common sense and reason will win out, especially considering the historic nature of our constitution. and those who parrot the words separation of church and state as if they are in the constitution, i find, don't often know that those are not in the constitution and are not aware that thomas jefferson coined that phrase in a letter to the danberry baptists where he also coined the phrase wall of separation. and and this is a president who's been confirmed by secular and ven the congressional resource folks that jefferson most sundays when he was here in washington would normally ride

a horse down pennsylvania avenue and attend a nondenominational christian worship service here in the capitol, just down the hall, at what we now call statuary hall but where back then, for most of the 1800's, they had a christian worship service. the first woman to address a , a in the capitol did so female eadvantage list, christian eadvantage list spoke down the hall, the first catholic to address a group in the capitol did so just down the hall. the first african-american to address a group in the capitol id so down the hall. it's a very historic place down the hall where church was held for most of the 1800's. a christian nondenominational worship service. so it's rather historic and it

was a christian chapel to which george washington went with all the other leaders after he was the in 1789 and went down road there in new york from the federal building where he was sworn in to the chapel that was the only building at ground zero that was completely naffected by the horrible fall of the world trade centers after they were attacked by eople filled with hatred, evil people. radical islamists who thought that in their religion of radical islam, that they would by virgins and paradise killing thousands of innocent people. so, hopefully the military will

take another look at this. i hope and pray they will. for most of this country's members of congress even, even still we have members of congress from both sides of the aisle who quote scripture from the bible as a resource or a confirmation for a particular bill or position that they're taking. going back to our very inception as a country, that was considered a wise thing. and not a treasonous thing as mr. weinstein, so unfamiliar with our history, would attempt to have people believe. it was the incredible martin luther king jr., an ordained christian minister, that sought to apply the teachings of jesus

and the philosophy of jesus through nonviolence to force the constitution to be interpreted to mean exactly what it said. nd that is the kind of basis from which there is legitimacy to treat all people equally. as jefferson made clear, if people do not realize that their liberty comes from god, then they will not long keep that liberty. i think he said he trembled at uch a thought. this wednesday we're going to have a hearing in the oversight committee regarding what happened at benghazi on 9/11 of last year.

i will be honored, humbled and honored to escort the widow of ty woods, one of the two former navy sales who was killed -- seals who was killed when help did not come for whatever reason, whoever ordered help not to come in a timely fashion. and this hearing will hopefully shed a little more light on that. an article from -- an article came out 5 may, 2013, by john saxton. he says, in an appearance on "face the nation" this morning, representative darryl issa revealed several new pieces of information about the obama administration's controversial description of the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi, libya, casting doubt that the white house mischaracterized

its cause by mere accident. the talking points were right and then the talking points were wrong. issa explained in response to a question about reporting at the weekly standard. the c.i.a. and greg hicks, who took over as charged affairs in libya after the death of ambassador chris stevens, both knew immediately that it was an attack, not a protest. hicks, who did not appear on the show, but whose reactions were featured based on transcripts of interviews with issa's committee, said he was stunned by what u.n. ambassador susan rice claimed on five different news shows on september 16, when she appeared on "face the nation" she followed an interview with the president of libya who claimed it was a terror

attack. months -- moments later ambassador rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was more likely. acting ambassador hicks watched the sunday shows and said he found this contradiction shocking. quote, the net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the president of libya is either a liar or doesn't know what he's talking about, unquote. he accused. hicks added, quote, my jaw hit the floor as i watched this. i've never been as embarrassed in my life in my career, as on that day, unquote. hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the sunday news shows explains why it took the f.b.i. three weeks

to gain access to the benghazi site. the u.s. had effectively humiliated the libyan president on national tv. that decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to investigate and track down those responsible. according to hicks, no one from the state department contacted him about what ambassador rice would be saying in advance. the next morning he called betting jones, acting assistant -- beth jones, acting assistant secretary for near east affairs, and asked why ambassador rice had made the statements she had. jones responded, quote, i don't know, unquote. a report published friday by "the weekly standard" suggests that state department spokesperson victoria newland took issue with the initial talking points and, with

backing from the white house, removed any evidence of al qaeda involvement and a prior attack -- and prior attacks on western targets in the region. according to emails reviewed by "the weekly standard," newland said her superiors were concerned about criticism from ongress. you don't have to be trained in the diplomatic corps to understand that if the president of libya, where our cons late was attacked -- consulate was attacked, said is was not a protest, it was n attack by extremists, that since this administration needed his administration's assistance in investigating the

matter, that they may have just alienated the president of to and negated efforts bring the people responsible to justice. of course there's no real explanation as to why it would take eight months just to put as has been ures done to try to identify the perpetrators of what happened in libya. heck, when that was done regarding the perpetrators in boston, it wasn't months that it took to identify those individuals, it precipitated bringing things to a head rather quickly. and isn't it interesting that it's only after tremendous congressional pressure to get to the bottom of what actually happened at benghazi, so that

we can try to avoid it for the future, that all of a sudden there is interest in actually trying to capture the people responsible? has a headline of an article, diplomat, u.s. special forces told, quote, you can't go, unquote, to benghazi during attacks. the deputy of slain u.s. ambassador christopher stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of special forces prepared to fly from tripoli to benghazi during the september 11, 2012, attacks , was for biden from doing so -- was forbidden from doing so by u.s. special operations command south africa. this is just shocking. to think that we had people

armed, equipped, able, as we know now, if this is true they should have been able to save e lives of those two heroes, ty woods and glen daugherty, and also the state department individual that had most of his right leg blown off up there with him. they could have saved all of that. if they'd been allowed to go protect the people who were sent there to serve by this administration. another article, "washington times," what a headline, u.s. could have halted benghazi attack with a flyover. this is from -- according to a diplomat. this article by sean waterman dated monday, may 6, 2013,

