for barack obama that we would get them back, but what happened was exactly the opposite. what he did was write into law, to quodfy the violations of george bush so they to codify the violations of george bush so they will be with us. we've got to change that. host: mark in washington defines himself as being part of the green party. go ahead mark. caller: good morning dr. stein. guest: good morning mark. caller: hi. i'm not really a member of the green party but i do have a few questions and i could very well vote for the green party. guest: uh huh?

caller: this question is regarding the tax structure, we have three main taxes that come out of the peoples' tax, that the average every day person sees, and that is social security, medicare, and then your federal withholding tax. and my suggestion would be lift the cap as you just suggested on social security, and have each of these taxes ind of each independent of each other where one funding stream cannot be borrowed from another funding stream, and then have to absolutely fund each tax separately via the income tax and corporate income tax and personal income tax, and then that way people know where their money is going. host: mark we're going to leave it there because we're running out of time.

dr. stein, your response please. guest: great. and you know, it's worth looking at these suggestions. i think we already agree on some of them, as you suggested. yeah, and i think we do need to have accountability. and i think part of the reason that we're looking for ways to secure our revenue streams and know it's not going to be wasted, that it's not going to go to some corporate welfare, you know, people don't trust government, and for good reason, and it's gotten us into trouble, and i think that all these problems would be so much easier to solve if we had a government that we trusted and we felt like it actually is us. it's not a surrogate for, you know, the economic elite, for corporations. yeah, i specifically agree with you on principle and the details are worth looking at so send them to our website, jillstein.org.

host: before we wrap up we want to show a tweet by roseanne barr, she says i wish jill stein good luck, she is the best candidate running, the green party needs cohesion now. at one time ms. barr was being talked about as a possible running mate. can you tell us what that situation is now? guest: i have so much respect for roseanne, which is i think ought to be the example and leaded way for other people of means, of incredible reputation and talent. for her to put herself out as she did over the course of this race is wonderful and my hope is that we can keep roseanne involved. i know she is busy and she has a new program that's under development, so it was an incredible gift that she took the time out that she did, and i know she struggles to balance

these commitments. so we currently have a v.p. and we've chosen a vice presidential candidate whose name is sherry hunkela, who is she's a national coordinator for the poor peoples' economic human rights council and she is full time full time on it and i think we chose sherry because she is the person for the job and she's able to commit herself 100 percent to it. i would love to keep roseanne involved in the campaign to the extent that her other commitments allow her to do that. host: dr. jill stein is the green party presidential candidate and has been our guest on "the washington journal", thank you very much for being on the program. guest: thank you very much, rob and great talking with you. and great talking with you.