your health care plan you could keep it. he said it would lower the cost of premiums he said that it would strengthen medicare. r. rothfus: three years later, president obama's health care law has proven to be a string of broken promises. we are seeing premiums rise. one business in my district expects a 26% increase in its premiums totaling more than $30,000. that's $30,000 that cannot go to increasing wages for workers. another company in my district with 17 employees expects a 19% premium increase. with an annual cost of more than $20,000. companies are being forced to change their health plans and pay more for them. some companies may even drop their plans and put their employees in the obamacare exchanges. that's a broken promise.

obamacare is raising taxes on the middle class. the supreme court made that clear. one little known tax in obamacare is a medical device tax. this is a tax on the middle class, because it will be passed directly to the consumers. pennsylvania has the fourth largest medical device industry in the nation. the medical device tax threatens innovators like a company in my district, that supports 600 good paying jobs. obamacare does not strengthen medicare. creates$716 billion and the independent advisory board which puts unelected bureaucrats between seniors and their doctors. folks are losing their health care plans, increasing the deficit and won't bring universal coverage.

more than 30 million people will be uninsured in 10 years. the fact remains that three years later, president obama's health care law is a string of broken promises and damaging our families, seniors, hard-working americans and their health care and killing jobs and violating the first america rights of people of faith. it's a small wonder that some of the authors are calling it a train wreck. e america people deserve better and members should sit down and reduce costs, preserve medicare and increase access to all americans. thank you, and i yield back. mr. messer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would like to talk about broken promise number two. quote, i will not sign a plan that will add one dime to our

deficit either now or in the future. in the truth, obamacare will add to the $6.2 trillion debt over the long run. i would like to recognize my mr. friend from michigan been vole yeoh. mr. bentivolio: i rise today to talk about the unaffordable health care act. i'll admit it, i'm standing here because of it. the unaffordable health care act is made me realize that washington is out of control and run amuck. it made me realize that the people of this great country needed a voice. whenever i think of the proceedings that gave us this this massive health care law,

the words, we must pass the bill to find out what's in the bill, ring in my ear. it makes me cringe. my friends on the other side of the aisle are good people. they passed the bill because their leadership assured them that it was good law. i don't think they purposely wanted to harm the country. we now know what's in the bill and taste not good. i'm confident that my friends wouldn't have voted in favor of obamacare had they known that the bill empowered the i.r.s. to bully people about their health insurance or that the new law created a rationonning board to decide who gets treatment and who doesn't. had the bill been read, i don't think it would have passed. on top of repealing this law, we must reform how businesses --

how business gets done in the capitol. that's why i have introduced read the bills act. the law is easy to understand. before we pass laws which will impact millions of hard-working americans, congress must read the bill. this is the kind of bill that will restore the faith in congress to restore the faith. let's get rid of the notion that we have to pass bills to find out what's in them. repeal obamacare and support the read the bills act. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. thank you. mr. messer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and i recognize my very good friend from the state of georgia, mr. collins. mr. collins: this is a great time tonight and great time that we get to stand here and explain to the american people what they

weren't explained a few years ago. what they are being sold is something good and something that is going to help them. the truth of the matter is, it's not about health care, it's about control. it's about who is going to control health care, who is going to control what our government is getting into and what our government should stay out of it. i support this week of voting to repeal obamacare and moving forward with an aagenda ave that promotes jobs, that creates better opportunities. you see what is happening. my good colleagues have stood here and talked about the problems with businesses and taxes and the broken promises -- my colleague has stated that the broken promises of keeping health care and not adding to the debt, things that were not true. so my problem with this is let's

be honest. let's talk about what it does do, it makes a regulatory framework that is amazing. it didn't matter if you read the bill in twune. at the end of almost every paragraph it would say, we are going to let this agency promote the rules and regulations. you could have read every page and would have known more bureaucrats are going to tell you what health care is going to be like. pages of regulations are on the books, 128 pages of regulations in one day. we are paying a lot of folks to take away the basic rights we are looking at. you could make an argument, this isn't about health care but broadening regulatory health care at i.r.s.. and any thoughts this week about letting them be the regulators

of who's paying and not paying. excuse me. we are having trouble doing what their job is. we don't need them in health care. we have bigger problems here. when broken promises come about, what has disturbed me the most about this whole debate tonight and we have heard about businesses and heard about taxes and heard about broken promises but we haven't heard about health care. we haven't heard about health care and a doctor and patient. the doctor said, just let me practice medicine, which is what i want to do. you see, it's time we talked about health care, because this law, instead of helping those who need help, kicks them off. makes people pay more. doctors are getting out, doctors are not going in. you know who's lost in the picture i have in my mind is

those waiting in the waiting room waiting to see a doctor needing to have health care and this law needs them. let's get on with the real business of this house. and i yield back. mr. messer: i recognize my good friend from montana. i recognize my friend from montana mr. detains. mr. daines: i thank you -- aines. mr. daines: earlier today, i e mailed my constituents a quick survey with one simple question, do you support efforts to repeal president obama's health care law? we have seen already overwhelming response to our

office from across our state, combined with the letters, emails, phone calls we received by 3-1, the people of montana want to repeal obamacare. last week, i had a town hall meeting so i could hear from the people of montana. the last question i was asked, the very end of this hour-long town hall meeting was from a small town on the western side of our state, she shared her hert felt concerns about the health care law and how it was going to affect her business and the ry rising health insurance premiums, she didn't know how to follow the law and keep the business afloat float. hese challenges aren't unique. they are struggling under president obama's overhaul.

instead of increasing access, it is driving costs up and hurting small businesses and raising taxes on americans by more than $1 trillion and puts the government directly between patients and their doctors. this hurts our seniors and their access. the president's health care law took more than $700 billion to pay for new obamacare spending and established this unelected board of bureaucrats am powered to undermine seniors' access to health care. and following this week's troubling news from the i.r.s., it makes it clear that the i.r.s. should not be in charge. we need to repeal obamacare to strip them of this authority. the president's health care violation.ts in in it has mandated health care

coverage which some americans are opposed. religious institutions and health care providers who hold religious and moral convictions are stripped of their religious freedoms. this is a clear violation of first amendment and critical importance that the religious and l tions are protected. i joined more than 90 of my colleagues here in the house for calling the house appropr proposal to contain full protections for americans for americans containing provisions contained in the health conscience rights act i introduced in march. we know that our health care system is complex and has major problems that need to be addressed but obamacare makes the matters worst. it takes us in the wrong direction. at the end of the day will result in higher costs and higher premiums and will louis

premiums they have. remember in march of 2010 when obamacare passed the house? there was nothing bipartisan about obamacare. there was bipartisan opposition. 34 democrats joined 178 republicans in opposing obamacare but not one single republican voted for it. there is nothing bipartisan about it. i will vote to repeal this law on thursday. and give americans the affordable care they deserve. mr. messer: talk to you about broken promise number three, the president promised coubled with comprehensive reform our bill could save $2,500 in the coming years. the truth, the opposite has happened. the average family premium has grown by $3,000. in indiana, residents are expected to face the highest

increases in the nation. 60% for many and 100% for some. i would like to recognize my good colleague, a man who has the the patience, entleman from north carolina carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: the treatment our friends receive and beginning next year, the government will dominate this personal arena. dissment willing this attempt needs to be a priority. mr. speaker, time and time again, i hear from the medical professionals of my district, those who have dedicated their lives concerning the uncertainty that obamacare is causing them. what kinds of rules are going to

come down concerning the care these professionals provide their patients. what treatments will they be able to provide. what hoops will they jump through to get the tests that their patients need? how many hoops will they get through to get those approved. obamacare has harmed small business. and all sorts of unimaginable. small businesses is what drives this nation's economy. they are a testament of what built this country and made it great. this law is causing many of them to make tough decisions, tough decisions about whether they can go out and higher hire that additional worker or employee or invest and grow as they try to grow their company and what other long-term i78 pacts of obamacare is going to have. million small businesses are struggling and this law will make things worst.

providing health insurance has been a means by which small business owners have been able to recruit and retain the best talent. this talent is what helps them be successful. but unfortunately under obamacare providing health care is not going to be something that many small businesses do. two years ago, mr. speaker, the congress repealed the misguided 1099 reporting requirement that was included in the obamacare there to gin up revenue. in this congress i'm hoping we can repeal the medical device tax and i've co-sponsored a bill to do just that. one that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. bipartisan support that is similar to the support shared for many of the misguided provisions of obamacare and the wish to get in there and repeal them and rein them back in. anyone who reads or watches the news knows that the affordable care act, which, mr. speaker,

probably should have been named the unaffordable care act, is costing more and more money just to get it up and running. costs have ballooned and the law hasn't even been fully implemented yet. or nearly implemented yet. state exchanges are requesting more and more federal dollars which has sent the administration scrambling to pull dollars out of the so-called prevention fund. mr. speaker, the c.b.o. estimates that obamacare may now cost twice as much as originally promised, at a price tag of $1.88 trillion through 2022. mr. speaker, we haven't even touched on what will, without a doubt, impact individuals and families the most, the cost of their premiums. this is what american families are the most concerned about. since 2008 families have sent their -- seen their premiums grow by over $3,000 and the new report by the house energy and commerce committee, based upons

anywhere from 47% to 400%. mr. speaker, this law needs to be repealed immediately so patient-oriented reforms can be enacted that protect american jobs and actually deliver on the promise of affordable health care to individuals and families. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his remarks. i would like to speak briefly about broken obamacare promise number four. the president promised, quote, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see their taxes increase. mr. messer: the truth, taxes have gone up for many and not just the well off. the joint committee on taxation has issued a report detailing 21 new or higher taxes that will cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion. indiana, which has a medical device industry that employs 20,000 hoosiers, with a payroll

exceeding $1 billion, would be devastated by obamacare's $20 billion tax on medical devices. i'd like to next recognize my good friend from indiana, appreciate her leadership on his topic, ms. walorski. ms. walorski: thank you to my good friend and my colleague from indiana, mr. messer, for organizing this special order tonight. it has been, representative messer, over three years since obamacare was signed into law. in a recent senate finance committee hearing, senator max bachus told health and human services secretary sebelius that he now sees this bill as, quote, a huge train wreck. i couldn't agree more. obamacare is a huge train wreck. a few weeks ago i held a round table discussion and in many of the chamber of commerces in my area and in each county in my district, i sat down with a wide spectrum of industries, ranging from agriculture to manufacturing. the prominent topic of each discussion was obamacare.sses c

afford the overwhelming taxes and employer mandates. from long-time small business owners to aspiring startup companies, employers agree that obamacare is largely responsible for smothering economic development. if the president and members of congress were truly listening to the american people's opinion of this law, they would see the in wall. we must repeal obamacare. the state of indiana is proud to be a global leader in the medical device industry that my colleague just spoke of. however, obamacare is forcing a $2 -- a 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturing. this tax affects the orthopedic industry, causing rises in costs for seniors and veterans and patients in need. on the three-year anniversary of obamacare, i met with complexus medical, an emerging leader in the orthopedic device manufacturing. i was told this tax will stifle innovation, could force

companies to consider overseas supply chains. the medical device tax is a great concern also for our veterans. that's why i led a letter, along with my colleagues from indiana, to the secretary of veterans affairs, asking how this tax will impact veteran care. after the sacrifice and fearless bravery demonstrated by our troops and our veterans, it is unacceptable for them to worry about their access to quality care. and it gets worse. just this week we learned more shocking news when the i.r.s. admitted to targeting certain groups of people. a practice that is completely unlawful, unethical and downright shameful. their willful actions to defy transparency have already qualified the i.r.s. for a comprehensive congressional investigation, with at least two hearings scheduled in the house in the coming weeks. but let's not forget, the i.r.s. is set is to play -- is set to play a major role in obamacare.

distributing the tax credits. if the i.r.s. cannot operate under the light of transparency today with their current duties, i am deeply concerned that further responsibilities with sensitive information and controversial policies are a recipe for disaster. this bill, ladies and gentlemen, is spiraling out of control. it's time for washington to heed the overwhelming evidence, wipe the slate clean to show the american people that we are listening. now more than ever the president and the congress must restore transparency at the federal level. i support the full repeal of obamacare and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you and i yield my time back. mr. messer: i thank the gentlelady for her remarks. as many other speakers have said tonight, obamacare is big government at its worst. federal agencies recently reported that it will take them 190 additional man hours per years for people to comply with its onerous implementation

regulations. that's nearly 95,000 new full-time employees just to do obamacare paperwork. now i'd like to recognize our final speaker of the night, one of the hardest working members i know in this chamber, i appreciate your persistence for being here. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. mr. barr: i want to thank the gentleman, my friend from indiana, for his courtesy and for his leadership on this very important issue. and i join my colleague in supporting h.r. 45, the full repeal of obamacare. and, mr. speaker, it is true, you've heard from the other members here this evening, you've heard about the importance of repealing obamacare, because it is legislation that is full of broken promises. we know that the signature promise of this legislation was that if you like your current health insurance you can keep it. we know now that seven million people will lose their employer-sponsored health

insurance at least, which was nearly double the previous estimate of four million. we heard about savings. remember, this was titled the affordable t in 2013 the congressional budget office projection tags the total cost at $1.88 trillion . premiums, premiums are not decreasing, premiums are going up. the average family premium has grown over $3,000 since the passage of obamacare. individuals earning as little as $25,000 will pay more for insurance because of obamacare. $1.1 trillion in new taxes and jobs. this legislation was supposed to create 400,000 jobs immediately. speaker pelosi promised that obamacare would create four million jobs. well, mr. speaker, small employers in kentucky and central kentucky tell me that obamacare is the principle reason that they're not hiring. according to a study by the

national federation of independent business, the employer mandate like the one included in obamacare could eliminate an additional 1.6 million jobs by 2014. obamacare is creating an environment in which employers are incentivized to reduce hours for their employees to go to part time work. the supporters of obamacare are supporting a part time work economy. we need a full time work economy. and that's why we need to repeal obamacare. it increases the federal deficit, according to a january g.a.o. report. obamacare will add $6.2 trillion to the deficit over the next 75 years. but, mr. speaker, i want to conclude with a story that illustrates why this really matters. there's a lot of statistics about jobs and the economy and increased premiums and cost. but the real signature failure of this legislation is that it hurts patients.

that it deprives the american people of the benefits of medical innovation. a hospital administrator told me in central kentucky that we used to take care of patients but we now take care of paper. medical innovation is central to america's future economic growth and to delivering new life-saving medical devices to patients. but the new medical device tax included in obamacare, which imposes a $2.3 -- 2.3% tax on medical device manufacturers, punishes medical innovation and prevents quality health care. and families around the country know this all too well. in my own family we saw this up close. christmas day, 2012, could have been one of the worst days of our life. fortunately it was the best day of our life. and it happened when my mother called me that morning, on christmas morning, and said,

andy, your father has had a fainting spell. and i said, i can talk to him? so she got him on the phone. i said, dad, how are you doing? he said, i need to drink a glass of water. and i said, well, stop drinking any more coffee. calm down and give me a call if anything happens. i got another call an hour later. this time it was from my mother again and she said they were in the emergency room. my father had passed out a second time. and so i rushed to the emergency room and i talked -- i was greeted by the e.r. doc and i said, what's going on, doctor? he said, well, we did an e.k.g. and here's the results. and he showed me a flat line. and he said, your father's heart is slowing down. i said, doctor, what are we going to do about that? and he said, well, fortunately we can put a pace maker in your father and another doctor came down to the e.r. and he

reassured us and he said, we can put a pacemaker in your father and we can make him better. so he went in to get that pacemaker surgery and when he came out he was recovering. and his life was saved because of that pacemaker technology. mr. speaker, the american people , american families depend on the innovative, unbelievable technology that american entrepreneurship has created. but obamacare punishes that. and if it wasn't for that kind of medical innovation and technology, my father wouldn't be here today. so i stand opposed to obamacare for all the reasons we've talked about here tonight. but most importantly because i credit the american free enterprise system for saving lives. and obamacare rolls that back. and with that i yield back the balance of my time but i certainly appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from indiana for discussing the

importance of this issue and the future of high-quality, innovative health care in america in the future. mr. messer: i thank the gentleman for his moving remarks. i thank all of my colleagues for their remarks today. we're going to vote this week on repealing obamacare. that vote is more than symbolism. obamacare is wrecking this economy, obamacare is terrible for patient outcomes, it needs to be repealed. i thank the gentleman and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the nority leader.

mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, i had intended to talk about this subject, rebuilding the american manufacturing sector, and i will , but i just heard the most remarkable one-hour debate in my life, not a debate, but a whole slew of accusations and incorrect facts. i guess a fact shouldn't be incorrect. but i never heard such misstatements in all my life. and the last one, i'm absolutely delighted, the gentleman's father is healthy, but to think a 2% tax on medical devices is going to stop medical

technologies when those devices are extraordinarily profitable lunancs.companies is i don't like taxes and they don't want to pay a 2% tax, but come on. you think that's going to stop medical technology from advancing when there is so much profit in it? i don't think so. ok, 37 times now, 37 times this week, republican majority is ing to repeal the affordable health care act. 7 times. when americans are already benefiting from the affordable health care act. is it my friends that spoke here for the last hour want to tell every 22-year-old or 21-year-old

in the entire nation that they can no longer stay on their parents' health insurance, because that's exactly what the repeal would do. those young men and women, who are counting on being able to have health insurance, no, repeal ends that part of the affordable health care act. are they to go out and tell 40 million americans that they aren't going to have health insurance at all? that's what the repeal of the affordable health care act will do, 40 million americans. are they to say that somehow this is costing more money to have an insurance policy where you can stay healthy, where you can get care before it becomes a crisis and wind up in the emergency room, that that's

going to be cheaper when you repeal the affordable health care act? sending people to the emergency room is going to be cheaper. what planet are you from? that's not the way it is. the most expensive care in the world is the emergency room where somebody does not have the continuity of care that the insurance policy provides for them. or maybe they want to discriminate against women as existed before the affordable health care act. every woman in this nation faced discrimination, but the affordable health care act ends that discrimination. and how many families out there, how many families out across america have a member of that family or many members of that family that have some pre-existing condition, high blood pressure, onset of

inbetes, maybe some incident their past? i will tell i, i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years and i know exactly what the health insurance companies will do if the provisions that prevent insurance discriminations are eliminated with the bill that these gentlemen and ladies intend to take up this week. insurance discrimination has harmed millions of americans, many of whom came to me as insurance commercial in california pleading for justice in their insurance program. justice was to be found in california because i knew that the insurance companies had an . igation and had a contract but you eliminate the affordable

health care act and you will see insurance discrimination re- erge that will harm millions upon millions and they will have to pay far more simply because they are women. 37 times, 37 times you have attempted to repeal the affordable health care act. seniors, every senior in this nation that's on medicare is able to get a free annual checkup. and ladies and gentlemen, you need to understand in your arguments that that free, affordable annual checkup has reduced the cost of medical care in medicare programs. and the inflation rate in medicare has come down since the

affordable health care act has gone into effect. and the statistics you toss around about the extraordinary costs, you need to understand that we have been plagued by health care insurance inflation for decades. and the affordable health care act has built into it, the very first opportunity that this nation has had to bend the cost curve on health care. and we are seeing it happen today. we are seeing it happen today in the medicare program because seniors are able to get prevention, able to get that drug that brings down their blood pressure, or the advice on how to deal with diabetes and avoid the extraordinary costs. oh, yeah, 37 times repealing the

affordable health care act. you talk about jobs in america. ok. let's talk about jobs in america. let's talk about the fact that there has not been one significant piece of legislation out of this house since the beginning of this session to create jobs. president obama stood here on about s and talked creating jobs, but this house has not brought forward one significant piece of legislation. the president called for an infrastructure program, $50 billion to put people back to work, to create the infrastructure, the streets, the roads, the bridges, the water systems, the sanitation systems. not just to put people back to work, but to build the foundation for future economic growth. where is that legislation? has he ever been heard. and one committee controlled by

our friends in the opposition party. no. no. well, we will take up the transportation act, soon. t will there be adequate funding? probably not. the president called for an american jobs act. not even heard in committee here. americans want to go to work. they want jobs. they want to go work. and we have a program on the democratic side to do that. and we want to deal with the big problems facing this nation. we want to deal with the fact that we have millions of people that want to work in america. and we have serious problems to solve. we ought to put aside this business of repealing the affordable health care act. change it? yes, make a reasonable change and let's talk about it and make a proposal about how to make it

better and we'll talk about it. but which aren't going to talk about repealing it. we aren't going to go there. maybe we ought to go with some things that are really important. maybe we ought to go with something that was in the news today. it's been determined for the first time in at least three million years that the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere is over 400 parts per million. what does that mean? climate change? oh, yes. you in los angeles, you would have seen record-high temperature in early may. reports are coming out about fire storms this summer season. we have seen superstorm sandy and around this world, we have seen many superenvironmental

effects. the scientists tell climate chan w bring more er events. and thereilns in our food supply. like the current drought in the southwest. 400 parts per million. in the last three million years, the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has never been that high. now the good news is that this nation, the strongest economic nation in the world, despite the inability of this house to get things done, we can solve the climate change problem or at least lead and in doing so, we can put people work. and here's how it can be done.

clean energy. clean energy is spurring business development across this country and its future is very, very bright. not a month goes by without some entrepreneur, a scientist, an inventor coming to me with another idea about how you can mprove solar technologies, photovoltaic technologies. one came up the other day, perhaps one and a half more times initiate than the current olar panels. $5.1 ased surged 30% from llion in 2010 to 5.6 billion and the trend continues. jobs in the solar industry are

in every state. and there are over 5,000 companies involved employing workers. 00 americans and wind industries that is big in my district, 75,000 people across this nation and many of them, my own constituents. great potential out there. as removed from coal and oil, the energy of the previous two centuries to the clean energies of the future. we'll see that in agriculture as we grow crops that can generate energy. we will see it in geothermal and wave energy in our oceans. there is enormous potential. and the research that goes into this are also jobs. our colleagues on the majority side have attempted in the last year to reduce research for

energy and agriculture. to what effect? well, maybe they want to go to 500 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. i don't think americans want to go there and the people of the world want to go there and don't want the calament will come. there are many ways this can be done. yesterday, as part of our make it in america, i was in sacramento, california and a remarkable event took place, an event that was actually caused by a piece of legislation that was passed here, the very first piece of legislation that was signed by president obama in 2009. it was the stimulus bill, the much maligned stimulus bill. they said it didn't work well.

it did work, mr. speaker. and it is working today. nd it's being made in america. this is what the american recovery act is doing for americans. here's what the stimulus bill in yet one more example of success is doing for america. loco the most advanced motive built in the world. built in sacramento. the stimulus bill provided $466 million for amtrak to buy 70

locomotives tric and written into that bill is at these must be american-made. company , a german with large manufacturing cilities around the world, looked at that, that 466 million made in america? we could could that. they put a -- we could do that. they put a bid in they went to their manufacturing plant in sacramento that was previously manufacturing light rail cars, set about building a new factory. is hat new factory 70 new los

rolling onto america's rail tracks. and will soon be providing service on the northeastern corridor. 200 new direct jobs in sacramento at the siemens factory and hundreds around the nation. it works. the climate change issue here is very important. the advanced technology in this locomotive, that has 9,000 horsepower, has the ability to generate electricity when it slows down, when it breaks for curves -- brakes for curves or tations. we are putting back into the grid -- reputting back into the grid electricity it consumed in its previous travel. make it in america, use our federal tax dollars to buy and to build american-made equipment and supplies and materials. and that's precisely what siemens is doing.

this is a success story. this is the kind of thing we should be talking about here on the floor of the house of representatives. this is the kind of work we should be doing in our committees. putting americans back to work. laying the infrastructure for the future growth of this country. but oh, no. 're going to spend this week toling with the 37th attempt repeal the affordable care act. there's so much more to do. there's so much more to do here in america. why don't we put our shoulder to the wheel of progress and provide a transportation bill that actually builds the infrastructure for this nation? that provides these kinds of ? comotives and train sets in the early days of the civil

war abraham lincoln signed the transcontinental rail act. little known, but in that rail act was a provision, not just to build a rail line across america, but that all of the steel, all of the iron that was had to d in that line be american-made. made it in america. creating jobs, connecting the east to the west. 1862. and here we are all these decades later with the same idea . new locomotive on american rails , american-made. i want to congratulate siemens. i want to congratulate this german company that is here in america, is providing american

jobs and is building the most advanced locomotive in the world. and they're building it in sacramento, california. so, what else can we do? what else can we do to provide jobs? there's so much. if we had listened to the president when he proposed to congress the american jobs act, perhaps two million more americans would be working today. construction crews would be bridges and dams and levees and flood protection facilities. they would be building the infrastructure. and we would also be working on our energy systems. piece of legislation that i've introduced would require that tax subsidies for individuals

and businesses that want to put up a wind turbine or a solar panel that would only -- panel, that would only be available to them if they bought american-made equipment. spend our tax money on american-made equipment, made by americans. pretty simple thought. abraham lincoln must have had that thought and the congress in 1862 had that thought. and passed a law that did it. there's more that we can do. when we passed the transportation -- pass the transportation bill, as we should this year or early next year, a new highway bill, we should put in -- we should put into it a propose albie ranking member rahall. that proposal -- proposal by ranking member rahall. that proposal said that money on this bill should be spent on american-made concrete, steel, trucks, buses, putting americans

to work. the democrats on that committee think that's a really good idea. we hope our republican colleagues agree. and that we write into the transportation bill a very strong buy-america provision so that americans can have the jobs . and so that we avoid the egregious and humiliating fact that the new oakland-san francisco bay bridge, the steel in much of that bridge was not american steel workers, not american companies, but chinese. it went out to bid, was supposed to be 10% cheaper. and so the chinese company took the bid, built a new highly vanced steel mill and sent faulty steel to san francisco bay.

requiring even more expenditure. so there are things we should learn from the history and we will if we listen carefully. if we pay attention to what science is telling us about climate change, about the buildup of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, if we listen then we must have the courage to act. and i would pray for our children's future and their children and their children beyond that. that this house of representatives and the senate have the courage to act decisively on the climate crisis. and in the farm bill that we mark up tomorrow, that we take the opportunity to write into that farm bill serious conservation programs that conserve the nation's forests and farmland and water and

streams. i would hope that we would do that. i would hope that this house would find the courage to take on the oil industry and the coal industry and move decisively to green energy systems. what is a low down terrible process under way. filling our atmosphere with ever-increasing levels of carbon dioxide. after all, it's about the next generations. my generation will soon be gone. and so will most of the members of this house. it's the future generations that are going to face our apparent unwillingness and inability to attack the climate change problem. and as i said a moment ago, we could do it in a way that builds

efficient transportation systems like this locomotive that siemens built in sacramento, california. that builds green energy stems, renewable energy, low-carbon dioxide-producing energy. my colleague at from texas has joined us. she'll action -- i've noticed that our colleague from texas has joined us. sheila jackson lee, thank you for joining thus evening. we've talked about the affordable care act and how we should turn our attention to jobs for america. and i'm sure you have some thoughts on those subjects and others and please join us. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank my good friend from california r really framing the discussion tonight around i think the only thing that gives us the kind of positive agenda that puts americans back to

work. we know as the economy collapsed, 12 million were out of work, but we also know -- excuse me -- that we have steadily made an increase. but it's not where any of us would like to be. and i couldn't help but, as i listened to the gentleman so eloquently and so effectively, ask the simple question as to why are we again putting on the floor of the house a repeal of the affordable care act? something that has not only been resoundingly embraced by many of our leaders, by the uninsured in our nation who are looking forward to the opportunity to be insured, but in the last election i think it was very clear that in the ampleation of president obama and 64 -- affirmation of president obama and 64 million people voted for

him and the enormous unequal divide in the states supported him and he made it clear that he wanted to ensure on behalf of the american people that there would be coverage of working families. now, as he looks to implementation, we recognize that members of congress will be engaged in making it work right. but we also realize that the affordable care act will provide more resources for health professionals, it will establish federally qualified health clinics which will create more jobs, will attack the dastardly 28.4% uninsured in the state of texas. of course our governor sees fit to reject the expanded medicaid. but i can't imagine why we have not embraced this agenda which includes the idea of all of the above and creating clean energy

and manufacturing jobs, bringing the solar energy back to the united states again, making solar panels. i'm never -- certainly i'm aware of the fact that any country will grab what they can grab, but the united states has the capacity to do so in energy. it has the capacity to build wind turbines. all we have to do is invest. t has the opportunity in actuality to build submarines and to get back in the ship building bills. i'm sure there are members listening and saying, well, we've long left that business. no, i don't think so. because there's always a more technologically efficient, more effective, more swifter, if you will, ship or submarine. you can always make it bigger and better or smaller and better. with the technological revolution we also have the opportunity to raise the spector of manufacturing.

of course in the energy sector where i come from there's a whole array of opportunities, as we utilize clean, natural gas -- clean natural gas. that is making the manufacturing opportunities grow grander and grander and i truly believe that we'll find a common balance between natural gas producers and the manufacturers who need to use clean energy. let me also say that the housing market is booming and i am delighted to stand here and say that that is creating jobs and many of these homes are being built on the basis of clean energy. d i don't know why h.r. 1524 of course is a bill that speaks to this issue. i don't know why we are spending our time, three days, i know that they'll be in the rules committee tomorrow and i'll have a number of amendments that i hope to be introducing that speaks to issues that hopefully the utilization of the expanded

medicaid for states that have a 0%-plus uninsured -- 20%-plus uninsured. the idea of ensuring that we include the right kind of medicare reimbursement. but these are issues that can go in regular order. but yet we are spending the nation's time, dollars and resources to be on the floor when we could be putting forth tax reform. many of us want to work on tax incentives for small businesses. the backbone of the economic engine of this country. my friends, i call them all my friends, i want small businesses to be paying attention, you are our friends. you create jobs, you stay the course, just today i was listening to an individual in the ravaged area of the hurricane sandy. and she was saying that she has six restaurants. she was complaining that we had not done what we were supposed to do, obviously you remember they stalled the compensation

for those souls in that eye of the storm and we waited with our friends, the republicans wouldn't let the money out and she is a victim of that but she said, i have six restaurants. some of the ones i cook in. but just give her, in addition to the compensation from fema, which is overdue, give her a tax structure that can help her grow her business, pass legislation that gives incentives for hiring the unemployed. that's what should be on the floor of the house. as we approach all of the excitement of graduation, when young people will be coming out of college doors, looking for the opportunity that america's always promised, when they say we all are created equal. i'll be going to a number of graduations. i know you will. you'll be speaking at graduations. what will you be saying to them? that america's the land of opportunity. but yet we pound day after day after day after day, month after month, year after year on a bill that has been passed, signed

into law and being implemented. they're saying thank you for the affordable care act, but there are item we was to fix, why don't we fix them together. soy came to the floor to just say that i want to join the chorus of getting to work. i want to join the chorus of creating jobs. and in fact, i want to join the chorus of putting our heads together and creating a summer youth jobs program for the young people, high school students, that are coming out of high school, not coming out but in the middle of their high school year well, always used to be able to find work and if no one can tell me that when we did in 2009, the first year of president obama's administration it was a brand and pite, not experiment, but a grand and piting response to those young people in the colleges, excuse me in high school, preparing to go to college. let me finish by saying this

just throw a little something on the table, just to say if you want to work, let's move toward immigration reform, that's another job creator, and one that averpbeses the questions of america's businesses. let's do that. if we want to work, of course, i know that a couple of my friends were running out of the door but we can find sensible gun regulation but i'll just say this. if nothing else, can we get something that says store your guns? over the last week we was been seeing people leave guns around and to this could you do that? could you just have a simple, h.r. 65 says, hold people responsible for storing their guns. i want to thank you for your leadership, it's been a persistent, pronounced leadership i have been delighted to join you on. i want to thank leader pelosi for her pointedness about, can we get to work, her rising

leadership if you will, in the backdrop of the tenor she had -- tenure she had as speaker to get things done an of course all the leadership, including the leading spokesperson for make it in america, our friend, steny hoyer, and i must call all of our leaders, mr. clyburn, mr. becerra, our vice chair, and mr. crowley, along with chairs of our committee, ranking members, but our message has been, as i yield back to the gentleman, that we can do all the fuss, we can fix the i.r.s., we can talk about issues that are occurring with leaks, that's our jobs. we understand that. but it is not our job to come back again over and over again and revise a bill that is the law of the land not only by the vote of the united states congress but by the united states supreme court. what more do we need to answer that question? so i hope the partnership with

the gentleman, we're writing legislation, i want to make one other point, we joined in on legislation about doing human exploration again that creates jobs as well. it fills the various, the oh ryon on the books right now getting ready to be built but there are so many things we can do, bipartisan, and i thank the gentleman for his leadership. mr. garamendi: sheila jackson lee, thank you so much, you are a leader on these issues, you often, almost always, present these issues to the american people on the floor of he house and you do it with passion and knowledge. colleagues,ier, our they talked about the 37th time they're going to repeal the affordable care act, and they also have legislation to end medicare as we know it. you go back to when medicare was put in place, 1964, 1965, the

republican party opposed it then and have often through those years, this date, atempted in various ways to eviscerate or to end it as we know it. apparently they're fwoning to try to do she same thing with the affordable health care act, it's a waste of time. these programs are so fundament ale to our ability to survive. this is health care for americans. spreading that opportunity out. it's a long discussion, we had that discussion on the floor for many, many days. but what we really ought to be focusing on is putting americans back to work. this piece of legislation is one of about 30 pieces of legislation put in by the democratic caucus. this is mine, it deals with your tax money. simply says it's going to be spent on american made clean energy, solar panels, wind turbines and the like. not a bad idea.