says, u.s. air power could have headed off at least part of last year's terror attack on the diplomatic post in benghazi. but american officials never asked for overflight permission because there were no aybar tankers available to refuel -- no airborn tankers available to refuel. gregory hicks who became the chief of the mission when ambassador stevens was killed in the attack told house investigators libya would have given the u.s. permission to do the flyover. democrats have accused the republicans of running a one-sided investigation. mr. hicks will testify on capitol hill this week, along with several others who will detail the conflicting stories the obama administration told in the days after the attack which left stevens and three other americans dead. mr. hicks was deputy chief of mission at the embassy in tripoli when the u.s. post in

benghazi was attacked by heavily armed extremists on september 11. in interviews last month, mr. hicks told investigators, with the house oversight and government reform committee, that an overflight by a u.s. f-15 or f-16 might have prevented the second phase of the attack. after the diplomatic post was overrun and set ablaze that night, killing stevens and foreign service officer sean smith, the survivors took refuge in a nearby c.i.a. building called the annex. that building was in turn attacked at dawn on september 12 when a mortar barrage killed ormer seals glen daugherty and tyrone woods. quote, if we had gotten clearance from the libyan military from an american plane to fly over libyan air space, if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over benghazi as quickly as possible, after the attack

commenced, i believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because i believe the libyans would have split, mr. icks told house investigators. another article from fox news says, clinton sought end run around counterterrorism bureau on the night of benghazi attack, witness will say at hearing. also dated may 6, 2013. on the night of september 11, as the obama administration scrambled to responds to the benghazi terror attacks, then secretary of state hint -- hillary clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision making, according to a whistleblower witnessed from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before congress, fox news has learned.

that witness, now the deputy coordinate for the agency's counterterrorism bureau. it says fox news has also learned another official from the counterterrorism bureau, independently of thompson, voiced the same complaint about clinton and undersecretary for management patrick kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in october. extremists linked to al qaeda stormed the u.s. consulate and a nearby annex on september 11 in a heavily armed and well-coordinated assault that killed the u.s. ambassador to libya, chris stevens, and three other americans. thompson considers himself a whistleblower whose account was suppressed by the official panel clinton convened to review the episode. hompson's lawyer, joseph

diginova alleged his client has been subject t.d. to threats by his yet unnamed superiors at state. down further it says, quote, you should have seen what, in parenthesis, clinton, tried to do to us that night, a second official in the counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in october. those comments would appear to be corroborated by thompson's forthcoming testimony. state department spokeswoman called the counterterrorism officials' allegations 100% false. a spokesman for the clin -- a spokesman for clinton said, tersely, the charge is not true. it says, quoting daniel benjamin who ran the department's counterterrorism bureau at the time, also put out a statement

monday morning strongly denying the charges, quote, i ran the bureau then, i can say now with certainty as the former coordinator for counterterrorism that this charge is simply untrue. he said. though i was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack. that seems to be the way, when this administration wants omebody to say, as he did, something is simply a -- a charge is simply untrue and to strongly deny charges, they seem to have to call on somebody who had no firsthand information, which is why so many people were questioning why ambassador susan rice was called upon to make the sunday morning show round and constantly tell people that apparently it was the result of a protest and was not al qaeda

related when in fact as people knew that night, at the time of the attack, this was a coordinated effort, there was no sign of protest. so the way the administration appears to have operated is just have people come forward who had no firsthand information, give them their talking points, as susan rice was given, an intelligent person, and she's told by people, apparently she trusts, here's what you need to point out, here's what you need to know. and then those people have plausible deniability of what the real facts are because they have just been handed talking points. it is a very serious matter, but we're tri-ing to get to the truth because it does matter. it makes the difference between whether or not we learn from mistakes that were made and

correct them for the future or whether we refuse to learn from history, refuse to learn from the mistakes that were made so that we become, as the old saying says, destinned to repeat them. so it does matter and it matters very much to woods' widow who will be here for the hearing. she does have interest because it does matter to her. what difference does it make? it will matter to the loved ones of those who will die in the future if we don't get down to what actually occurred, what mistakes were made so we can avoid them being made in the future. it makes a lot of difference to those who don't want their loved ones to die in the service of this country. now there are also reports out , ere that as i read already

that there was a group of special forces who were ordered to stand down and not go forward and help those at ben fwawsee. as the article points out. that there may have been a special forces team that was ready to go and then they were told you can't go. it is just incredible to think that someone may have given such an order. and not allowed the military to go forward. there are rumors afloat that people in the military, people in the state department, have been told not to talk to members

of congress. about what happened at benghazi. if there is anything to those accounts, one thing that is often helpful is to go to the aw itself. 18 u.s.c. section 1505 is entitled obstruction of proceedings before departments, agency, and committees. and in part it says, whoever corruptly, and i'm just reading what might be, i don't know, if this were tover arise, someone ever were to instruct members of the military or members of the state department or any agency in the federal government not to communicate with members of congress, bears noting, whoever

corruptly or by any threatening letter or communication influence, obstructs or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the united states or the due and proper exercise of power inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either house or any committee of either house or any joint committee of the congress, goes on to say, they'll be punished. that's a rather serious matter, so hopefully nobody is out there giving such instruction or has not been out there giving such instructions because when members of the military or the state department or intelligence

department or justice departments have information and they have been asked to provide such information and anyone instructs them in any way that may impede congress' recovery of such information then they need to look at 18 u.s.c. also 18 u.s.c. 371, two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the united states, or to defraud the united states, or any agency therein in any manner, for any purpose, and one or more of said persons do any act to affect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be, it talks about their fine and imprisonment. and then of course this under 18 u.s.c. section 2, whoever commits an offense against the united states or aids, abets,

counsels, commands, induces, or procures such commission is punishable as a principal. whoever willfully causes an act to be done which directly perform -- which if directly performed by him is a principal. so basically, if somebody is encouraged not to be forthcoming or honest with the congress, you run into some issues there as well. so i hope people will take note of our laws and hopefully there's no truth to the rumors afloat that such instructions just as given because i was so greatly offended when the national security letter

system was abused and we had an inspector genre port about that, i didn't care that it was a republican administration that was abusing people's freedom, and i spoke out. i hope that my friends across the aisle, if this information continues to be forthcoming, about misrepresentations that were made publicly by this administration intentionally and knowingly that others, friends across the aisle, will stand up as i did about the bush administration, their justice department, and demand justice, i demanded resignation from the f.b.i. director. back then. we have an obligation that goes

beyond party loyalty. when people were killed who were sent to libya to serve this country and we had two former seals who went and gave their lives to try to save and who did save american lives, the least people stateside could do, the least those who were reportedly told not, you can't go help these people, the least they can do since they were not allowed, according to the story, not lowed to go give those men backup then, i hope and pray they'll have the courage to give them backup now. men who l be no more

have to give their lives in the future because inadequate security was provided and a state department was stumbling through relations in a tough situation and then sent people forward with statements that those who sent that person forward knew were not true. i hope that we'll have people not just those that are now coming before the committee on wednesday, but others, for the ake of these men, mr. speaker, i hope people who are in the service, former service members, who have personal information, will give them the backup now that they're gone. -- now that they're gone, that they would have wanted if that

was them that gave their lives. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announce poledsoif january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate the privilege of being recognized here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and taking up the subject matter that i understand is going to begin this week with a markup in the united states senate of a piece of legislation called comprehensive immigration reform that's been advanced by the self-described gang of eight over in the senate, four democrats and four republicans, a bill that they had dropped, or introduced, some couple of weeks ago, 844 pages, all designed to

solve the problem that we have here in the united states of illegal immigration and all the accommodations that have been made in efforts to one, open our borders and open our employment and open up our welfare systems and open up our public access to goth services to people that are unlawfully present in the united states. that's the one side of the initiative. that's the chuck schumer side, mr. speaker, and then on the other side, are those of us who instead argue that the rule of law has to count for something, you can't be a nation unless you have borders and if you don't determine what comes across these borders, then you can't call yourself a nation. i make the point that the most successful institution over the last couple of centuries has been the nation state. nation states have formed around the lines of language and culture and national defense and civilization and economies.

language has been a primary component of it. one can look at western europe and see where lines are drawn around nation states of common languages. but here we are in the united states. we're a different kind of a country. we are a nation that has been benefited by the legal immigration that's come into this country from every donor civilization on the planet. we have, because of the magnet of the image of the promise of god-given liberty and freedom, people from all over the world have aspired to come to america to become an american. to take advantage of these opportunities of this god-given liberty, to be able to start a business, get a job, save, invest and establish and build the american dream. the american dream, which is encompassed within this philosophy, that each generation of americans should have an opportunity greater than the previous generation. whether it's the whole

generation of americans in the current time or whether it is a generation of americans growing up in a household of their generational predecessors, their parents. each generation should have greater opportunity than the previous generation. that's why our founding fathers, our forefathers, our predecessors came here to this country, that's why they fought and defended god-given liberty and the american civilization and across the continents and across the planet, to defend our american way of life. the freedom that we have, the liberty that we have, the free enterprise capitalism, the strong faith and family values, the language that binds us together, all of those components come forth to create this assimulation concept. we're the nation of -- that has been built on -- some say built by immigrants, this is a nation built by immigrants, true. this is a nation of immigrants, true, mr. speaker. so is every other nation. every other nation on the

planet is a nation of immigrants, people have moved there, they've lived there, they've developed there, their children have been born there and we're not unique in the sense that we're a nation of immigrants. we're unique in the sense that legal immigrants who come here can become americans. they become american by embracing the american culture, the american civilization, understanding the declaration of independence, the constitution, understanding the english language, our taking in free enterprise capitalism and understanding that there's a uniqueness about being an american that gives us this vigor, this great vigor that is an american vigor, unique to the rest of the planet. and because of the god-given liberties that we have, many of them in the bill of rights, freedom of speech, religion and the press, freedom to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance. second amendment rights, to keep and bear arms. property -- bare arms. property rights. the right to be faced by your

accusers in a court of law, be tried by a jury of your peers and no double jeopardy. the concepts of federalism, where the power's not specifically delegated to the congress or the president or the judicial branch, devolved to the people, to the states or the people respectively. those are all pillars of american exceptionalism. that make us a great, great nation. and people around the world have seen that and they've seen this american vigor and the magnet of the image, these things, these concepts are all rapped up in the image -- wrapped up in the image of the statue of liberty. around the world, when the people see the statue of liberty they think, well, it would be nice to live in a country like that, or they think, i have to go there. i have to go there and find out what i'm made of. i think that i can develop and realize my potential in a place like america better than anyplace else in the world. and if you put out a beacon like that, if you put out the beacon of the statue of liberty and that penetrates into

countries all over the world, whether it be in western europe, eastern europe, across asia, down through the latin area, through the middle east, south america, for that matter, every contsnent on the planet, including us a -- continent on the planet, including australia. probably not so much antarctica, people have come to america because they wanted to realize their dreams within that rubric of the american dream. that's what makes this a ecial country and that's why america can engage in global conflicts back into the spanish american war or engage in a conflict like world war i where we went over to save as much as we could and succeeded to a great degree, save europe from the heavy hand of the kyser. at a cost of a lot of american lives, a lot of lives on the side of, let me say on the western side of that line.