spend your tax money on american made equipment, american job, american businesses. there's another bill i have dealing with the transportation system, same thick. that bill is now finding its way nto the rewrite of the highway transportation program, transportation bill, and hopefully it'll be there. a very strong buy american provision. so that our buses, our trains, our light rail, our locomotives, steel and concrete for bridges, we've got a lot of work to do in america. we've got a lot of work. and a lot of need. and this house ought to be spending its time on that we'll take another night and go into this, the tax policy side of this, in which there's a lot to be aid about changing our taxes to encourage manufacturing. some of that has been done. i'll leave one example, two years ago, the democrats controlled this house, we eliminated about $12 billion of

tax breaks that american companies received for shipping american job overseas. we put a stop to that. there's about another $5 billion that needs to be done but we no longer control this house. we ought to bring those jobs back home, we ought to flip that over and give a tax break for reshoring. bringing the jobs back to america. that's another night's discussion, we'll take that up on another evening. but for tonight, we're putting americans back to work. it's about focusing the attention of this chamber, the 435 of us, on what we really need in this country. this which is a very -- which is a very strong, growing economy. we've seen progress every quarter since the beginning of 2010. every quarter we've seen private sector employment grow. we're not where we ought to be,

we have more work to do. and when we finally rebuild the american manufacturing sector, when once again we make it in america, americans are going to make it. thank you. mr. speaker, i yield back my ime. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: i move that the house 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 paul stating all right relations are needed. you can follow the house live here on c-span when members return tomorrow. on c-span tonight, reaction from

around washington of the investigation into the irs targeting a conservative organization in the justice ap'stment accessing the phone records. then immigration legislation proposed by the gang of eight. later, house republican members on their opposition to that legislation. coming up on the next washington journal, congressman john mica of florida, chairman of an oversight subcommittee, will discuss the irs investigation. then representative brian higgins of new york about the benghazi hearings and homeland security after the boston marathon bombings. rs later magazine features -- our spotlight on magazine peter suderman. we will hear from attorney general eric holder at a news

conference today where he answers questions about the irs probe of the justice department ap'sbpoena sap's -- of phone records. >> if you question on the subpoenas of the aps own record. did you sign off on this subpoena for two months of recrods? records? to whom did you delegate authority for the information? the ap call this a violation of the department own guidelines and asked you to return the records and destroy all copies. would you consider doing so? in june 2012d that i've been interviewed by the fbi in connection with this matter. potential conflict of

interest and to make sure the investigation was seen as independent, i recused myself from the matter. we will get to exactly when that happened. it was early in the investigation. this matter has therefore or there after been conducted by u.s. attorneys here and watch and 10, dc, under the of the deputy attorney general. he would be the one who authorized the subpoenas i went to ap. i am not familiar with all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. i was recused but i am confident the people involved in this investigation who i know and that worked with for many ed all of the appropriate justice department regulations and did things according to the doj rules. do you understand my people in the newsgathering business would find this troubling? >> as i said, i don't know all

that went into the formulation of the cepeda -- of the subpoena. --s is a very seriously serious leak. i've been a prosecutor since 1976. this is among if not the most leaks i have ever seen. it put the american people at risk. who waso determine responsible for that requires veryquestions -- aggressive action. i'm sure the subpoena has plummeted -- has been formulated in conformance with doj regs. >> the ap says it found out about this after the fact. why was no attempt made to seek

their voluntary cooperation? >> you're getting it to matters my matte knowledge. what's are you comfortable with that approach? -- >> are you comfortable with that approach? >> i don't know what the circumstances were here. how things are done in a particular investigation. i don't have knowledge of those facts. >> the real question is the policy of the administration when it comes to the ability of the media to cover the news. the question for you is given the fact that this news organization was not given an squashnity to try to this in court, and leaves us wondering whether the administration has decided policy wise that it's going to go after us.

can talk about policy. that is not a policy of this administration. if you will remember in 2009 through mygoing confirmation hearings, i testified in favor of the reporter's shield law. we took a position in favor of such a law. we did not get the necessary support on the hill. it is something this administration still thinks would be appropriate. we've even investigated cases on the basis of the facts. of a policy to get the press or to do anything of that nature. the fax and the law -- the facts and the law have dictated our actions in that regard. the underlying investigation was being run with the knowledge and hand of the u.s. government, why was there [indiscernible] when the information came out? tracks i cannot answer that question. --

>> i cannot answer that question. [indiscernible] because i was one of the people who have knowledge of this matter, i have a good content with the media and try to make -- try to make sure the investigation was seen as independent to avoid the possibility of an appearance of a conflict. i made the determination to recused myself. , nos there any concern laws have been broken and if so, have you ordered an investigation? >> i have ordered an investigation to bb gun. the fbi is court knitting with the justice department --the fbi is coordinating with the justic e department.

, they wereinal outrageous and unacceptable. we are examining the facts to see if there were criminal violations. from theu recused investigation on [indiscernible] >> i will not comment on that. >> americans say they don't trust the administration right now. what can you say to them question mark -- to them? >> to the extent that we have determined actors in the government have gone beyond what they were supposed to do, broken regulations and rules, we have positive people. we have held people accountable. we have tried to do things according to the rules or there are going to be people occasionally who will not do so. it is then incumbent upon us to have with -- you have enforcement responsibilities to hold those people accountable. our record shows we have done that. to beendations require

drawn as narrowly as possible. a two month period of 20 different phone lines. is that a narrow request? the deputy attorney general has written a letter in response to the ap letter. the has a number of factual assertions in it. -- there is a growing sense of the on civil liberties has not lived up to the promises you and others made beginning in 2008. looking at the civil liberties

record of this administration, are you disappointed in why hasn't more been done? >> i am proud of what we have done. the policies we put in place with regard to let's say the war on terror, we decided such interrogation techniques would not be used. we have been very aggressive in our enforcement of the civil rights laws. there have been a host of things this administration has withthat are consistent what the current -- with what the president campaigned on and what we promised at the beginning of the administration. >> the president signed executive orders [inaudible] so many other examples where people are disappointed in this administration on the left and the right. do you need to change course?

>> this administration has put a real value on the rule of law and our values as americans. i think the actions we have taken are consistent with those. if one looks at what we have done in a variety of areas, i found a more abundant civil rights division. that has bought record numbers of cases, protected record numbers of people. i would take issue with regard to how we have conducted the war on terror. there were changes made by this administration. a repudiation of opinions that existed aut changes that were consistent with what the president campaigned on and what we talked about early on.

concern about lack of transparency with regard to the drone program. what are you going to do about that? ofwe are in the process speaking to that. i made a promise that i think will be kept both by me and the president in a relatively short time. >> the phone records in the ap 'sse -- the justice department internal regulations don't speak to e-mail records. based on the briefings that has come out. can he say whether journalists e-mail records, including content are axis of this information? ricky would have to refer to let her that the deputy general --pareprepared

>> you would have to refer to the deputythat general compared. prepared. >> this is the first time we have had a chance to speak to since the boston marathon bombings. any evidence that the attackers received training or support from russia? isthat investigation ongoing. i would don't want to comment too much on it. i will note the fbi director was in moscow last week. we have gotten good cooperation but we aressians exploring everything in connection with that matter. >> was ap the only news organization that got their records clean up -- records subpoenaed? >> that will be for the deputy general to respond to.

>> k say whether it is possible to conduct a thorough investigation of leaks of classified information that appear in the media without taking somebody's investigative steps by pulling records? department of justice i'm confident knowing the people here but not knowing the fact regulations say you have to exhaust all possibilities before you engage in interacting with that the decision to do what the media. they did here was consistent with their having exhausted all it is possible to do investigations in that way. the other possibilities. .ach investigation is different >> how many within the department have been accused question mar? >> i think i am probably -- the only person we choose. only person recused. having been interviewed and having knowledge of the matter than interacting with the press,

it seemed heavily better to step out. better to step out. about howed regret --[inaudible] i think we should use our federal court system. it is proven to be effective. a place where we can convict . also a place for wreaking get valuable intelligence. what we are going to try to do is to close montano -- to close guantanamo. it has a negative impact on our relationship with our allies. we are going to make a renewed effort to close it. >> diplomatic avenues center official -- the appointment of a

new senior official? >> we are looking at new candidate. >> why was the ap case different than other of the investigations? i know you are not managing this notak station -- you're managing the investigation but what made this different in your estimation? require an extensive suite of material? >> sweep i'm not sure about. but i know enough about what was compromised as a result of that leak. on the basis of that knowledge, that gives me the ability to characterize it as serious a matter as i said it was. >> on the irs matter, what statutes may have been violated? >> we will have to get to that. there are a variety of statutes

within the irs code i'm not .amiliar with o there are other things we will be looking at as well. >> with boston and benghazi in the iris and this, it seems like the fbi is involved in a love the stuff. thea few miles years -- fbi is involved in a lot of stuff. only a few are mormore months fr muller's tenure. >> i talked to some the candidates -- attorney general holder recused himself from the investigation into the seizure of the ap phone records. members of the house judiciary committee will have a chance to ask the attorney general questions tomorrow about what happened with the ap in the irs investigation during oversight hearing. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three.

friday, the acting irs commissioner steve miller appears before the house ways and means committee. by friday at 9:00 a.m. eastern also on c-span3. president obama released a statement this evening about the , i report saying in part have directed secretary jack lew to hold those responsible for these failures of responsible. jay carneyay am a said there is no tolerance for the iris targeting specific groups. on theso weighed in justice department accessing ap phone records. benghazi talking points, iris reviews -- irs reviews. very instant the president

or you have placed the burden of responsibility someplace else. points,enghazi talking it is in political motivations on the hill. been thes, it is bureaucrats at the irs and on the justice department issue, your statement --these of those matters are handled independently by the justice department. -- you said those matters are handled independently of the justice department. the possibility for setting the tone and direction, doesn't it rest of the president on the matters? >> the responsibility to set tone and focus on the priorities of the american people is absolutely the ilty of the president and you see and hear him do that everyday. i think you have to separate these issues. if you look at the answers the president gave yesterday in response to questions on one hand about the clear political circus that benghazi has become

and his response to questions about the report of activity by irs, you -- by the see something different. he made clear at the reports of activity about irs personnel proved to be true, he would find an outrageous and expect that appropriate action be taken. and that will be held responsible. foras no tolerance targeting of specific groups, conservative groups if the reporting is true on this. he would expect action to be taken. but this is a matter when it comes to the irs that is under review by the independent inspector general. we have not seen that report. it is our recen understanding tt it's release is imminent emma my

have that, we will assess the next step. , wehen that is imminent will assess the next that. whether there was a deliberate targeting of groups, and appropriately -- inappropriately and what action can be taken. the president's feelings about this kind of action if it took place. on the issue of what is a department of justice investigation, as i understand it, the president is a strong defender of the first amendment and a firm believer of the press to be unfettered in its ability to conduct reporting and facilitate the free flow of information. he also of course recognizes the need for the justice department to investigate

alleged, no activity without undue influence. , wer than press reports have no knowledge of any attempt by the justice department to see phone records of the associated press. we are not involved at the white house and any decisions made in connection with ongoing criminal investigations as those matters are handled appropriately by the justice department. independently. i understand there are a lot of questions about the reports doj's actions. in this in -- in this situation, it would be inappropriate for me to have answers to those questions. i don't have them. and i have to refer you to department of justice. >> now congressional reaction will start the senate majority leader harry reid who says work is being done to get a new irs commissioner. then senate republicans led by

senator mitch mcconnell. >> with the irs did is inexcusable. this is not the first time we have seen this. it was not long ago the irs targeted the naacp, greenpeace and the california church who was really progressive. the all saints church in pasadena, california. at that time, we did not hear a sound republican grant -- on the issue then. nor was their outrage when others were under attack. i believe we need to take action to stop this inappropriate behavior in the irs. i spoken with the chairman of the finance committee and asked him to hold hearings soon examining what should be done.

we need to wait until the inspector general report is completed. expect that to be within a week or 10 days. there is another issue at stake here. .e cannot lose sight of this the political groups masquerading as a social welfare organizations to fromit anonymous donations we don't know w. .ig corporations denny's to stop. that needs to stop. we don't know how much money was spent in the last election. ont of the money was spent the right wing but there was 20 on the left wing. .t is said to be $1 billion

what has been done to improve the social welfare of the united states question mark that is what the shadowy organizations are supposed to do. his organization has one purpose only -- to defeat democrats. anyone who thinks otherwise is being willfully. --is being willfully foolish. whether these groups are on the left or the right. the irs may not be the right organization to perform the task that perhaps what we have not as the onlythat organization we have to look to. the010, democrats advanced

disclosed act that would've taken the iris out of the business in investigating these groups -- taken the irs out of the business of investigating these groups. the outrage of the republican then? we should take another look at the disclosed act. we must stop these abuses by the irs and cracked down on efforts karl rove and others to exploit .ur tax code lacks good afternoon. want to make a few observations

about the administration's abuse of power. we now have focused the attention of everyone on the isgths the administration willing to go to quiet the voices of its critics. my colleagues including senator irs. will focus on the i want to talk about the broader picture. going backst year, to 2009, we have seen the efforts of the administration quiet the voices of the critics. during the debate on obamacare, it was the directives of the secretary of hhs to help insurance companies that they could not tell their customers. those who bought their products, what they thought about obamacare. a directive from the secretary hhs quieting the voices of

critics of obamacare. now you've noticed the secretary is out raising money from the private sector, people dependent upon the government's regulations, to help the government convinced the public that obamacare is a good measure. we have had examples of initiatives at the securities and exchange commission, the federal communications commission and at the fec to engage in the kind of government regulatory activity that is targeted as financing the critics -- as silencing the critics of the it ministration. most of you have not paid much attention to any of that but now i think you get it. i think the american people get it. everybody understands what the

irs is. most powerful agency of the federal the ability toh literally put people out of business. we have seen what they can do. and there is a measure that i expect we'll see from the democrats because we saw the previous congress and the one he for that called the disclosed act, designed to give the irs even more power to quiet the voices of the critics of this administration. it's important not only that legislation be defeated but the ministration get the message -- the federal government should not be used to quiet the voices of the critics of the obama administration. let me turn to senator hatch.