and freedom was preserved again for another generation until world war ii came along. there was another challenge. and americans rose up and met that challenge on two fronts. one of the pieces of wisdom about strategic war fighting is don't fight a two-front war. well, america had to fight a two-front war in world war ii. we had to fight our way back against japanese imperialism, across the pacific, and we had to go to europe and fight against nazis in world war ii. that happened simultaneously. fighting a two-front war didn't work out so well for hitler but it did work out well for the united states, at a high price, but it worked out. and because of that the american influence washed across the globe. and the industry in the united states was the only distribute united states had the only -- the united states had the only major undestroyed industry in the world. our dollar became the method of currency for the globe, american industry penetrated

into every corner of the globe and american no-how and ingenuity was established across this planet. that -- know how and ingenuity was established across this planet. that's because of the pillars of american exceptionalism that i talked about and the spirit of ingenuity. a spirit of ingenuity which is the beneficiary of those willing legal immigrants that came here because they realized that they could achieve their dreams better here than anywhere else. and so the magnet of the american dream has attracted the best and most vigorous people on the plan tote come here. that's the america -- planet to come here. that's the american that i was born into. that's the america that those of us who were born here inherited. many immigrants have come since that period of time to contribute to this american dream, to help redefine this american dream and to make us stronger and make us better. well, now we reached a time when the political thought in america seems to have lost its touch with rationality.

and as we've watched as there's been a stronger movement on the part of the political machinery of the left, we've elected a president of the united states in 2008 that said to joe the plummer, share the wealth, -- plumber, share the wealth, share the wealth. you're making money. give that to the guy that's not. realize -- not realizing that joe the plumber needed all that could he earn and he needed more opportunity than that, not less. thinking that the now president of the united states, mr. speaker, apparently believes that if you're in business, if you invested some capital or some sweat equity or both, somehow you're capitalizing on your customers whom are viewed i believe by the white house as victims of that free enterprise system arningsd somehow you have achieved your -- and -- system, and somehow you've achieved your success unjustly and the implication is that the entrepreneurs have collected the proceeds of the sweat of somebody else's brow rather than their own.

collected the proceeds of the sweat of somebody else's sweat equity, brain equity, creativity, innovation, work ethic rather than their own. but truthfully, mr. speaker, that any of us have the opportunity in this country to generate an idea, we have the opportunity to start a business, we have an opportunity to hire people to help us with that business, and an opportunity to buy, sell, trade, make gain and earn profit. and the beauty of a free enterprise system is that if someone is making too large a margin, if their profits are excessive, we should have plenty of entrepreneurs that will see that as an opportunity and generate a competing business that will go into that marketplace where there is a margin of profit that is high enough to attract that kind of investment and they would take part of that profit out and each one of those competitors that would materialize within that marketplace would eventually, the competition

would take those prices down so that the ebtities that are making a lot of -- the entities that are making a lot of money, their profit margins would be reduced, not eliminated, we want them all to make money, and at the same time the consumers benefit because the competition drives the prices down. that's the concept of free enterprise, that's the concept of free enterprise capitalism, that's what adam smith wrote about so accurately and so succinctly when he wrote "wealth of nation" and published it in 1776. it's been a foundation of the american thought, the american dream, it's been a foundation of the american enterprise, the foundation of the american economic system. and if one is taking the naturalization test and the question comes, there's a little flash card on how you study this, little glossy flash cards that uscis puts out, that's u.s. citizenship immigration services, puts out, there will be a little flash card and you can pick it up and it will say, who is the father

of our country? the answer is, george washington. and who emans pated the slaves? the answer -- emans pated the slaves? the answer is abraham lincoln, republican. 10% or 12% of the population seems to forget. that another question, what's the economic system of the united states? snap that flash card around tanned says, free inter-- and it says free enterprise capitalism. that's the foundation of our economy and this economy has attracted people from all over the globe and i recall that profession ever doctor professor milton friedman, one of the most respected economists in the history of the world, but the united states of america, a professor at the university of chicago, very well respected institution, made this statement. an open borders policy is not compatible with the welfare state. an open borders policy is not compatible with the welfare state. and here we are, mr. speaker, we live in a welfare state. and we have an open borders

policy. the welfare state and the open borders policy are being promoted, pushed and advocated by the president of the united states. the president who has, even though there was a minor little change made to welfare reform here in this floor, this chamber, in the mid 1990's when the republicans took the majority in 1994 the welfare reform came in 1995 or 1996, bill those two years, clinton, the president, at least twice vetoed welfare reform. welfare to work was the mantra of the day. there was only one component of welfare to work that actually was welfare to work. there are over 80 different means-tested federal welfare programs in the united states today. there's not a single person in america that can list you those welfare programs from memory, which would, should it be a pretty strong indicator that not a single person in the united states that could also tell you how those different,

08 different means-tested welfare programs will affect the way people act, whether it encourages them to go to work or encourages them to quit their job, whether it encourages them to get married or whether it encouraged them to get a divorce, whether it encouraged them to raise the children within the home or whether it encourages them to not, kick them out on the street, horribly, potentially get an abortion. how do all of these 80 different means-tested welfare programs interact with each other and what is the net result of which direction our society goes? let alone the question on each individual, each precious individual, how do they act and react towards all of these programs that are here? this is america, the huge magnet of the welfare state, it's attracting people to come to the united states to tap into the welfare system, much differently than back in the day when people came here to have access to god-given liberty, that vision within the statue of liberty, that just said to them, come here, you

can work, you can earn, you can save, you can invest, you can buy, sell and trade, make gain and you can make do and you can make profit and you can make a fortune in the united states of america. that message is now clouded. sure there's opportunity here, but the taxes and the regular lyings are higher -- regulations are higher, higher than they've been in a long, long time. and the taxes and regulation drain the energy off of the entrepreneurs. at the same time that the welfare state is regulating and attracting people off of the work rolls, onto the welfare rolls. years ago steve moore, who is now one of the public commentators and a much-published author, you'll see him on television a good number of times, he was at the kato institute at the time, i believe, and he was an original executive director for the club for growth, he said in words

pretty close to this, people will do what you pay them to do . if you pay them not to work, they won't work. if you pay them to stay home, they'll stay home. if you pay them if there's not a father in the home, or at least there won't officialy be a father in the home although you'll have visitation going on and you'll have more children if you pay for them to have children without a father, that's what they'll do. it's a logical thing for people to react to the negative incentives that come from government. and so with that foundation, mr. speaker, it was interesting for me to pick up the executive summary of the special report dated may 6, 2013, it's the heritage foundation report written by robert recter and jason richwine, ph.d., it's indicted "the fiscal cost of unlawful immigrants and amnesty to the u.s. taxpayer." this may be the third time that robert recter and people that he's worked with will have