>> let me just say this -- i have never seen anything quite like this except in the past during the nixon years. with the irs asserted on friday is simply not true. irs asserted on friday is something not true. at the management at knew what was going on for a year and they did not say what was going on. ,fter they learned of this they sent congress letters saying the targeting of conservative groups was not happening. this was either one of the greatest cases in confidence i have ever seen or it was the irs willfully not telling, with the truth -- not telling congree thss the truth. point did they

think it necessary to set the record straight. there is no agency in government that have the power the irs has. people. destroy this is an agency to create more fear in the hearts of people than any other agency. what we need to know -- let me mention three things. it didn't the irs correct when they knew organizations are being targeted? how high on the chain of command did this go before it was revealed this was happening last friday? why did it take a treasury inspector general report to get the irs to own up to this>? ? there is a reason congress is a government.ranch of we're going to fully examine

what what they are doing to ensure the people have confidence that we are looking out for the public in the public interest. senator baucus says he is willing to hold hearings on this, willing to get into it and do it the appropriate way. we are talking about liberty. we are talking about freedom in america. if we can manipulate the irs, if the administration can do thisthen everybody in has to be fearful and freedoms will be lost. liberty will be lost. we will all be the worst for it. measure, it is been a tough few days for the administration. the president today got 4 no po pinocchio's on his story of

benghazi from the washington post. statements made that the irs was not targeting political speech that did the administration disagree with is false. we learn from gallup that half of small businesses are saying the limitation of obamacare is hurting their business, not helping. and 2012, i had , teaituents in texas party groups from waco and san , who reported to me they felt they were being targeted by the irs and the course that resulted in a letter that senator hatch and i and others in protests from the commissioner of the irs saying is actually false. now we know my constituents were telling the truth. they were targeted for their political views, we were told by the commissioner of the irs was false. andplaud senator baucus

senator hatch saying the finance committee was going to look into this. other standing committees in the senate to have jurisdiction over the sec's, the will get to the irs the bottom of this and find out where it leads. >> for an administration that, to be the most transparent in history, the obama administration has a credibility gap that is -- credibility is growing at an alarming rate. the washington post is reporting confidential information from those conservative organizations was released. if you look at all these things the leaders have mentioned, whether it's fast and

furious or benghazi, this administration is playing fast and loose with the rules and should be of concern for all americans. as a personal example, last month i sent a letter to the epa because the obama administration released the information on 80,000 farmers and ranchers to some liberal environmental groups. that included names, addresses, phone numbers, geographic coordinates. all kinds of information. 500 families in south dakota were impacted by that. it is another example of an administration that has gotten out of control when it comes to this abusive power. this is something that should concern every american and hopefully as was pointed out, the investigations and hearings get under way, we will get more facts out there for the people to have at their disposal. but this is a pattern that is very concerning, one i think every

american who cares about the taxpayerights, every in this country should be concerned about. like the president's health care law is bad for paid checks, bad for patients and bad for jobs. ,ith revelations of last week there is an additional dark cloud over the health care law. one relates to the irs. these are the folks that are supposed enforced health care law care law. if you go to one of the exchanges to get insurance. the i cannot imagine the americn people are going to be delighted hearing about what the misuse of power be a scene from the iressa and wanting to entrust them with their own health care. misuse of power we have and wanting the irs

to entrust them with their own health care. this is what i call the kathryn sibelius shakedown. what i want to know is what issue promising those businesses she talks to and what is to threatening them with? kathleen sibelius has been found in nowation of the hack chack companies anddown executives throughout the country. looking for money to cover over the train wreck happening with the president health care law. but nothing scares the american people like the letters irs. if the reports of the last 24 hours are true, including the one senator hatch just made irs anditing the

getting misinformation back. report yesterday was the the acting commissioner stephen miller learned about this in may of 2012. in responding to members of the house, senate, and a committee in the house, failed to answer the question what information he had. if pastor and he was aware of the the conservative groups are being targeted and was asked about that and gave incorrect information, he should step aside or be removed. this is something we should not tolerate. the american people would not want us to tolerate it. >> last wednesday in the appropriations subcommittee that is responsible for the appropriations for the secretary of treasury, i asked secretary lou -- secretary lew and acting mr. miller to respond to .llegations released by the irs

i am awaiting those answers to those questions. every american should expect evenhanded treatment by the irs. that is now a question. it lends credibility to the and by ourthe press organizations across the country the information related to their donors were released to organizations that have opposite political points of view of those organizations. . think the story continues not only is it important to treat applications by one organization different than other. now it lends credibility that information is being released by the irs for purposes of political persuasion. every american should be able to expect evenhanded treatment from and that clearly is not

the irs or it ministration we have. but let me add one thing. as you continue to file your stories on this subject, ask yourself before you write, how would i write this story is this -- if thisepublican were a republican administration? >> republicans have called for a crackdown. the subpoena of phone records what you had in mind? >> my colleagues can speak for themselves but it strikes me that this justice department inquiry will go forward. seeing look forward to what, if anything, comes from it. >> the were dubious of social where for groups were actually social where from groups -- social welfare groups.

needcongress and the irs to take another look at whether or not these groups should get social welfare status? , you i said consistently have a right to engage in the political debate in this country. even corporations have a right to engage in political debate. prior to this citizens united case, the was a special carve out for corporations. you could say anything about any of us or any issue you want to read if you were a corporation that did not own a media outlet, you could not. citizens united level the playing field. we have a government that .pends $3.6 trillion a year big enough to adversely impact all of us. people are entitled not only to

petition the congress for redress of grievances under the first amendment but to say whatever they choose to and criticism or praise about any of us. let's question. [inaudible] fox i think there will be a full congressional investigation -- there will be a full congressional investigation. chairman cap has indicated he plans to investigate it. they will do that in the house and chairman baucus meant what he said, i assume that will be done in the senate as well. thanks a lot.

>> washington reporters have been tweeting about today's events. here are a few about the irs investigation. another from the hill -- and roll call -- that one about house republican michelle lockman. -- michele bachmann. attorney general eric holder is taking questions tomorrow and capitol hill, testifying at a house judiciary committee oversight hearing live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. houseday, how mean -- ways and means members ask about

the investigation. that's live friday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. >> by the end of 1985, the cia is antsy about this. they don't like what's happening. some don't like what's happening because the cia has gotten drawn and to what's going on. reagan has not officially told the cia to do anything like this. iny get reagan to sign december 1985 a presidential finding, a document that authorizes covert operations. it says because for these reasons, i order these agencies to do this and this. and it's fairly specific. there were two things about this find that were highly unusual. the first thing is it's retroactive.

this is contrary to the law. the law states clearly a finding is supposed to be signed by the president before the covert action is initiated, not after it has been going on. says explicitly alkire actions are hereby ratified. -- and finding says explicitly alkire actions are prior actions are herebyve all ratified and approved. it is an in usual unquestionable document reagan signed. why did he do it? reagan have to give them some kind of political and legal cover. >> money to fund contra rebels in nicaragua. a look at the iran contra affair saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span three's

american history tv. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next, amendments to the immigration bill proposed by the gang of eight. then house republicans on their opposition to the legislation. later, highlights from around washington on the investigation into the irs targeting conservative organizations and the justice department accessing ap phone records. now the senate judiciary committee reviews 29 mms to the immigration bill which by the gang of eight. thesef today' double issues. here is today's meeting.

>> senator schumer is here. all members coleman cable like to get this -- all members told me they would like to get this bill finished. i'm doing what i can to avoid a saturday meeting this week. as we get a couple more here, we can begin. i welcome everybody here. we are meeting and probably the ugliest room in the entire united states senate. i think when the building was

designed, it was somebody who must've worked for talon -- for oflin with the type architecture but they were a junior member because they got even worse than the designs you see overseas. being thesafe from ugliest building in washington by the fbi building which is can down -- which is hands down prized the ugliest. okay . we have senator schumer, senator leahy, senator graham. center feinstein. -- senator feinstein. we have enough here.

first hearing in february on comprehensive immigration reform, a key consideration for me was the pathway to citizenship not be a false promise. the hearing with secretary napolitano last month reassured the requirements in the bill are achievable. the committee worked in a bipartisan way to reject efforts to put up a list of preconditions being nothing more than obstacles to reach that goal. and workede met through scores of amendments. efforts a lesson in democracy. commitment to the fairness and compromise. this morning we continue our work and will conclude consideration.

hoping to do that quickly hopefully we can do that quickly and turn our attention to nonimmigrant visa provisions in title four. hese are very important to copperheads of reform. i want to see us improve -- comprehensive reform. we all know that companies like ebay hot -- yahoo, google have benefited. we need to do more to keep these companies and american workers in this country. the american taxpayers have helped pay for innovators and would tell them they have to go back to their own countries. then they start up companies that compete against us. it will's boost demand for local

goods. before we start voting, did you want to say anything? >> i will wait until the amendment. >> we have nominations, these have been put over as i understand. ow many do we have here? the nominations will be on thursday. ime flies. we have the senators with s. the senator has just come n.

ok, we have enough to start ith. senator feinstein, i understand that you have amendments number 11, drones outside of border areas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if members will recall, last week i offered a substitute amendment that would limit the use of drones to along the southern border itself and not the whole region within 100 miles of the border. the reason for that is that we have several million people

within 100 miles of the border in cities in orange county, san diego county, reaching all the way up to long beach within that mileage. soon his record and mentioned he was concerned about because texas is different and he saw drones as being valuable with that respect. we have worked together and i am submitting an amendment here that says in essence, the united states border patrol may not operate unarmed, unmanned aerial vehicles in the san diego and l centro sectors except within three miles of the southern border. so that, in essence, exempts what i'm concerned about in the city of san diego, other cities having these drones flying overhead. san diego has a vague international airport. there is one last concern, and

that was just brought to my attention, a concern of senator mccain, that these he drones be permitted to operate off the ocean in the san diego sector. now, i just learned of this five minutes ago, and i am told that is not the prerogative of the border patrol, but they do operate there. >> senator, yield for the question. are you modifying the amendment? >> yes, i am modifying the amendments. >> she is -- has the right to odify the amendment. 22. is on line 44 -- line before you call a vote, i did not talk directly to senator mccain, but i can tell you faster votes up and down the coast, it is a problem. it is a heavy drug trafficking area, not necessarily a bad thing.

it prevents alien smuggling over the water as well. i do not -- have not addressed that yet to read i would reserve to address it on the floor. it would be something we all agree to, i hope. >> i understand that you are repared to accept your amendments -- those in favor of the amendment by the senator from california as amended, signify by saying aye. the aye's do have it. i note again for the record. we have the appropriate umber.

>> i am trying to go back and forth. >> i will like to offer a second egree amendment. it is been developed in close consultation with senators blake and mccain. i appreciate they're working with me on this. this amendment would limit nighttime deportations, which at -- which at times new list lee put people in danger. the purpose is to limit dangerous practices but not to tie the hands to prevent them from using this practice. there are exceptions in this amendment. -- are done in accordance with local repatriation agreement or

where justified by a direct interest. i remain concerned about the practice of lateral repatriation for pragmatic and humanitarian reasons. it is costly and does not work. there was another story that found no effect in the program of reducing recidivism. i would like to enter that report and a university of arizona study that i introduced last week. >> without objection, your amendment as substitute it with your amendments. >> thank you. we now call on to give a study to report measures, to show whether it does or does not reduce recidivism and asked to

explain how it takes factors into account in its operation. this amendment would require the border patrol agent to return awful property to migrants before deporting them where practical. this change would do the most to ensure repatriates and to make sure they're not needlessly the pride of money and other property when they are forced back to their country of origin. i express my thanks for the senators for working to focus on this amendment. >> is there further discussion? if not, those in favor of the amendment as amended by his substitute, signify by saying aye. the aye's have it. our next amendment is ready. if not, we will go to senator --

a complete substitute, as i nderstand? >> i want to call up the mendment 18. this deals with the w visa. a temporary worker program that can provide for the needs of the american economy is an essential part of preventing future illegal immigration. >> that one would not be in order, that will be later n. i will protect your ability to bring it up, but it is not -- that part is not before us at this point. >> could we bring that up at a later time? let's do that.

>> you also have amendments 1 and 3. >> if we could hold off on those, that will be great. >> let's have our staff discuss that. >> this is schumer amendment one. it adds technical corrections involving spelling, grammar or striking redundant language and it does make a few qualified technical changes or clarifications. the reauthorization of the brand

travel promotion funding to mark pryor language did not make it clear that bill did not intend to redistribution -- redistribute funds that were meant for travel promotions. it clarifies the manner in which -- family backlogs will be reduced. it clarifies a $500 fee charged to employers for hiring people in the visa program only applies to summer work travel programs. this fee is to encourage the iring of american workers. it clarifies the fees are also used to fund liberal market research. with regard to the new visa program, it clarifies the secretary of homeland security of the agency which authorities had determined the prevailing age. i think all these amendments we have discussed and i think they mean peoples -- >> i appreciate the hard ork.

i understand you have gone over that with others, which i support. i don't know of anybody else wishes to speak to it. >> it is not so much on the issue of the amendment, there are about five or six parts of this bill that are in the jurisdiction of other committees and this is one of them. have you consulted with the committee of jurisdiction on this and are they ok with utting it in here? >> most of these involve the preparation committee. we have entered -- consulted ith them, yes. >> in every authorization, would that not be the appropriations committee that will be the authorizing committee as you consulted with the authorizing

committee? >> yes. e consulted with them. is there further discussion? those in favor, say aye. the aye's have it. senator sessions, i called on you earlier. back to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is the amendment number 13410 dealing with the biometric exit system that is missing from current law. beginning in 1996, congress has passed a series of laws, actually six different times through mandate and require that a biometric injury exit system be established for the nine

states -- entry-exit system. the commission has recommended this being essential for our national security. the reason is very simple. most airports, you clock in with a system, but it is biographic, which is easily forgible and not ecure. then nothing is done about the exit, particularly at the land port. as a result, no one can examine on documents and determine if they left the country at the time they were supposed to leave the country. this is a big hole in the system. it has gone on for years and years, and i have to tell you, this is one reason american people have so little confidence in any promises we make. the reason why it is difficult

that we would say we're going to grant an immediate amnesty with this legislation, we promise we will fix and force the issues in the years to come or months to come or many years to come. we have not fulfilled that. for example, in its 96, the congress adopted this system requirements. in 2000, congress passed another law requiring these systems and land ports of entry. in 2000, when amending the visa waiver program, congas required a fully automated control system to record entry and departure information for all atms -- aliens participanting in the program that they be machine readable. after 9/11, congress demanded the imitation of an entry-exit system through the passage of

the patriot act. the congress said in light of the acts perpetrated against the united states on september 11, 2001, the attorney general in consultation with the secretary of state should fully implement the integrated injury -- entry and exit data systems as xpeditiously as practical. congress demanded the system being biometric. based on temper resistant machine that document, we can do this. this is not that hard to do breed a biometric system requires an immigration document to match the individual presenting to the immigration official. there are a variety ways to make this document. i personally think from my experience in law enforcement

that the fingerprint system should be the basic data system because that is what happens in our states, whether it is in illinois or alabama or hawaii. if someone is arrested, for a crime, and may be fled the area, their fingerprints are put into the system. by checking fingerprints, you dentify the fugitives. unlike names and dates of birth which are biographic, which can be changed, by graphics are unique and it virtually impossible to forge. this helps the government prevents people from using fraudulent documents, enter the country illegally, helps protect your identity in the event your travel documents are lost or tolen. that is the analysis on the law

and what it means. in 2002, congress reiterated demand for the system in all ports of entry requiring homeland security to issue only machine-readable tamper-resistant visas and other travel documents that use biometrics identifiers. it has not been done. it also requires the government install biometrics scanners in all ports of entry into the united states. not been done. in 2002, department of homeland security initiated immigrant status indicator technology program.

in 2004, congress commanded a system to the passage of the intelligence reform act. congress finds that completing a biometric injury and exit system - entry and exit system as expeditiously as possible as an essential investment in efforts to protect the united states by preventing the entry of terrorists. this was in 2004. the secretary of homeland security shall develop a plan to tolerate the full imitation of an automated biometric data system. that is a congressional ction. this is the status of what we do. currently it is operating at about 300 ports. we do have an entry system that

is operating, however the exit program has never gotten beyond the stage despite widespread congressional support. it is impossible to know how many aliens have overstayed their admission. they found without the exit system, we don't have a system that is viable. it is not effective. t is a flaw in the plan. throughout the years that dhs has been working to implement in a system, it appears they have finally given up. they don't pretend to desire to implement it in the future. they quietly terminated the last pilot program, and there have been several highlight programs over the years. the president 2013 budget does not specifically request money, it is not asked for the money to do it. it cuts $73 million for border infrastructure and

echnology. dhs is now implementing biographic systems grade -- systems. janet a. napolitano said that is what we're going to do now. my amendment simply requires that we do what current law requires, and not back away from that. my colleagues say this is the toughest system we have ever had, but it undermines this law. it backs away from the system. colleagues, it can be done effectively and easily. you can read cards as you exit the system without any real de

>> would the senator yield for a uick question? would that permit someone whose name was simply misspelled -- detection in terms of the system? > yes. i think he is correct about that. >> under the system we propose, that would not happen. first, it needs to be machine eadable. second, we use a picture. ery t is secure mperproof, and not letting people in as a biometric.

everyone who comes and does a pitcher and goes on the database. ou can't temper with it. if you go out, we know it is you. 40% of all people who are here in america illegally did not cross the border, rather they overstayed their visas of various types. that would not be allowed to happen under our proposal. nstead of costing $25 billion,

a it would cost much less than hat. >> will the senator yield to me on this point -- i will be very brief amount hoping to set an example, i do not think the pathway to citizenship should be a false promise. i hate to keep saying it is just over that mountain, oh when you get over that mountain it will be the next mountain. the drafters were trying to get a bipartisan agreement on these triggers. their triggers are realistic, but i do not think this is. and i stick with a bipartisan drafters of the bill on there's. >> they have agreed, no doubt. they still meet regularly and they decide which amendments will live and die. they apparently decided this will die, but i do not agree.

i do not believe it meets the standards of the entry/exit visa that congress currently requires and there is no doubt that this legislation, instead of strengthening the security of the visa system weakens the security relative to current mandated requirements. i would note to my colleagues that at this .40% -- at this point, 40% of the people in this country illegally entered on a visa and did not return. you cannot read -- determined who did not return if you do not have an effective exit system. i would be glad to work with anyone to try to make the system as efficient and productive as ossible, but the fundamental

principle that we need an entry/exit system is not so, and your proposal, senator schumer, explicitly eliminates the current requirement that there be an exit system at land borders. you do not dispute that, i trust. that is what we are, mr. chairman. i think it is the right and reasonable approach. if we are going to be asking the american people to trust us, we should comply with the law rather than weakening it. >> does the senator won a roll call vote? >> yes. last week we considered a number of amendments that all failed, and i think that was a mistake, but there is one way the committee can improve this legislation and that would be to adopt senator sessions commonsense approach. it is true that 40% of the illegal immigration do not come across the border.