saved america from a disaster. robert recter was a central player in writing the language of welfare to work. he wrote it very tight and wrote it in such a way that it prohibited the president of the united states from suspending the work component of cana, the only component that had actually required work, they made sure that an executive that wanted to give license to people to use the program but not follow the directive of congress, the law, would be taken away and that the president couldn't just simply by whim or executive order violate the law and eliminate the work component to tanf. but look what president obut ma has done. by his executive edict, he suspended the only work

component that existed, that was in one of the 80 different means tested federal welfare programs, suspended the work component of that in vilingts, directly or of the specific statute that was written then. and now, robert correcter came back to us -- robert rector came back to us again and wrote another report a report that told us about the cost of illegal immigration and what it meant to our society and our culture and our civilization. i believe that that result is instrumental in america waking up and coming to an understanding that there's a lot bigger equation than the simple buzzwords of, we have to bring them out of the shadows, what are you going to do about the 11 million or 12 million that are here, it's curious to me that that number hasn't changed, except it's groipped a million since 2006. when i came to this congress i thought that number was, the number of illegals in america was somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million.

judgment of those that we knew were here plus a calculation on those that we knew were coming here, minus those that were going back home and those that are deceased that came to a number that i thought approached 20 million people or more. and yet, now we are hearing in the time that i've been in congress, more than a decade, 12 million illegals in america has now been reduced to 11 million illegals in america. all the while, the only thing that changed in the dialogue on the left has been, well, we can't deport, they used to say 12 million people, we didn't line up the buses and load up million people. now they've changed their dialogue. remember the people that were advocating that we needed to do something about man-caused global warming, they've changed their phrase now to be man-caused, or else climate change. global warming has become climate change.

12 million people that couldn't be rounded up and put on buses has become 11 million. what happened to the other million? especially when we have a pretty good measure that they're coming across the border at the rate of about four million a year and if that number has been reduced by half and maybe today it's two million a year, that's still a lot of people. and the cumulative effect of this population growing in the united states, it's not going down from 1 million. it has to be going up from million. if it's not, we have a problem that's solving itself, mr. speaker. and yet, a pragmatic viewpoint is not going to be something that people on the other side of this argue -- argument ascrape -- ascribe to because they have an agenda that is a little bit different and i think the -- than i think the practical application of what's good for america. robert corrector in his report that came out today lays out some of these points economically. we could talk about the cultural

or constitutional or rule of law part but he lays it out economically. he laze it out in the executive summary. there are four ways that federally funded benefits are distributed. one is direct benefit, that's the form of social security, medicare, unemployment insurance and workers comp. that's the direct benefits component of it. the second wund is, that i talked about already, the means tested welfare benefit the 08 different means tested welfare benefit that total is around $900 billion a year in welfare. that provides cash for food, housing, medical and other services. about 100 million people in the means tested welfare system and that could be medicaid, food stamps, earned income tax credit, public housing, supplemental social security income, temporary assistance for needy family the one work component i talked about that president obama has removed the work requirement, now it's just another welfare program. there's two categories,

private benefit, means tested benefits, a third category, public education, cottsing about $3,000 annually per pew tall and the third is population based services, including fire service, police services, parks, those kinds of things that it takes for people to have a way to live in this society. those four categories, then, people use them if they're legally here, or illegally here, and often they will, the people that are here working here illegally will pay taxes. it's an honest thing. but there are also -- they're also drawing down public benefits. so if i would draw some numbers off of the corrector report, mr. speaker. -- off of the rector report, mr. speaker, the average household of an illegal household will raw down $31,584 a year in

public benefits. but if the household is headed by a college graduate, the difference is instead they'll pay taxes they'll draw down some benefit bus they'll have a net contribution of $29,250 a year. look at the difference. it's nearly $60,000 plus. the average dropout, household headed by a high school dropout without regard to their status legal or illegal, they will have a net cost of $35,113 a career. they'll pay in taxes, and they'll draw down benefits and they -- the average net cost to the taxpayer is $35,113. the average illegal household, though, however, which is the average has a 10th grade education, the average household headed by someone who is unluflely present in the united states will be a net cost to the taxpayer of $14,387.

now why is that so cheap? well that's because the law blocks access to many of these programs and if and when they are legalized, they start to have access to these programs. now it's true that if you look t the proposal, the 844-page bill delivered by the gang of eight, the average illegal household in the interim phase to kick in over the next 13 years, they'll tap into government a little bit less, about $3,000 a year less than the amount i quoted, the $11,487 will be the net cost per household but once they're legalized, i call it the post-interim household, will be drawing down a net cost of $28,000 a year. and the average retirement cost is going to be $22,700 a year. so the current law, under

current law, illegal house lolds a net cost to the taxpayer, day, under current law, of $54.5 billion a year. $54.5 billion a year. we go into an interim phase if the bill in the senate is passed, then it's going to be an annual cost, has to be less, remember, $33.4 billion. that's through the phase over the next 13 years. but after that legalize -- it legalizes a lot of people, around 33 million people according to numbers u.s.a., i'm not sure that's the number rector is using but it legalizes a lot more people and they have access to a lot more peculiar services a lot more borrowed money from china that goes to fund the welfare state, and now after that interim phase, 13 years down the road, the post-interim phase, the net cost to the taxpayer, net, $106 billion a year. and into the retirement phase

for the same generation of them, the net cost to the taxpayers, $160 billion a year. so it boils down to this. in the heritage study released today, lifetime summary is this, that those that are here today, that are unlawfully present in the united states, will be collecting $9.4 trillion over their lifetime. they will pay $3.1 trillion in taxes and they'll have a net benefit of $6.3 trillion as far as the collections that they would have from the taxpayer. what nation in its right mind would go down a path like this and try to convince americans that somehow this is an economic development situation? and i go to page three of the executive summary, mr. speaker.