ome th c illegally, over-stay and melt into the american landscape, and can do not locate them until they commit a crime and are hooked up by the police and their name is -- picked up by the police and their name is run against a atabase. the 9/11 commission, after the terrorist attacks, recommended a biometric entry/exit system. this you roads that -- erodes that recommendation. since 1996, as the senator from alabama has pointed out, this has been the law of the land, but it has never happened. i can not think of any -- well, i believe that the failure to enact an entry/exit system on a biometric basis, as the senator is advocating, which is essentially the current law that has never occurred, could lead some people to believe this bill

is designed to fail to keep the problem -- promised we said we would fix. i know the chairman said you do not want to put obstacles in front of people that want to get on a pathway to citizenship, but at the very least, the other side of that is we want a system that works and this will not ork. i do not know how after 17 years later congress has not force the executive branch to implement an entry/exit program, and how people can trust us that somehow we have had a conversion and it will happen now, absent a trigger. my conversations with senator rubio, he happened to share with me that disney world uses a biometric system to ensure people do not commit ticket fraud.

if they are that easy, affordable and good enough for the magic kingdom, they ought to be good enough for the united states. senator sessions' amendment would guarantee they would not be eligible for lawful citizenship until there is a biometric entry/exit system. i do not know how leadership will ever do what congress mandates them to do unless we use this trigger. it is that simple. i believe this is a constructed -- constructive amendment that reaches the stated goals of protecting the united states system and making sure it is fair and workable. if we choose to ignore the 40% of immigration where we create a system that can be evaded, we have ignored our constituents

concerns and failed to fix the problem. without a fully employed system, the only thing this will uarantees is that we will be sitting in the same spot trying to explain why there have been more empty promises and no results. i hope the committee will report -- support the amendment from senator sessions. >> senator feinstein, senator durbin, and senator shuman and senator grassley and senator sessions asked for a roll call vote. senator feinstein and senator rassley. >> senator said -- thank you for the opportunity. i have looked at this for 15 years, since the days of doris eissner. we have pushed and shoved toward

biometric exit system that is the best ecological he and there is no question in my mind the bedroom -- biometric system is the failsafe system. the problem is, we have not been able to do it. senator schumer assures me that the biographic system with a photograph cannot be changed. i do not happen to necessarily elieve that. the other problem is the cost. what i keep hearing is this incredible cost that it would aise the bill to cost. i have real frustration because we have had homeland security executive after homeland security executive come in, commit to timelines and not be able to carry those timelines out. so, i have to think a lot about hat i am going to do here.

the department just has not seemed to be able to do it. my understanding is that it adds $10 billion to the bill. >> $25 billion. >> $25 billion, over what time? >> 10 years. they tried the biometric system in atlanta and detroit, and it just did not work. more people got through. the system that we have in place -- of course, the present law is terrible. we know that. what we have tried to do is put in the best system that is workable within a reasonable amount of time. >> what you are telling me is there is a photograph -- if you grow a beard, mustache, change the color of your eyes, deplete

your face, that all of that will be picked up? >> yes, because you can change the way your face looks, but the visa card you go in with and out with has to be the same. you cannot tamper with it. >> yes, but an individual would. in any event, i am for the ill. i am concerned that the identification be the best identification we can come up with. have seen too much fraud. i have seen cards bought for 100 and $10 in los angeles -- social security, drivers licenses, you name it. my understanding is if you use the iris of the i and these other biometric features, you have this failsafe system.

>> you can always change the iris of your eye, to. he system that we have used -- i have been advocating biometric as my good friend knows for years and when we started this we found it was the best system because the biometric has failed for a variety of reasons. there are two failsafe -- one is the card, and a second is the photo. no system is 100% fail proof. this comes as high as any to making it work. >> i believe there was a lineup. senator grassley, you are next. > thank you. first of all, we just heard this figure -- $25 billion. i have heard the same figure. i do not know where it comes from, but i have heard it from airlines and airlines do not want this. that is why you get that figure

of $25 billion. if there is another source than airlines, i would like to hear it. in the meantime, i would take issue with the charge that has been made that it is easier to change fingerprints then it is the face, and also take issue with whether or not this delays citizenship. with 10 years to citizenship, we should not delay a longer than that, but in the meantime, if this has been on the books for more than 10 years that this should be done, and we have another 10 years -- if we cannot get something right in 20 years, there is something wrong with what we are trying to do. it is that people are impeding it as opposed to let's get the job done. that is the attitude that we need to take toward everything

we need in this bill to secure the border, ensure people get citizenship, make sure there is a legalization. if that is the goal in congress, we need to make sure we get the job done. i will add my name as a cosponsor of this legislation. i think that this amendment will make us safer, and on this issue if we pass this bill the way it is before us without the amendment, it will be weaker than current law, and it seems to me we should be strengthening law not weakening law. there is just a lot of lessons learned going way back to the 1993 world trade center bombing. we have to learn from our past mistakes. the sessions amendment would ensure the intent of the 1996

law is carried out. what is wrong with reasserting what the law is a benchmark if we want strengthen our immigration system, we should not be passing a law that eakens it. what is good is a system that if only some courts keep track of departures -- you get down to the bottom line, this is a border security issue. without a system like this in place, we are not in control, and you are compromising the sovereignty of our country. if hong kong can brag about every cargo that goes out on their ships, they know what is inside, whether or not there is any material that can be used for terrorist activity -- surely we ought to be able to tell who comes and goes from our great country here, the greatest country on the face of the earth. i yield.

>> senator durbin. >> thank you. i am sorry senator cornyn stepped away. i wanted to address a couple of issues he raised heard -- he raised. he said there were no republican amendments adopted, and i am sure he would agree that we pplied several amendments. this has been a bipartisan effort and it should continue to be. i also wanted to address walt disney. they have two ports of entry. we have 329 ports of entry in the united states, which include land, sea and air. if we are talking about being able to read cards at all ports of entry for those leaving the united states, it is more daunting than it is at disney world or disneyland. what we are trying to do is do something that is achievable and make america safer. we would all concede the

biometric approach is more sophisticated and perhaps better, but we have to concede that it has been elusive. we set this as our legislative goal since the 9/11 commission and because of the expense and technological challenge we realize it is not likely to come about very soon. we have come up with a strong alternative that will make america safer and this alternative is one that is affordable, can be implemented and will provide verification of those leaving the nation. i would ask why it is taking so ong over and over again and it turns out to be a very expensive challenge. we will continue on the path toward a biometric solution, but in the meantime what we include in the bill is a dramatic improvement over the current situation. let me add one other thing -- if

this sessions amendment results in delaying the implementation of this bill, it means that fewer people will come forward to be identified in the united states, and that cannot make us safer. we want to make sure that those that are eligible for temporary status or citizenship status come forward and identify themselves, and those who are ineligible from the start will not be in this country any longer. we want to continue the process toward eventual citizenship in a reasonable way. i am afraid the sessions amendment sets a standard that is not attainable, not affordable and not one we can realistically look forward to implementing in the near term so i will oppose. >> i am glad senator durbin mentioned the lehi-cornyn amendment -- lehi -- eahy-cornyn amendment.

we also adopted the grassley two amendment, the grassley five amendment, the cornyn six, the flick one amendment, -- flake ne amendment and the flake two amendment in the grassley one amendment, and the grassley before amendment -- 24 amendment. hose are just some to indicate that we had both the democratic and republican amendments. go ahead, senator sessions. >> i agree that this is not so much a partisan matter. it is a bill drafted by a bipartisan group and they will accept modest amendments that do not make much difference but they do not accept anything that

deals with the integrity of the bill. there will not be a delay. certainly, you would not oppose the bill if we had a biometric entry/exit system in it. surely you would not delay the passage of the bill if we have it comply with her in law, and it gives the secretary -- with current law and it gives the secretary 10 years to get around to it. the airlines have opposed this for the last 20 years. that is why it has not happened. senator feinstein remembers the debate that we have over it. "usa today" has just written an article about it could -- about it. ecretary riggs blames it primarily on the airline's objectives. it is not a technological problem. senator feinstein, you are

correct in that the government has established a system to collect fingerprints and pictures of every foreigner entering the country. they get that at the embassies before they get their visa. when they come, they are clocked in on the system. it is basically when they go out that we do not have the system working. so, secretary riggs said the failure -- the further we get from 9/11, the less interested congress has begun in insist -- become in insisting that we have an exit system. we just lost our will along the way. that is pretty much what michael chertoff, who is also with omeland security after riggs said is the gold standard for security, and "usa today" says they remain convinced biometrics are the way to go.

these are not people making partisan charges. after being heads of this organization, they remain convinced biometrics is the way to go. there is a 9.73% accuracy rate, and "the usa today" uses the figure $3 billion to $6 million as the cost that could be incurred. i think it could be done for less than that if we are careful. it does not take a major alteration to have a person go through the line where their card can be read when they get off on an airplane. how hard is that? i think what we have, as secretary napolitano basically told us in the committee as she believes biographic is sufficient. that is what she is committed to. the bill drafters put that in it, and it does not strengthen

security at our ports and entryways. it weakens it. it undermines the credibility of the bill sponsors that they are making the bill stronger when it plainly makes current law weaker. i really believe that so much effort has gone into this -- i was involved with it with ecretary ridge and i urged him as my colleagues know, on the system because in all of your states, counties and local areas, terminals are fingerprinted -- criminals are fingerprinted and they are available in the national crime information center and is available to any inquiry and would be dubbed by this system. -- picked up by this system. i talked to secretary ridge at length about it.

he was not sure for a long time but some months after our last conversation when he left office he said i have advice for my successors, and that is use the fingerprint system. he given a lot of thought and time to that, and as a result i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> senator graham wishes to speak before we call the roll. >> i think this is a very good debate to be having about immigration but not really limited to immigration. how can we protect the nation at a time when the nation is very much at risk? two of the 9/11 hijackers were visa over-stays, stopped by the olice. to me, that problem has to be addressed in light of the world in which we live. urrent law is the concept.

apparently, there is not a lot of will i by republicans or democrats to make the concept a reality. we had the white house from 2000-2008 on our watch and apparently we did not move forward. at the end of the day, biometric identification of people coming and going, i think, would be a good thing, but what we have done is taken the current system and made it better. if you want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars for a biometric system, count me in for moving in that direction, but i would say to senator sessions, checking your wallet and see how many biometric cards you have -- how many drivers license are biometric, my military id is not biometric. i am not saying it is not

better, but it is generally not eployed. >> with my colleague yield -- would like colleague yield for one quick point -- senator grassley mentioned disney world. it is true that disney world used a fingerprint, and then disneyland went on to use a picture. making my colleagues case 30 >> i have no idea, i am too busy to go to either one. >> this is my drivers license from vermont. no photo, nothing. >> i would suggest you improve that in vermont. >> i kind of like it the way it is. here is the point, senator schumer and i wanted a biometric card for employment certifications. if you like ronald reagan or the democrat you would like to be

named, i could make you that person under the social security system in about an hour and it costs less than $100. when it came to employer verification, i think e-verify will work, but the best system is to turn our paper card into a biometric document to protect american jobs, or we will do that because it costs so much money, but count me in for getting there one day, for having the biometric system applied to entry/exit visa programs. we're just not shown the the will or desire to do that. there are technological barriers. i would end by saying the current system is not where we need to be. nobody seems to be driving oward that goal. our bill, in my view, improves the current system to make us all safer. >> one thing i failed to mention -- the biometric system has not failed, it is being used across

the government. when you get a visa, you get a biometric identifier that is read when you enter the country. they are doing 30,000 queries a day in the united states through the u.s. visit system on biometric identification visas had we just do not have the system complete. we just do not have the system complete. this is doable. it is already being done and it can be done. i am disappointed the sponsors are not willing to make the system work as designed. >> the ids in the senate do have our photographs on it, to go on the floor, it goes through a machine and it says whether the staff member has foreign

privileges or not. i suggest the senators check hat. if you put your u.s. senators id in, it will say you do not have privileges. maybe they are trying to tell us something. lerk will call the roll. > mr. schumer, mr. durbin, mr. whitehouse, mr. franken, mr. coombs, mr. blumenthal, mr. grassley, mr. sessions, mr. hatch, mr. graham, mr. cornyn, r. lee, mr. cruz, mr. flake,

r. chairman. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 12 ays -- sick yeas and nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. senator blumenthal will be recorded as having voted as indicated but in person. >> i just spoke to senator schumer, and perhaps on the floor we will put something in that work will continue on the development of a biometric system. i am convinced that as the technology becomes better the cost will go down. so, i will work with him to see if we can put some addendum in there. >> senator lee, you have an amendment? >> yes, if i can call up numbers one, two, and three. i will not asked for a vote. each of these is a strike and replace amendment that shows we could do this in an incremental fashion.

we could be passing immigration form by having one bill dealing with border security, another with them ploy he verification, and another to deal with these a modification and so forth. we do not have to lump all of them together and hold all of them pending the outcome of a single most contentious issue, what to do about the 11 million. nonetheless, in the interest of time, so we can move forward, i will not be asking for a vote on the amendment. hank you mr. chairman. >> you have the amendment -- the substitute amendment to replace the bill? >> yes, these are three substitute amendments. i am not asking for a vote. >> so they are withdrawn. >> yes, they are withdrawn, thank you. >> i appreciate it. we have one more, senator sessions, and then we could

close out the triggers and borders security. senator sessions, you have another amendment, or do you? we will close out title, and the next set of amendments affect title four, subtitles eight, a, b, and c. >> my next amendment that might ome up next might be under one and four, but i will wait if you do not mind. >> why don't you call it up now, so that we can close this out? o ahead, senator sessions.

>> mr. chairman, this is a very important amendment. >> i assume all your amendments are important or you would not bring them up. >> i know, but it deals with the whole -- >> what is the number? >> sessions one. it deals with how much the nations can and should support, what works for america, what allows immigrants to have a reasonable opportunity to be successful if they come, and to try to think about in a serious way what it is we are doing here. this legislation before us today will give you the next 10 years retty close to 30 million, probably more, green cards or permanent status in the united

states. that is a huge number. under current law, we have told the american people that we have a legal system that admits closer to 1.1 million people legally. that is a lot of people. hat number is the highest of any nation in the world and my amendment would call us to generally understand what we are doing. we have that one million people that will come legally, currently, but on top of that, ou have this 11 million that are here in legally, and they would be given legal status at one time. that would be 11 million people in giving legal status in the united states. there is a so-called backlog out there. it is not the perfect word

because they backlog suggests people have not been processed properly, but there is a backlog because more people are applying for the family based or change migration than are allowed to enter. they are awaiting their time, and you have 4.5 million waiting. the bill sponsors, i guess, to the criticism that you have allowed people waiting in line to be delayed while you allow illegal people to become legal solve that dilemma by just allowing the people waiting in line to be expedited and brought into the country. that is an additional 4.5. therefore, by freeing up the cap for more people, they come

without any reference to skills, education levels, or other standards. they wait their time and come in. it is not a skill-based flow, either. of the 11 million that are here them do not have a high school diploma, and overwhelmingly, they are lower skilled people, to. then, what does the bill do about the future flow? according to the center for american progress and "the los angeles times," they project the future flow will be about a increase. i think that is close to accurate. so, instead of 10 million over the next 10 years, we will have 15 million brought in lawfully over the next 10 years, meaning we will have entered into the country in a lawful status over the next 10 years 30 million

persons. that does not include all of the family-based, chain-based migration where caps on have been removed that would allow more to be brought in. that is a conservative number, i believe. no doubt about it. my colleagues would say well, you 11 million are already here, you should not count them. well, let's just talk about that a little bit. of the 11 million people here, i have heard estimates that about half of them are not the normal job market. they do not have forged documents or employers willing to higher than the legally, so they have been working in the underground economy, so to speak. once this legislation passes, all of the 11 million would then have a legal status, able to work at virtually any job they choose to apply to.

when i am saying to my colleagues if they would then be able to compete against unemployed, nativeborn, lee or -- or legal immigrants that came into the country and be able to compete for a job as truck drivers, equipment operators, working for the city or the county, and any other job -- coal mines, manufacturing plants, that now they are not able to compete for. well, what is our current job situation? it is not good. the current important situation is not good and it is projected not to be good for a long time, unfortunately.

i wish it were not so, but that is what the experts are telling us. according to the congressional budget office -- i want you to hear that -- in february, the congressional budget office laid out there 10 year economic forecast for this country and in the last five years of that forecast they project that we would be creating only about 775,000 jobs a month. can you imagine that? surely you say that is not accurate, but that is what they say, and other independent forecasters are predicting that situation also. for example, are we not seeing a great deal of robotics employee and manufacturing today? therefore we can make more automobiles, widgets and products with less actual workers than we used to use. >> can i interrupt for just a moment? >> we have 18 members on this committee. i have members asking me if it is possible to avoid a friday or saturday session this week.

i do not want to cut anybody off, but if people could state the reasons for their amendments for or against them -- we know how we are going to vote, and i hope would be willing to consider that we all have very busy schedules and might be willing to compress their statements for or against. i just mention that for what it is worth. >> as i told you, this will be the amendment that i want to talk the most about. the last one was second. it is downhill after this one, as far as time goes. you can relax, mr. chairman. a we will turn that into resolution. >> no, i will not turn that into a resolution and i will not make any commitments. they gang of eight has been

meeting and i am not sure that they have look at these numbers. the american people have the right to consider the impact on employment and wages. i have not heard them discuss it other than saying it will make the economy grow and somehow take care of itself. we are not creating a sufficient number of jobs today american increase in population. so, now we're talking about legalizing 30 million people. i think we need to be asking ourselves what that will do to working americans who are already hurting. a member of the civil rights commission testified, and wrote the president of the united states and said this is a civil rights issue. it will pull down the wages and make it more difficult for

working americans to get jobs, particularly african americans who are hurting today. i talked to a businessman in my state a number of years ago. he does right-of-way clearing for the power companies and counties and that kind of thing. he has been in business for 30 years. he has been in business for 30 years and he said it soon became clear to him he was losing every bit and how was he losing those bids? a texas company using illegal himwoer he provided insurance, healthcare, and people working for him for 30 years, and he could not win a contract and he is about to go out of business. i can say to you you can have too much workers and it could adversely impact wages. a professor at harvard, and acknowledged expert on this, as

demonstrated just how much wages are pulled down, in some instances as much as $1600 a year, and that is a substantial difference for a working american making $20,000. that is more than $100 a month. ouress i am saying what is growth prospect? i mentioned the cbo numbers. blue chip consensus -- most of us have heard of blue chip -- is an average of 55 private economic forecasters who are predicting gdp growth below 3% in the future and only 2.5% between the out years, 2020 and 2024. academic economists are predicting that. the day before yesterday, "the

wall street journal" published their survey of 52 economists that predict steady but slow economic growth which means slow job creation. "the wall street journal" says "i just for population growth and it will take nine more years to return to the prerecession level of and plan at the same current rate of growth according to the brookings institution." not me. they are quoting the brookings institution on just how tough it is going to be. millionou average one or so jobs created a year, and you are bringing into our country over one million new workers a year, then you have a real problem. what about the natural growth of american workforce that is growing every year?

one that -- will that labor not pull down wages, make it harder for americans to get jobs, their children, their grandchildren to get jobs? i think it clearly will. i do not like to have to be a negative person here, but i really think we are not considering sufficiently what the right amount of immigration is for america. we want people to come here to be able to get word -- get work, and be able to find a decent wage, but we are in this weird situation, if you think about it, where through welfare, food stamps, earned income tax credit, medicaid, we are providing great subsidies for low income workers and the corporations and businesses that are hiring them have not had increases in wages. so, the wages have not gone up, but the taxpayers have been

picking up this. my democratic colleagues, i hate to admit, really, what i have come to understand are correct in saying that wages have not grown in the last 15 years, maybe the last 30 years. wage increases have fallen below inflation increases for millions of american workers. part is no doubt a large of that is because of high immigration flows that we have seen in thlast 30 years, and that is documented extensively in the harvard professor's work. it helps the corporations to make more profit, but it is pulling down the wages of 100 workers for every corporate executive that makes a little more money. we need our people working. we need to be getting fewer

people on welfare and benefits. we have the highest number of people today on government assistance than we have ever had. so, do we not need to be hoping to get those persons into work so that they can start making more than eight dollars an hour? i would like to see them make more than $15 an hour. why shouldn't that be the goal? not through some government mandated wage control, but through the natural market. if you allow the natural market to occur by moving an unlimited amount of persons into our country who are in serious poverty now, and this would be progress for them and they are attracted by the benefits of america -- it is good for them, but is it good for the people that we represent? is it good for the national interest of america? they say it will create some

jobs. i am sure there will be. i heard that 3.5 million would be created. if you are creating 10 or 12 million jobs over the next 10 years because you go from 10, two 13 -- and i do not accept that number, frankly -- i do not accept we will have another 3.5 million jobs created because we bring in 30 million -- howan i asked the senator much longer he has? >> i will not take longer. if you give me the chance to discuss a very ir -- i know the chairman wants to move forward, but i believe the american people need to know how huge the change that -- a change this legislation impacts the american flow of immigration into the country at a time when we have high unemployment, low wages and millions of people dropping out.

notunder the new flow, counting the amnesty and the backlog of 15 million, the new flow of 15 million means we have about 1.5 million a year entering our country, and assuming one million of those look for jobs -- probably 1.2 million, then you could see where are we going to have enough jobs to create that -- to meet that demand echo i love account -- meet that demand? i love my colleagues, i know they are optimistic about the future, but the blue chip consensus, the "wall street

journal" 50 plus economists, the cbo economists, they do not predict a dramatic increase in economic growth in our maturity economy. it is not happening in other mature economies, and it is not likely to happen here in big numbers. i think the economy will grow. i think we will move forward in a progressive way, but we do not want to invite persons to america that cannot find work. peopleot want to invite to america that will take jobs that americans need to be taking now so that they are not on welfare and dependency. so, my amendment would attempt to deal with that. we can deal with it in a lot of different ways. it is not a perfect amendment, but i urge you come if you are concerned about these numbers, to support it because it would

eliminate the current visa, matt-based system, -- merit- based system, and have more people entering under a merit- based point system. i congratulate my colleagues for moving in that direction. i have long favored the american -- the canadian point system, but you give a lot of points for civic involvement, and the numbers are not high -- the basic number is 125,000. the maximum number would be 250,000. some the 8% to 16% of the flow would be covered. my amendment would make that larger. we know if a person comes to america with a couple of years of college and speaking english they almost al and prosper and flourish. people that come with lower skills have a harder time, particularly in this environment. it reduces the chain migration factor in favor of a more merit-based, it does not limit the total number of aliens annually granted green cards.

it is more than the current flow. it does not count the amnesty numbers -- the 11 million. you take those aside, and it deals with the future flow and it would admit 1.2 million a year and it exempts those that are here illegally that will be given amnesty. there are other provisions in it. i hope that we can discuss these issues and we will discuss them in the weeks to come. the numbers to me look pretty clear, mr. chairman, that we are not going to have the jobs that are anywhere close to the number of jobs that the number -- that this bill would bring in and that it would weaken the quality of life for millions of immigrants to america and those that are native born. >> thank you. several members have asked to

put their statements on the record to save time and without objection that will be done. is anybody else wish to speak? senator graham, and then the clerk will call the roll. >> ui, mr. chairman. again -- thank you, mr. chairman. again, i know we want to get a bill done, but neither did it's very much worth having. at the -- but these are discussions very much worth having. senator sessions has been consistent hard much of what he has said has been echoed on the democrats side, the afl-cio. there is nothing wrong with metisos agreeing with the people you normally disagree with. there are 10,000 baby boomers a day retiring. over the next 20 years, 80 million of us will leave the workforce. ofhink the best criticism

the bill is that we do not do enough to supplement the future labor needs of the country -- the flights that we had among ourselves about the number of legal immigrants available to our workforce, high skill and low skilled, was one hell of a fight, and we came out with numbers i can live with, but frankly, i wish were larger, because the difference between senator sessions and myself is i see the need for legal immigration growing, not lessening, and as for illegal immigration suppressing wages, a good case can be made that that is true and the best way to avoid that problem is and illegal immigration. you will never convince me that some people are not hired simply because they are cheaper. i think they are. i think wages have been suppressed to a point, but you cannot go too far in the other direction either.

to have access to legal immigration under this bill, you have to first advertise to the community in question at a competitive wage rate before you can hire a foreign worker in the future to make sure employers -- americans do not lose their job because of cheap labor. here is the dilemma -- once the company advertises and they cannot find a native born worker, it is better to bring in people you can add value to the business is rather than that business close or leave. as for the 11 million coming into the workforce, it is better for the country that we know who they are, that they get paid over the table instead of under the table. you will never convince me that it will hurt the economy to get peop ie system as opposed to living outside of the system. as to future flow, we have people saying keep families together -- it is not that i do

not want to keep families together. i just do not want the country to suffer under an immigration system that is fundamentally broken forever. what we do three years out is replace the current family- based chain migration system with a more merit-based system to canada and other industrialized nations. thatf fairness to those have been waiting under the old system and trying to assimilate people, we allow those that are here to use the current system all--amily members wait in line the 11 million will be d under the old system. it is not my desire to punish anyone, but to not repeat the mistakes of the past. we transition and give everybody notice about the new system. 130,000uture, about visas a year, green cards, that

would've been given to family members will be recaptured and given based on the merits and the need of all workforce. we should have done that years ago. our legal immigration system obviously does not work or you would not have the 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and if you believe as do that they are here because of economic reasons, you need to address the economic reasons that brought them here. as for those that want to continue chain-migration, i'm afraid we cannot accommodate you because it is not good for our country. to those that believe we do not have enough workers, i respectfully disagree. our population is declining and 180 million baby boomers retire over the next 20 years, somebody will have to fill in their spot in the economy and i would like that somebody be based on who we would like to have come, rather than someone being clever enough to get into the country illegally cared i would like to make a rational

decision about under what decisions -- conditions they stay and i would like to make it economic-based. i am most proud about this bill in that in a humane way, people have a chance to flow through, but puts everyone on notice the system will be more merit-based with a family component. when you add up the employment hirings based on these categories that happened to be employment-based and merit- based, almost 60% of green cards in the future will be given on economic need, not family association, and that was hard for democratic colleagues to swallow, but they understand why that has to happen given the decline of the nativeborn population and the need of our economy to grow. so, from my point of view, we do not have enough people coming

in in the future. as to who we have here, neither one of my parents graduated high school, but it made sure that i went to college, and they made sure my sister went, and they owned a restaurant, and a pool room and a liquor store. you could not get sick because if you did not open up, you did not get paid. so, i do challenge this idea that somehow the low skilled workforce, because they do not have college or high school degrees, will not contribute to america. i would suggest that the strength of this country is not the degree that one holds, but the character the individual possesses.

so, i am very confident and hopeful that out of this 11 million who today have low skills will come some of the brightest in the future, that they will be able to transition from a legal status to legal status -- even legal status and to legal status and add value to our country. i am confident that america's best days are ahead, and equally confident that if we fail to reform the immigration system this time, our economy would pay a heavy price. those living in the shadows would continue to be abused and those that are among us in legally that are criminals and off of us would be the biggest beneficiaries. we have been talking about illegal immigration in excess and now is the time to act before it is too late. >> thank you. senator schumer has asked forsea r cruz, and then we can go to roll call vote. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know my good friend from alabama, and we are good

friends, we are on the bike in the gym every morning, and i respect his passion. i just make two additional points quickly. first, senator sessions, in his analysis, does not take into account if we do not do anything that we will have more people crossing the border. if you take the last decade, it is about half of one million a year, a little more. ll increase, that is another group. we will have family unification. visas are already lined up already. we have illioneople here that he counts as part of the 30 million. it actually decreases a little bit.

a changes in nature but it decreases. you say 30 million is compared to nothing. if you compare it to the present system, it is a decrease. a net decrease in immigration, legal and illegal. the idea that people do not depressed wages more than people who are here illegally defies my belief. i ride my bicycle around brooklyn in the morning. i see huddled workers waiting to be picked up by a truck. i know i sometimes stop and talk to them. what does the guy in the truck or for them? $15 if they work 10 hours a day. that is ngages.

it not depressed wages as much. it will strengthen the workforce. our future flow is more job oriented. it will cause middle class incomes to co-op at a more rapid rate. the net number of immigrants changes down and the characteristic of the immigrants changes so the economy grows and wages goes up for the average american. >> senator cruz. >> i want to confess to some degree of envy to senator graham's description of his parents owning a restaurant and a pool hall.

we may discover at some point he had the nickname of minnesota graham. on the substance, i want to say i very much respect my friend from alabama and i respect the sincerity with which he has approached this complicated issue, a very important issue. i intend to vote no on this amendment. legalason is i think immigration is a fundamental pillar of our country. i regret this committee voted last week down each of the amendments that would have put real teeth in the border security provisions and would have made the -- what have gone a long way to making the

borders secure. i am an advocate of legal immigration. i have two amendments to expand the levels of legal immigration, to make this system work better which has the added benefit of -- as a nation, we remain a nation that legal immigrants around this table -- so many of children of those who risked everything for freedom. i respect my friend from alabama's amendment but is not one that i can support. we should expand immigration by putting real teeth on border security.

>> mr. chairman, i would like to make a few brief comments. there is no real economic difference in terms of an excess of labor between legal and illegal workers. >> i've never known you had such an affinity for harvard professors. i am delighted to see that. >> he said that and i think there is value in that. asktor graham said we will if the american workers are willing to take the jobs. that is for the non immigrant program. a million people each year. all the people, the 1.5 million, the 15 million new

americans that would come to be lawfully under the increase program. they would not have any and i don't believe that economists would say particularly for lower income americans that we need more workers right now. i just don't see how that's possible. and, you know, i guess being a conservative is prunes. and asking -- to be a little bit prudent here. this congressional budget office, our best authority, we live with them and die with them. we make plans on them, say that over the second five years of their 10-year budget window, america would only be creating about 75,000 jobs a month. and that -- that's 900,000 over

five years or 10 years, at that rate. and we're bringing in under this bill .5 million legally. and senator -- 1.5 million legally. and senator schumer, you aren't able to credibly state it reduces illegality. just an assumption here that we're not going to have any more illegal immigration into the country. but we have millions that have come today even though they're not able to get top flight jobs. they work in the gray market. and get by and the groups that will come in the future will do the same. and they'll wait for the day that washington provides them amnesty. that's what they're going to do. because we have proven that's our policy. we let people come illegally for years and years, the numbers build up, and then we provide amnesty. we have to have an end to the illegality. and we can do it. i've looked at how the system

works. but you voted down amendments that would make the system work , you know, fix this system. and even weaken it from current law. so i just conclude and say what are the economic needs of america? i love the rhetoric, i love the vision, but i have to be a realist. the 55 economists that the we'll strute journal says we're going to have slow growth the next decade. the blue chip economists say that. c.b.o. says that. i think that's the pattern. so we have to ask ourselves, why would we want to increase dramatically the number of people that come to the country? and only increase a little bit the number that come on a more merit-based system which we should be moving even more to

than this legislation suggests. and to my colleagues, i'm not against immigration reform. even my amendment would increase the annual flow from approximately one million to 1.1 million to 1.2 million. i'm not saying we need to reduce significantly. we should have a solid flow of immigration as this nation has had. we need to make sure it's not supplemented by a large amount of illegal immigration. we need to understand how it's impacting the average american worker. we should not bring in so many workers that they themselves can't get a pay raise or have -- not found a job. and makes it hard for native born and lawful immigrants to get jobs. so i would say that. finally, with regard to your nonimmigrant guest worker program, for a large portion of it, people come for three years, they can reup for three

years. they can bring their families. and so now you have a family that's been here six, nine years, and we're going to say because you don't have a job we're going to uproot you and we're going to deport you? the nonimmigrant guest worker program is designed -- is not designed but it will in fact fail inevitably. because when we have a tight labor market and people can't get jobs, they're not going to be deported. so it's -- a big flaw in this bill. and as i indicat doesn't fix the visa overstay problem in any effective way. therefore, we'll continue to see a very large flow of persons into the country illegally under the visa system. so colleagues, i know you may not want to have this prudent discussion about what -- what a wise country needs to do on a matter of this importance. but it needs to be discussed.

we'll talk about it some more. thank you, mr. chairman, for letting me talk at some length about it. but i do think it's a matter that needs more discussion. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. schumer. >> no. >> mr. durbin. >> no. > mr. franken. mr. cruz. >> no. >> mr. blumenthal. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> mr. graham. >> no. >> mr. cornyn. >> no. by proxy. >> mr. lee. mr. cruz. mr. flake. >> no. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the votes are one yea, 17 nay.