robert rector makes this point. and i quote. at every stage of the life cycle, and he's referencing that of the legal population today, at every stage of the life cycle, unlawful immigrants on average generate fiscal deficits, that's benefits that exceed taxes, and they generate fiscal deficits, unlawful immigrants are always tax consumers, they never once generate a fiscal surplus that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society. the situation obviously will get much worse after amnesty. that, mr. speaker, is the bottom line on the rector report. that's the economic analysis, i know that there is a competing analysis out there, i would submit that that competing analysis, which i've read, inflates the term legal and illegal an calculates the

economic benefit but not the full cost. this study is a study that has -- it's been through the mill before. the principles that it was founded on have been analyzed before. yes, there will be those who seek to discredit this, but i would say to them, step back, take an objective look, ask yourself the question, even though you might believe that historically large numbers of legal immigrants coming into the united states have developed themselves economically and fit into the economic component of the united states, even though you might believe that, and i do believe that, mr. speaker, a hundred years ago, this country d a need for skilled and unskilled labor, educated and uneducated work force, excuse me. but today it's a different world. today it's a technological world. today it requires an education. it requires technical skills.

we have a pleatly adequate supply of low and unskilled work force. in fact, we have an oversupply of low and unskilled work force never category that shows the highest level of unemployment, we also see that those highest levels of unemployment are in the lowest and the unskilled work force. this isn't 1900. this is 2013. america needs educated people, talented people, people that contribute to the economy and contribute and pay a net increase in taxes other their lifetime so that this economy can grow. and to take on the load of funding people who would come here without skill, without prospects of those skills is a foolish thing to do from an economic perspective and there will be those who say that, well, maybe so, but, the next generation will far surpass, this is a multigenerational

investment. to which robert rector says, no, even if the second generation all graduated from college if they all turned in this ability to have an average college surplus of $29,250, they still could not pay back the deficit of $6.3 trillion and all of them are not going to go to college, about 13% will, mr. speaker. so that's a quick summary of the rector study and i appreciate your attention and the privilege to address you here on the floor. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10

>> and on the other side of the capital, the senate today passed a bill requiring on top -- online retailers to collect state sales tax from their customers. that legislation now moves to the house. we have been bringing you are serious, "first ladies." tonight we are looking at the life of julia grant. because the house of representatives went out of session just know, we will join the live program in progress. >> -- he built a log cabin for asia and their children

family group. and so we are going to see that log cabin. wase recal that julia dent from a very wealthy family. we will see what kind of house that ulysses s. grant built for them is their first mary home together. let's take a look. >> we are standing inside hard scrabble, a two story log cabin that grant for his family in 1856. >> julia did not like it one bit. she found a crude and homely. but true to her nature, she will make the best of it. farming, having his own home on his land, having their own place to begin their life again, to renew their marriage, is what inspires grant. julia is comfortable with that. she wants her own home, too. as a young woman she would want

to be mistress of her own home. she thought that he could have built something as nice as white haven. cabin itself may be rustic, whitewash would have been typical not only to help with bugs but white reflects light so the rooms would have been open and a little more cheery but so rustic. julia would have brought with her minor things, because as a privilege child she would of had fine china and fine furniture that would have been comfortable chairs and a broad table, because you have at this point, she had five people eating in this dining room. these are not set up for cooking. the kitchen of the back with servants. people coming and

serving julia and ulysses and their children. it is important for them. even though they do not live in that very long, this represents their very first home together. julia will gain a great deal of confidence as a wife and mother. starts here at hard scrabble. >> a question from schultze and cooper, as an army wife did julia find any location more her home than any other? >> she considered white haven her home. in her memoirs, she again compared the white house to because of the home that represented. they traveled so much and had so many different headquarters or homes are around the country that it would have been next to impossible, but she created home wherever she was for her family.

>> it is the purview of army spouses over the years. we have one more video of white haven, the beautiful green structure we showed you earlier, but you have to go to our web site. each week we are putting a feature on c- span.org/firstladies. we have a video that will show you the grants' life together. boy does it look green. john watching us and washington state. you are on the air. aller: my name is john grant, no relation, but my great granduncle was on general grant's staff. diary andopy of his in it it mentions a number of times when he was in washington that he would have lunch with general grant's wife.

and i was wondering if anybody could elaborate on that. grant hear about general escapades, but afterwards, and has anybody ever heard of that? married elizabeth blair, which was her grandfather was the secretary or postmaster general under lincoln. >> they were very close to the grants, the blairs. guest: julia entertained so much that quite possible and i recognize the name comstock from the civil war years. the whites memoirs in house. and frequently, congressman or people who were looking to get into see grant would try and do

that through julia or to gain favor from grant, they would free the we go through julia because she was accessible to them. host: our next is a call from judy in brooklyn. grant: since general smoked so many cigars, i was wondering if julia or the children had any respiratory problems. and my other question was, since heavilyhad leaned so towards the confederacy, what were the relations during the grant administration with england? guest: good questions. neither julia nor the children ended up with respiratory problems. of course, grant ended up with throat cancer from smoking cigars. so it did eventually kill him as far as england was concerned,

one of the first issues that grant had to deal with as president was the claims against england for their support of the confederacy. he sets up the first ever international arbitration. and is credited with peacefully to solving the dispute with england. host: this is larry in pennsylvania. caller: hello. i have been watching your series enjoyed them. i have recently read the generals wife by isabel ross. and one of the comments she makes in her book is that julia'ss father did not care for ulysses. i was wondering if you could comment on that. told: he did say that he grant that she would not like the military life. he was very dubious. she had been raised with everything. and would definitely have to do without. guest: and they also had a disagreement over slavery.