>> we've had a good long discussion on it. he amendment is defeated 17-1. senator -- >> my amendment six, mr. chairman. >> the amendment and then senator grassley has an amendment. i would like to call up whitewhite house six and offer a second degree to t this should be a fairly simple and noncontroversial amendment. i think we've all had the experience of people coming up to us in our states and complaining that they got laid off from their job. and they know somebody who is doing their job right now who is been brought in by the company from out of the country. just to do their job. and we have done a lot of work here try to make sure that

doesn't happen. and i applaud the effort that the gang of eight has done. this is one additional stop gap. it would require the department of labor to create a toll free number. and a site on its wep page for people who believe that they have been knocked out of their jobs by the wrongful hiring of immigrants to have place where they can complain. and it requires in a year that the i.g. take a look at that information and report to us on what it shows. so it doesn't change anything in the bill. it adds this one responsibility to the department of labor. i think it's important. i've had people -- i do community dinners around the state of rhode island. and i've had people come up to me at the community dinners and i got laid off at my job x company and a bunch of workers

doing my job who are living temerity hotel down the way and get bused in to do my job. one person said they had to teach them how to do their job before they got laid off and i got no complace to complain. this will give them someplace to complain and give us a chance to have a look back in a year and make sure that it's operating as expected. i urge support. and i hope frankly that this could get bipartisan support. >> i don't think there is objection to the amendment to avoid -- >> i support this amendment. >> all those in favor of the amendment by the senator from rhode island indicate by saying aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. and the ayes do have it. next on our list is senator grassley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, colleagues. >> i don't want to indicate that -- i appreciate the shortness of the -- and brevity of the senator from rhode island's comments. it seems the brier the comment,

the better chances are of winning amendments. but go ahead. senator grassley. >> yes. i have -- i have four questions legal to ask on this immigration provisions. and then later on, i'll have four or five questions i want to ask on the h-1 or on the w program. i t now, we're on the -- want the -- somebody on the group of eight to answer about four or five questions i have here. ok. first of all, a couple sentences i want to say about the purpose of my questions. there's a lot of talk about how this bill has earmarks or provisions for special interest groups, "the new york times" did a story on some of these provisions. for example, we see a provision in here for irnlede, south korea, canada -- ireland, south

korea, canada. there are provisions we prefer to as "facebook carveout, higher education, health care organizations" also get special treatment. and the more i dig into some of this, the more i realize there's a story behind it. so i would like any of the members of the group of eight to elaborate on three or four points here. i'll start with section 4604. a section that allows foreign nationals to accept an honorarium payment and associated incidental expenses. the bill says that they can enter to receive these payments usual academic activities or for a performance appearance or participation in the united states based programming." it appears to be a special provision for higher educational institutions and

outlets. so my question to anybody that wants to answer it, and not for debate purposes, because i'll accept your answer unless it doesn't make sense to me, then i might ask a further question, can someone explain in detail this section? more importantly than the detail is who asked for it and hat's the intention? >> as i understand it, this amendment -- this provision is already in the law. this just allows it to be expanded for entertainers who have to come here for concerts, shows, things like that. >> ok. if it's already in the law, why does it have to be in this bill? >> it adds in those who were doing this for as i said concerts and entertainment. >> you've answered my question about the intention. ho asked for it? surely we got to know who suggested something. >> let me speak to the south korea provision. it was understood by all

parties when we did the south korea free trade agreement that we would at some point -- at some point soon allow for additional visas for south koreans coming in. so that was the purpose of that provision coming in. so that was all parties on both sides that approved that agreement. that was the understanding. so i'm just speaking -- >> i'm not asking about south korea. i'm asking about the part that says usual academic activity or for performance, appearance and participation in the united states based programming. i just want to know who asked to put that in the bill? >> i'm sorry. you had asked about the south korea thing earlier. >> then somebody ought to be able to find out for me -- >> as i understand it, it was the entertainment industry. because it will bring jobs here to america. they'll be able, foreign shows -- if they want to film here will be able to come here and film and employ american workers to help do that. >> so then that -- that goes to the credit of the powerful hollywood lobby, as what you're saying to me.

section 4606. section related to performing maintenance on common carriers. this section appears to allow people coming alone or with a group to enter the united states for up to 80 days to perform maintenance or repairs for common carriers. it looks to me like a special provision for airlines, cruise lines, railways. as these industries were specifically listed in the section. i think the -- i would like to know who lobbied to put this provision in. and the reason i raise the question is it seems to me like we would already have in these countries americans that could perform this work that you wouldn't have to have this special provision. so can someone explain the rationale behind the section and it's important who requested it? >> this one i understand was requested by the cruise ship industry.

when a ship is built abroad, and it has an emergency need to be repaired, they need to bring in foreign workers. they're temporary. to fix that ship. such as with the -- that carnival ship that had all that trouble. >> ok. then i will ask a question on the part dealing with ireland. it singles out ireland for -- to provide particular benefits with regard to the visa application. i would like to have somebody explain the rationale for changing our immigration system to benefit one particular country and why did the irish get their own allocation for visas and why are these workers not required to have any of the skills or education beyond high school? >> we have had provisions for irish immigration in legislation for 15 or 20 years.

because of the special relationship between ireland and america. in fact, one of the persons who pushed this was somebody who was a leader in immigration. senator kennedy. and what they -- what it does is you have to have two years of training or experience or work experience. and what we're trying to do here is be fair. lots of countries get lots of immigrants because the family relationships are close. many of the people who came from ireland don't have parents or children there. they have second cousins and third cousins. of e had the visa program 1988, 1992, the diversity program of 1994 that all recognize these. as you know, because of the request of many, the diversity group is ending. -- program is ending. andness a substitute for it. >> is this similar to what former senator scott brown and the republican caucus had

proposed earlier a couple of years ago? >> exactly. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i remember that discussion with senator brown. and i could find not a principal basis to support that provision. and i don't find one now. in principle. >> my last question deals with h-1b cap. the bill provides for an increase in h-1b visas and also includes a so-called market escalator that allows the cap to move up or down based on emand. the customs agency has always had difficulty counting the visas. skimes exceeding congressional mandated caps and sometimes -- some say the bill only complicates the matter. does anyone know whether the department of homeland security was consulted with regard to this moving cap and how difficult will it be to

implement this new moving cap? >> yeah. the cap -- excuse me. the cap is not only based on employment needs but also on unemployment numbers. when there's high unemployment. the number goes down. low unemployment and need for foreign workers in these areas, which are highly educated, it goes up. and the department of homeland security was consulted. and supports the provision. >> did they give any indication of the difficulty of implementing it? >> they believe they can implement it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> for historical purposes as we discuss these caps, people should know that from 2001 to 2003 the cap was at 195,000. what this bill does is it puts

it up to the h-1b cap, this puts it up to 108,000 which is less than it was in 2001 to 2003. right now, it's at 65,000. this puts it at 180,000 and 2001 to 2003 it was 195,000. >> thank you. and senator grassley, you are recognized to bring up your number 58. >> yeah. before i specifically go to the amendment, i have some points i want to make about the h-1b program. under current law, an employer wishing to bring in a foreign worker under h-1b visa program will supply to the department of labor and that employer state, one, the employer will offer the alien the prevailing wage, number two, the employer will provide working conditions that will not adversely affect the working conditions of similarly employed workers, and three, there is no strike or

lockout. the application must specify the number of workers sought. the occupational classification and the wage rate and conditions under which the alien will be employed. under current law, few employers must attest that they cannot find qualified american workers before petitioning for foreign workers. these are called h-1b dependent employers. they have to take good faith steps to recruit u.s. workers and offer the job to u.s. workers who is equally or better qualified. these employers must also attest that they did not or will not displace a u.s. worker with a -- within 90 days of hiring. now, under current law, the secretary of labor reviews the labor conditions, applications, only for completeness and obvious inaccuracies.

the secretary is required to provide the certification, thus creating a rubber stamping process. the secretary despite indicators of fraud or misrepresentation is required to approve the labor commission -- condition applications. the bill goes a long ways to increasing worker protection for americans and providing more authority to the executive branch to investigate this type of fraud. unfortunately, the bill is slanted to ensure that only h-1b-dependent employers as opposed to employers that aren't h-1b dependent to feel the brunt. unfortunately, there are some bad actors throughout the program. we've seen instances where people use the h-1b visa program to bring in workers who will only sit on the bench.

individual and employers create fictitious companies. often renting only a cubicle simply to have a mailing address. they'll fabricate tax returns, submit false visa petitions for work that doesn't yet exist. my concerns have been intensified. after reading an internal homeland security benefit fraud and compliance assessment that highlights the very fraud and abuse that we know exists. the agency reported a violation rate of 20.7% of cases studied. the department said that some businesses employing h-1b visa holders didn't even exist. some educational degrees submitted were fraudulent. signatures on supporting documentation were forged.

the beneficiaries of the h-1b visas were not doing what they were claiming they would be doing. in fact, one visa holder was working in a laundry mat when he claimed that he would be a business development analyst. experts have acknowledged that many employers disregard the spirit of the law. and those employers find ways to circumvent worker protections to hire cheaper foreign labor. with a violation rate of more than 20%. this assessment should be served as a wake-up call to -- that the h-1b visa program is not working as it was intended. the h-1b program has served a very valuable purpose. but we need to re-evaluate how this program operates and work to make it more effective. too often members advocate for

increased visa allocations rather than understanding the heart of the problem. we don't always need more. it might be better to need -- we need to do a better job of ensuring that the companies who need the visas get them. we need to do a better job of oversight. we need to do a better job of protecting american workers. these are principles that will guide the amendments that i'm offering on the h-1b program. so i would move now to amendment number 58. i offer that amendment. this amendment would revise the section related to the internet job posting requirements. the bill includes a very important provision that will improve transparency about who is applying and hiring h-1b visa holders. the bill takes a major from

what's often been introduced as durbin-grassley bill. it says that an employer must advertise on an internet-based website run by the department of labor for at least 30 calendar days. the posting has a detailed description of each position for which the h-1b worker is sought. the bill only requires wages, education, experience needed. and the process for applying. my amendment simply adds the title and description of the position. including the location where the work will be performed. it also would require the job posting to include name, city, zip code, of the employer. this should be a noncontroversial amendment. that just makes it more clear what jobs are needed to be

filled in the united states. so let's get back to something very common sense. you're going to have something on the internet. for a job that's available. so what's wrong -- why wouldn't you want to include the title and the description of the position including where is that -- that job going to be performed? what's wrong with having the name, the city, and the zip code of the employer? and that's what this amendment does. >> mr. chairman -- let me say at the outset i support your a&m. i think it's a good one. -- support your amendment. i think it's a good one. with a we tried to do was to balance some competing interests. first, our commitment as a nation to immigration. and i think an earlier vote here evidenced bipartisan commitment to immigration. we can't foreswear our legacy. we know who we are and where we came from. and that has been the strength of this country. and we want to celebrate that but do it in a rational, thoughtful, legal way.

the second thing was to make sure the borders are safe and other laws are in place to reduce the likelihood of illegal immigration. the third element for i think everyone involved was to make certain if there are jobs available, first they will be offered to americans. offered at a wage that's either prevailing wage or medium wage and so forth. spelled out in this bill. those are like the three pillars that i really look to. there are other elements that we discuss. but i needed to be able to stand in front of illinoisan as would with iowans and -- grassley would with iowans and say you get the first chance at the opening before we bring somebody in from another country. and you get a chance to apply it. that's why your amendment is a good one. it provides additional for americans to step forward and apply for these hinrich positions -- for these h-1b positions. and by way of background, senator grassley and i have

been working on this subject a number of years a bill that we jointly proposed and i didn't add my name to this time because i was inside this little gang atmosphere. working on this element, h-1b element. and i think we came up with a good alternative. not exactly what you and i set out to do. but a good alternative. it is a compromise. i'll concede that point. if you have a company that has more than 15% of the employees who were h-1b, immigrant h-1b visa holders, there are certain requirements in the law that before you get the next h-1b, you have to make an effort spelled out in the law to hire an american first. we expand that. in this underlying bill. beyond the h-1b dependent employers. so it's going to create an obligation for those who were not h-1b dependent. but still bringing in h-1b workers to first offer the job to an american. that's spelled out. your amendment makes it

stronger. the other thing which you and i did over the years was to go after those firms which we believe are exploiting h-1b visas. people in the audience would be surprised to learn that 50% of the h-1b visas don't go to the obvious companies. caterpillar. google. microsoft. intel. they go to outsourcing companies based overseas that are recruiting foreign-trained specialists, engineers and the like that they're placing in american companies. this is not what we designed this program to do. and i might say to the senator from iowa, though we approach it differently, we phase it out over a three-year period. you and i did it all at once. but it's phased out over a three-year period for those who you and i agree were abusing the system. so the net result is this. i think we make a positive step forward in offering these jobs first to americans. who were at least as well qualified as the h-1b applicant or better qualified.

your amendment makes that even better. and secondly, we say this will apply to companies even beyond those that are h-1b dependent. and third, the one -- the companies that you and i focused on, abusing the process. are phased out. with fees and fines that rim posed on them over a two-year period our basic language goes into effect. so i thank senator grassley. he and i have been on this issue for a long time. we get a lot of foreign coverage on this issue. and i think that you're moving in the right direction. i think this bill is, too. thyo those in favor of the grassley amendment signify by saying aye. opposed. the ayes appear to have it. and the ayes do it. and senator klobuchar, you wanted to wait on your amendment, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and senator hatch's -- funding, correct? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> go ahead. >> i don't intend to be very long. before i call up hatch nine, i

-- >> redo that. before we do that, senator feinstein had a unanimous consent. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. >> your mic's on. >> on the first amendment, which had to do with drones not flying over the cities of southern california, there was a need to put in a small exception. this has been drafted. it says the limitation under this subsection shall not restrict the maritime operations of u.s. customs and border protection. so i would move that amendment. >> is there objection to the amendment? i understand there's no objection. without objection, it is amended. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator hatch. thank you for your forbearance. >> before i call up hatch amendment num >> i have circulated several

other amendments related to title iv, other than the one i am about to call up. i want to work with this bill to address those important issues. as it currently stands, the bill will render the visa categories simply unworkable. it means little if the rules and regulations after -- actually discourage their use. we need to make more of these visas available. as the wall street journal pointed out last week, employers can be penalized yields -- years after if they decide certain subjective definitions were misapplied. i ask consent this wall street journal editorial be placed on the record at this point. this is a long process. this bill covers a lot of ground and addresses a lot of

issues. senators on both sides of the committee cosponsored our act that would minima -- minimize the hurdles. it should be our goal. i hope i have the commitment of you and other colleagues to soolve the important issues we can improve this bill. let's work together on this and we will get it done. nine. up amendment a bipartisan amendment the senators. as currently written, the amendment is before us. the section before us that covered education and training section imposes a $500 fee on

the employment-based green card certification with the department of labor. federallyund prescribed priorities instead of directing grant money to the states. they should have the capability to pursue their individual science, technology, engineering, and mathematics and education needs. especially because the bulk of the public education system is funded and managed by the state. the amendment would increase the green card labor certification fee from $500 to $1000 and allocate the funding as follows. 70% of funds would be distributed by states and territories to develop and ,mplement stem activities including underrepresented populations such as minorities and women.

consistent with the managers bill, designed to increase retention and graduation rates, including loan forgiveness and scholarship programs. funds will support programs in stem fields, including programs for veterans and spouses and the development of licensed and credentialing programs. it will help low students focus on careers and college. bipartisan amendment makes sense and adjust as a long-term need. we cannot continue to simply

hope american companies do not move operations to companies where they have greater access to individuals educated and trained in stem fields. as a powerful tool for them to align education, economic development, workforce training, higher education, and industry to better serve students. consent that b placed on the record at this point. i encouraged my colleague to pass the amendment because i think it is the right thing to do and it is a step in the right direction. i will hold off the other amendments and we can work on them as we proceed. whichave a second degree is agreed to and i will talk about that.

>> do you have any objection to your amendment being amended i a second degree echo >> that will be fine. thanks the amendment is amended by second degree. senator schumer? chi cs. first, i want to thank the senator for his leadership on the issue. i know he has concerns and important amendments. we are trying to work a compromise agreement. i know the senator offers these with thought, experience, and sincerity. we will work to try to get a compromise. it will make things a lot and easier. it just clarifies the existing funding stream and this one. i vitiate the authors excepting it. it is a great amendment that will help complete education of

our workforce. maybe we will have the day where there will not be shortages and high tech field. >> i appreciate the senators working together. i am assuming it will not require a roll call but we will hear from whoever and then we can vote. >> iq. , i want we introduced to thank our original cosponsors for their work as well. in place ally puts bill with a lot of her sport. we worked to get democratic and republican governors to support the bill, as well as schools across the country. we all know in addition to reforming our immigration system, we have to be a country that makes stuff again.

we do this by making sure we have an immigration system that works. 188re projected to have house and jobs in stem fields open by 2018. we have our manufacturing filling out a reaching -- recent survey. did nothem said they have people to fill certain jobs. now it is up to 60% of our manufacturers. it is a good problem to have as we start to see improvement in our employment. we know we need more kids educated in science, technology, education, and math. this il ensures the amendment that we not just bring in other people with skills from other countries, but that we are also educating our own kids and with some of the reforms put in place by the gang of eight, it gives them a shot first.

it is an excellent amendment and i was proud to cosponsor it. everybody to know 1225:00 --00 25 12:25. >> i am so pleased to cosponsor the amendment. i have uphatchets real innovati. to takeacing the need it vantage of the opportunity to reignite the american economy for u.s. nationals as well as those who are immigrants. low part of the effort. we appreciate the broad support the bill has one and this amendment has one -- won.