that: i think he thought grant was not going to amount to much financially and would not be able to give her what she took for granted. was absolutely right about that. guest: julia was the first daughter born after four sons. and according to julia, col onel dent offered, he told ulysses that the life of the army was not what julia was fit for. he offered her sister nelle to obviouslyich grant turned down. and continue to try to convince colonel a dent that he would be the one to make julia happy. host: some of his concerns may have been valid because ulysses s. grant was a great general, but most of the venture's he got

involved with, he had a difficult time. nobody knew that grant would become a success -- he was in the army. he actually did not intend to stay in the army. he wanted to get out and be a math professor. but let's look look at his post white house years. even after he has all of his experience, he then goes on to a career and wall street and loses lots of money. guest: his son. guest: fred. guest: who is the joint -- guest: i thought it was fred. first?fred lose the guest: it affected all the family fortunes. ward had everybody fooled. he was making everybody mining

hand over fist. and that should have rungs some bells, like today it doesn't. guest: he made off. t just about los everything. host: how was it that grant lost all his money or states? was it due to his drinking? was he a gambler? financially irresponsible? whot: he was not a man concentrated on finance. i do not think that was the first thing in his life. he would have liked to have had a lot of money, but i think a lot of other things interested him. host: was he a bad judge of character? guest: he talks about when this financial failure happens with ward where word comes to ulysses jr and to grant himself and says that they are in financial straits and the bank. can you borrow some money? and we need to get through the

next few days. and grant except that, borrowers $150,000 from william vanderbilt. and ward ensconced with the money to canada. and the fortune is lost -- ward the with the money -- with the money. host: we have not talked about them leaving the white house. there were no restrictions on running for a third term. did the grants which to seek a third term? guest: he didn't. she did. when he declined, he did not tell her. he gave the letter to them without telling her, and she began to be suspicious. they are in the upstairs and the hall of the white house and she says, you cannot do this. you can't do this to me. host: wanted to continue being first lady?

guest: and he said, it is done. she seems to have held up fine until inaugural day when they got into the the train car. and then she said she went to the bedroom and fell on the bed and sobbed and cried. she hated to leave the place. guest: she said she felt like a because she home, was not sure what was going to happen. guest: surely she had felt that before. host: she was loathe to leave. did they plot a comeback? guest: when they returned from the world tour, there are those who felt like he should run for office again. especially with all of this foreign relations experience. and he was interested at that point, feeling again that he could be of service to the country. julia says they were in chicago when the convention met, and she

tried to encourage him to go downstairs and meet at the convention, knowing that would put him over the top with the votes needed, but he refused to do that and lost the nomination. host: some of the properties we are looking at are near the anheuser busch family property. michael reagan wants to know, were the grants tied to anyone in the anheuser-busch family? host: no. 280 usch family purchased acres of the white hat and a state in 1903. the only connection is that in the early years of the war, adolphus busche served for a short time and the civil war. host: margaret and -- -- mark in cincinnati. caller: i had heard the story and you alluded to the entity that mrs. lincoln and -- the and

and keep that mrs. lincoln and mrs. grant had between each other. they were cordially the first couple that was offered an invitation to ford's theatre the night of the assassination and that mrs. grant politely told mr. grant not to accept and that was the only reason they were not in the box that night. is that true? guest: that is true, but there were going to philadelphia. they had a house there. there were going to see the children. that is where the were when they heard the president had been shot. about it in her memoirs. even earlier during that day when she was at lunch, that there had been a suspicious group at the other -- guest: and then when they're driving to the train, a man came riding a horse by the carriage on the way to the station, which was on the mall in those days

and looked in the window at grant and grant remarked that he was sinister puree he did it twice. it may be just coincidence. who knows? she was scared to death. host: they believed he was targeted as part of the assassination plot? we learned that julia grant was much, a very unhappy to leave the white house. and general grant assuaged that grief by taking her on a two- year world tour. what should we know about that war? ,uest: it was actually his idea that he felt like a boy out of school, and he had always loved travelling. and so they embarked on this tour that was just arisen suppose to be europe. and then extended all the way around the world. of it,oyed every minute mostly because of the praise and a claim that she saw her husband receiving.

and the shopping that she did as well of things that she wanted to bring back home that she just had a wonderful time on the world tour. guest: we are going to return to the gallina home and look at some of the items on display there. [video clip] back herents came for a couple of months. and then they decided to go on a world tour. they were gone for over two years, visited 40 countries. the grants were so popular at the time. there were like american celebrities. and they were treated like royalty. they received a lot of gifts on the tour. there were fortunate enough to have some of those still in the house. two of them are on the mantel. these red vases were a gift from the king of ballcarrier. after the world tour, they came back here for another couple of

months and they went to mexico and cuba. the paintings on each side of the fireplace were given to the grants on that trip by the government of mexico. did theseco landscapes paintings for the grants. this is the dining room. this is where the family would have their meals. julia would have done a little light entertaining here. this is not anything to elaborate. we have some other gifts that were given to the grants on that world tour. this piece was actually given to julia. given toa bronze urn her by the citizens of yokohama, japan. the vase was given to the grants by the emperor of japan. on the mantel is one of the most personal pieces that julia liked the best. she framed the leaves. the leaves were given to her by general grant, they were leaves

that he picked up from the holy city. she had it framed and wrote the whole story on there. julia probably have the time of her life on this world tour. she devoted 1/3 of her memoirs talking about it. she developed friendships with queen victoria and a very good friendship with the emperor of japan. ended up staying in japan lower- than-expected because they developed such a nice, close relationship with him. after president grant passed away, julia was living in york and the emperor of japan came to visit julia while she was there. they kept that friendship and headed for the rest of her life. this was a place that the family could come back to, and this was considered home and was welcoming for them. not just this house but gallina. she always refers to it as her dear, dear gallina. host: we have a short while left and we have to talk about their years after the tour.

they come back to the united states and they have lost lots of money in this event that we talked about, the investments in new york city. what was their financial situation and what is the role of the memoirs and assuaging that? guest: when word gets out that they have lost this money, there are veterans from the wardress cent grant money to help him -0- war that lent grant money. he was offered to write articles in the magazine. he was encouraged to write his memoirs. he had never been interested in doing that. it is mark twain's publishing company. and he ended up publishing the memoirs for grant. although he completes them just a few short days before he passed away, he knows that they will bring financial comfort to julia. guest: the first royalty was

$200,000. a mention in that day, the book made $1 million. it is a great book. i recommend it to anyone. host: still readable? guest: absolutely. host: were mark twain and the grants friends, since he offered to publish his memoirs? guest: yes, they did become good friends. and it was through twain's village that grant began of arriving the memoirs. and there were some claims that ten butad ghost writ twain was adamant that it was granted that had written it. host: how close was mark twain to the grants? played for --wain paid for a sculptor?

was mark twain or regular at the white house? guest: not at the white house. it was afterwards that they developed a close relationship. apparently twain had years earlier suggested to grant about writing his memoirs but almost as an offhand remark. so when grant says that century magazine is going to publish his memoirs, because there were the first to make the offer, mark twain reminded him that, no, he had made the offer much earlier. host: i will ask if we can bring the photograph up again at of the president in his final days. it is such a poignant picture. wrapped in his blanket on the porch of the cabin in new york. guest: in horrible pain. host: it was throat cancer. how was he able to get these memoirs done? guest: sheer determination .

guest: he became impassioned. was so important to secure a comfort for his wife. guest: he died so shortly after that it seemed as though adrenaline was keeping him going. julia talks about that and grant does, too, that that was keeping him going to finish those. host: i would like to take a call, but then a with like to hear about her memoirs. she was the first first lady to write her memoirs. kathleen in san francisco. caller: thank you very much. i had a quick question, julia had four brothers. and i think i remember during the civil war, they fought for the south. is that true? and did they finally reconciled? guest: it was her brother fred who had been at west point with ulysses and stayed in the union army and ends up serving on grant's staff. her brother john, none of them

actually joined the confederate army, but they certainly did go south and support the confederacy during the war. at one point, her brother john is captured and put in prison and seeks grant's assistance in getting an exchange -- a prisoner exchange and grant refuses basically to tease john of lesson. but when they're in the white house, the family is always there. host: another question on twitter. with all of these complexities during the civil war, were the grants friends with robert e. lee or jefferson davis? guest: not friends. certainly grant respected robert e. lee during the war, and he had known him and the mexican war. guest: afterward. guest: but julia does become after jefferson davis and ulysses grant passed away, julia does become friends with

irina davis. guest: host: here is the memoirs. this is julia dent grant's memoirs. this edition was edited by the great john simon, now deceased, a great lincoln historian. what is the story about how these became -- the grant papers? and the editor of the grant papers, his life work. how did these memoirs, to be published, and why so long between her death and their writing? guest: she says it was her children who after grant's death and courage to to begin writing her memoirs of her wonderful life with her husband. and she says she just started it to satisfy their request, but then she realized that recalling all of these wonderful times kind of brought new life to her. and she did look at them, i

think she was ambivalent about having them published initially. she thought it was something to record for her children. but then she did try to pursue getting them published several different times. and one publisher told her that they were so private that the people that were alive at that time, it was too much personal information. she was time, it was, told that they would be sold through subscription and she was looking for a lump-sum deal. so they remained in the family hands and unpublished until john simon convinced the family that they should become public. host: she lived a good number of years after him. was she an active first lady, she did it -- dishy advise other first ladies or become a private citizen again? guest: she did a lot of

entertaining. her son was appointed ambassador to austria. she joins him over there. and comes back to the united states. she wrote several articles for different magazines, harper's bizarre, after the spanish- american war. she writes an article that talks thet the government's and nation's responsibility to the widows and orphans of the war. new castle, in. your question. caller: i was wondering about whether or not there was a relationship between julia and ulysses and there was a confederate general longstreet. longstreet was a distant cousin of julia's. and so when grant was first court and julia, would have a long strait was stationed at jefferson barracks. there is a possibility, although

the record is not clear, that longstreet served as one is -- men.rant's grooms host: how long after president grants death was the famous grants to build in new york city? guest: april 27, 1897. host: how to the country mourned him? guest: was the largest funeral held in the country? host: larger than lincoln? guest: yes. york city.way in new and they buried his body and a temporary tomb in riverside park in new york city and began the fund raising effort to build this. host: julia was alive for the dedication? what was her role in all of that? guest: proud widow of and pleased to see the nation

recognizing her husband. host: as we close, we have looked at a long and distinguished military career, a life of ups and downs for the grants over time. 8 years in the white house, a successful world tour. what is the legacy of julia dent grant, and how she fit into the pantheon of first ladies were learning about this year? guest: well, as they are all women who basically support with their husband is trying to achieve. she did it with certain splendor and a very difficult time in american history. and turned the nob on a dark period, early reconstruction, and brighten things for the rest of the century. i think her image in the white house, her public popularity, her featuring of the general the way she did things, the purse personalshe was -- the wish you was, she was a public first lady.

host: after coming from the victorian first lady, is she as a harbinger of the modern first lady in any way? guest: that is very difficult to answer. i think there were all opinionated, strong women. but perhaps in the way, zhs hx public interest. -- she had public interest. the next people, it would be more so with mrs. hayes. julia grant attracted a lot of attention and public opinion to the family that lived in the white house. host: you are working on a book, to establish the species, what is your answer? guest: i think she would have said that her legacy was that she was a devoted and loving wife and mother to their children, but i think more than that, she tried to represent what her husband was trying to andeve -- peace reconciliation in the nation. and in her role as first lady,

she was able to accomplish that. host: many thanks to all the folks at the grant sites or run a country that brought you that here tonight and to the good people at the white house historical associations. and that concludes our discussion of julia dent grant. our thanks to our two guests for being with us. guest: thank you, susan. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]