,n order to lift the economy we need a combination of embracing the best talents around the world and cultivating the greatest talents of the children board here. -- born here. this combines important notice to make our education system stronger. minority serving institutions programs to boost capacity for stem building for the long-term, additional funds for the investment act training to help transition workers to the new economy, and the american dream account, which has its roots in legislation. we just reintroduced to foster public-private partnerships to help low income students achieve college degrees in the most promising fields for their future. i am grateful for the senators for the opportunity to work together and i look forward to the acceptance of the amendment into the bill. >> thank you. then we can vote.

it is, whyon behind can we not grow enough home- grown talent in america for these jobs? why are the smart men and women not filling the jobs? what you are except -- saying is let it hatch to make sure the opportunity is there so our young men and women in america .an take the jobs we do not have to consider importing talent. there was a reference made to some of the amendments. some i find very troubling. what the senator set out to do and i support it earlier is to make sure these jobs are offered to americans first. that was the senators amendment, adopted by a vote. some of your amendments go in the opposite direction and it would cause me problems. if you offered them, i not -- i might not be able to support

them. i hope we start with the premise that when there is a job opening, it is first offered to an american and at a reasonable wage so we can fill the jobs as often as possible with our own people before we bring in talent from overseas. thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank my three democratic colleagues for the support and say what a pleasure it has been to work with the , astors and other democrats well as senator rubio. onant to set aside people the committee. let me say something. there is a whole high-tech world that is getting up in arms if we do not do this right. they alone can make this very difficult to pass. i hope my colleagues will work with me because i have no desire to play politics on this thing. i want to make sure we take care of these areas.

this particular amendment is a small one but an important one. i am hopeful we can work together on the remaining amendments because every one of them is important, to me and to a whole set of industrial people, as well, who do not want to forestall jobs for americans, but realize we do not have enough in the country to fulfill the needs the companies need. . am grateful for the support .> i want to object i appreciate the hard work. so knowledgeable on the issue. ron testified before our committee and studied this intensely. the program has made it too easy to bring in cheap workers with

skills who directly substitute for rather than complement -- complement workers in the united states. he also said employers cannot bypass the american workers when recruiting open positions, and even replace out right existing american workers. -- those same lawyers employers have told because they can legally pay above market wages. , it is goodogram overall, but it does need to be monitored. i appreciate the work a number of people have made in that regard. >> all those in favor of the amendment as amended? opposed? -- the ayese it have it.

then the guards to what senator said, working with the managers of the bill to make sure we can work out some of the amendments, i assume that .ncludes senator grassley if i am wrong, please clarify. this authorizes labor to conduct to comply the degree with the requirements of the law. it is taken from the reform. under our bill, the secretary is authorized to do compliance of employers to bring in h-1b's. this to h-uld limit 1b depended -- dependent. my amendment would require the secretary of leg of -- rate -- labor to conduct requirements.

will serve as a deterrent against companies that want to miss the programs. enough that is explanation. >> thank you. detect we have to potential abuses. i just worry about the cost. i understand the provision will trustded from the cir fund established in the bill. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i would support all those in favor of the amendment. i am sorry. >> mr. chairman, i have to oppose the amendment. from new york is recognized. we will keep going until 12:25. >> thank you. i will be brief. this would allow audits of

companies that have done nothing wrong. in other words, we have an investigative process here where if somebody looks like they have done something wrong, they have full authority to investigate. to have every company be audited when there is no that they do something wrong does not make much sense. >> one percent. >> it requires one percent, but if there is no evidence of wrongdoing, it says they can audit them anyway. one of the things we have heard and one of the problems we have had is that sometimes, these audits go way overboard, they ask for too much and interfere with the ability to hire h-1b workers. too far inent goes my judgment. to let thebetter department of labor investigate

if someone reports something wrong. we toughen up the visions. almost anybody can say something is wrong and that would trigger an investigation. wheree this go forward it basically says they can audit anybody for any reason without any wrongdoing, i think goes overboard in a very sensitive area in terms of h-1b. >> there is none of the auditing going on now. the companies that are not h-1b dependent. i pointed out how much fraud there is in this case. what is an audit about? an audit is not conducted because there is wrongdoing. it is to find out if the law is being applied it. -- abided. if you do not have an audit and you have all the fraud in the businesswe are all for and not for hiring americans first. >> i would say this to my colleague here at when the amendment was first introduced in 2007, i think it had

justification. there was no division in the part -- department of labor. if you talk to the companies, if you talk to companies now, they are being audited up the y zulu. -- up the wazoo. it does not go overboard. we hear from the other side, too much interference, too much government that in this. on this provision, it is ok to do everybody. i think it interferes with getting the kinds of workers we need. i would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it. collects -- >> we will recess until 2:45.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on the next washington journal, chairman of the oversight and subcommittee on government operations will discuss the investigation into the irs targeting of conservative groups. then representative brian higgins of new york, the ranking member of the homeland security counterterrorism and and intelligence subcommittee on the benghazi and -- investigation, and homeland security in the aftermath of th boston marathon bombings. later, our spotlight on max again -- magazines. peter studeman on the peas on the impact of the stimulus. washington journal is live at seven -- 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-

span. >> by the end of 1980 set -- 85, -- 1985, the cia does not like what is happening. the cia has gotten drawn in a little bit to what is going on. reagan has not officially told the cia to do anything like this. they get reagan to sign in december of 1985. a document that authorizes operations. a piece of paper that says, because, for these reasons, i ordered these to do this and this and this. it is fairly specific. there were two things about the finding that were highly unusual. the first thing is it is retroactive. this is contrary to the law. law states clearly a finding is to be signed by the

president before the covert action is initiated. not after it has been going on. this finding said explicitly all prior actions are hereby ratified and approved. that is unusual it states explicitly, do not tell the house and senate intelligence committees about this. do not tell them. it is a very unusual and questionable document that reagan signed. why did he do it? people at the cia insisted reagan have to give them some kind of legal and political cover. >> the release of american hostages. douglas looks at the eye ron- contra affair. .- iran-contra affair on c-span, house

republicans on their opposition to the immigration bill. later, the investigation into the irs targeting conservative organizations. and the justice department accessing phone records. later, another chance to see the senate judiciary markup proposed by the senate gang of eight. , group of house republicans led by steve king of iowa, vowed to oppose the immigration bill making its way through the senate. they focus on the part of the bill that allows undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship and called on congress to address border security issues first. this is 35 minutes. >> well, good morning. i appreciate you being here. we ordered up a nice day for an outdoor press conference so we can look at the capitol in the background and comment on what's happening with the immigration issue across in the senate and what's happening in this country. i'm congressman steve king.

i represent iowa's fourth congressional district. and about three or four weeks ago, some of us were in discussion wondering when the conservatives were going to speak up on this amnesty bill that was unfolding in the united states senate and that was being i'll say -- put together behind the scenes in the house. congressman lou barletta and i had a conversation on the floor. that started a meeting that we had, and about six people arrived at that meeting to discuss how we were going to protect and defend the rule of law. from that time we've had several other meetings, done a little bit other press and also pledged ourselves we were going to do one minutes floor speeches, op- eds, press speeches to get another viewpoint out. here it's not the one being stampeded in the senate and maybe stampeded in the house. so i would just submit to you that i have said on the -- sat on the immigration subcommittee. i'm into my 11th year. i don't know how many have spent time studying this issue than i

have. one of them is lamar smith who is the author of the 1996 immigration reform act and just the most recent past chairman of the judiciary committee. he sends his regrets. he would very much like to be here. he has a pinch nerve in his back that disallowed him to be here today. as is the case for lou barletta, who badly wanted to be here and couldn't make the transportation work out. he'll be passing out a letter that he wanted to submit. but both of those gentlemen wanted to join their support in this press conference. i would make this point that 844-page bill over in the senate, whether it amended or not in what ways we can anticipate it might be is still a terrible idea if you look at it from an economic perspective. at no stage in their lives do -- does the universe of those who received amnesty make a net financial contribution to this country. at no stage. not a single year out of all those years, and that's off of heritage foundation's report, robert rechter?s report, which many of you are familiar with. it destroys the rule of law and the rule of law is a pillar of american exceptionalism. many come here because we have equal justice under the law. if we reward people who break the law, their children won't respect it. the rule of law, with regard to immigration, would be restored. and i don't know how we can listen to that with a straight face. we remember the 1986 amnesty act. each amnesty act since, and there are about six after that, smaller ones that didn't meet the news so much, and they also were the promises for the next group that would be amnestied. this group of 11.3 million they're calculating will be

bigger than they say. that's always been the case. it was roughly going to be a million in 1986. it became three million in 1986. this number will be larger. it is predicted to be 33 million by the time you add in the legal and illegal. i believe that number perhaps grows from there. the assimilation is a different scenario than we have had in the past. i've noticed that the people that are for open borders aren't really the embracers of assimilation. and assimilation is what has made america great, the giant melting pot.

i want people to co-mingle and intermingle. the promise about learning english, it's easy to follow through with that promise. let's just pass the official english bill. they aren't willing to do that because they're not serious.

it doesn't take into consideration the illegal drugs that comes across the southern border. it's not so much of a promise but a promise. 80% to 90% of the illegal drugs that comes through america is from mexico. i can tell you i can secure the border with the resources that we have in less than five years if you gave me janet napolitano's job and the president doesn't tie my hands. the resources are there. they are not serious. we can't take these people seriously because the people on the other side of the aisle, they want amnesty for a number

of reasons. it's a big political boost for them. i don't understand why the republicans think it's a good idea. somehow they bought into this idea. from a national security standpoint, we know that we have large numbers, and those large numbers is a quantifiable number in a way. flow across the southern border that come to do us harm. so the big question i would pose out there is why, why is that 844-page bill, why is it good for america or americans? i can't get that answer on why it's good for us, but perhaps some of my colleagues do have some answers to that. i suspect they have some criticism. i'd like to first introduce the gentleman from texas and my good friend, louie gohmert. >> thank you. appreciate you coming out because this is a very, very critical issue for this country. we are a land of immigrants. native americans. but the thing i loved that i saw the day after the worst attack in american history as people gathered around in courthouse squares like we did in my hometown, we held hands, we sang together. we prayed together. and as i looked around the circle at all races, creed, color, we had all types of folks therday 9/12/01 there was no hyphenated americans anywhere. we were all simply americans. that came from people emigrating and becoming one union. e pluribus unum. that makes us strong. when we ignore the rule of law we actually become like countries that many immigrants

are fleeing because the rule of law, if it's not observed, then you have chaos, and so you have to come to a country where the rule of law is enforced. the only thing worse is to come and say now that we're here, we want you to ignore the rule of law that made you a much stronger country than wherever we came from, but then by ignoring the rule of law, you disintegrate into the same type of chaos from which these people came. there are -- we've been told there may be a billion, a billion and a half people in the world who would like to come to america. why? because we are fair. overall we're a good people, a fair people, an exceptional country. and we enforce the rule of law across the board. but if we fail to do that, if we say or we have a president, and it's not just confined to this president.

the last president didn't sufficiently secure the border. but if we have a president who holds hostage his obligation to protect the country and to secure the boarders, and be sure you understand, nobody -- borders, and be sure you understand nobody behind me that supports our position wants a closed border. immigration is a life spring. it brings additional life and rejuvenation to this country. it's a good thing, but we have to make sure we don't get overwhelmed by people that want to destroy us and for those who've made fun of me commenting we had radical islamists trying to blend in with hispanics, all they needed to do was get off their lazy rears and do a little research and they'd find out that the director of the f.b.i. has previously testified before our committee that you had radical islamists who adopted

hispanic sounding names, would go to places like mexico, get identification papers and then try to blend in as if they were latin americans or hispanic americans and come across our border. we have an obligation to this country to make sure that those coming in want to be a part of the greatest nation and are willing to assimilate and be a part and not destructive of this country. that includes an enforcement of the visa overstays which over 40% of the people illegally here apparently are overstayed visas. you had people, boston, who had overstayed visas, and yet they were not being checked. and if the f.b.i. does not have the resources to check one individual who russia has given

us a heads up on, has radicalized in wanting to harm america, then do you think the system will be better if we add 11 million more people all of a sudden instantaneously for the f.b.i. to check out and make sure they're not going to be a threat? there will be threats involved in that, just as we saw in boston when we had people who were linked to either terrorists or terrorism that were questioned and even one saudi that was wanting to be deported. it it is a danger to this country. so let me also say, for a president to say i'm not going to secure the border, which is his sworn obligation to protect this country, unless you give legal status to millions of people, it does a couple things. number one, as i've heard from

sheriffs and border patrolmen, it's being a magnet. some of you reported, we got three, four, five times more people coming across our border just because of the talk of potential amnesty if they can get over here. and they say, oh, yeah, but we'll require proof. well, in the fast we've seen proof can be composed of an of a davity signed by the -- affidavit signed by the individual, oh, i came before the time you said to be here. we have to first secure the border so only the people lawfully coming in come in. we do need to reform our immigration system. it's pitiful. it shouldn't take longer to get a visa here than a third world country. we're better than that. but for this president to say i won't secure the border unless

you give legal status to all these people will be hypothetically like some random president saying, hey, media, if you don't give good stories, i'll go into your phone records. or saying, hey, groups, you better get off our backs or we'll harass you with the i.r.s. how will a president say, i won't secure the border until you give legal status? thanks. >> thanks, louie. next up is john fleming of louisiana. >> thank you, steve. ladies and gentlemen, we know that the united states is a nation of immigrants, a nation of immigration. but it's a nation of laws. tanned we're here today to celebrate legal immigration. that is what we should do. however, i completely disagree with the bill that's percolating in the senate today. you know, it's often said that history is the best determiner of the future. and what has history told us?

in 1986 we passed amnesty and now we have a bigger problem today than we did then because that bill promised amnesty but it also promised secure borders and we've yet to see those. also, i'm told it's 844 pages. when in recent years have we passed such a large bill and had a good outcome? i give you obamacare and dodd- frank as good examples of that. i really think that we need to tear this thing up and start from the beginning. we need to go back, be in our committees, go through the process and first and foremost we should pass a law that secures the borders first. second, we should pass a law and mesh it with technology to be sure that the 40% of unlawful immigrants who are here today as a result of overstays from their visas are properly tracked. once we do that, i think we can open up a dialogue about what we should do in america today with

those who are here unlawfully. but i suggest to you today that it's not through a giant bill that we know is just full of promises and full of contingencies when in fact we're not even fulfilling and enforcing the laws we have today. so i look forward to working with my completion on -- colleagues on this side to create some good legislation, bills that we can be proud of. thank you. >> next up to hear a real arizona position, dr. paul gosar of arizona. >> well, good morning. you know, i always start the conversation, trust is as serious as promise is kept? what we need to do is we need to have an immigration policy and it starts with border security like you see in yuma, arizona. it actually works. so we need to reward great behavior and immolate exactly

what works. we also have to look at what legal immigration actually works for. and i want to make sure we're embracing proper immigration. i'm a product of proper legal immigration. both my parents came from europe through ellis island. we're a great melting pot of people. the second thing i'd like to say is when we look at the met ricks, i think what all americans want is we got limited resources so i'm not very comfortable of having homeland security secretary janet napolitano dictating what is border security. i think it's an america feat where we use states' rights, federal agencies and local

municipalities to help us. what we do on our southern border we do on other northern border and our ports. it works together. last but not least, before we go further, we have to reform our entitlement programs, because if we don't we'll surely break them for what's being proposed in the senate. let's break it up into smaller bills. let's make sure we air it out in front of the american people. as a physician, dentist, what hurts, how does it help, it includes the american public so thank you very much. >> thank you, paul. and next up is the gentleman when i first talked to him when he came to this congress, i knew right away he understood the constitution and the rule of law and he lives by it and that's mo brooks of alabama. >> thank you, steve. in each of the past five years, 620,000 to 1.05 million foreigners have been given american citizenship. no country on earth comes close to being as generous as america is with its citizenship. the immigration issue is not about whether america is compassionate and generous. we are. the immigration issue is about whether america has the financial resources to accept all of the world's immigrants into america. there are hundreds of millions

of foreigners who, if they could, would immigrate to america. for example, in april of 2013, a pew center poll revealed 20% of all mexicans she they will emigrate to america if they can get away with it and another 15% said they would emigrate to america if they could lawfully do so. that's 38 million people from just one country who want to immigrate to america. america suffers from consecutive trillion-dollar deficits and $17 trillion accumulated debt. unless america changes its financial path, america will suffer a debilitating insolvency and bankruptcy that will usher in one of the worst three or four eras in america's history. america's immigration policies must reflect america's dire financial condition. america must limit immigration based on how many immigrants a year our economy can absorb. two, limit immigrants to net tax producers. i.e., those people who we have confidence in who will generate more in taxes than they consume. because they have, these people,

viable skillsets that the economy needs. two, advance degrees in intellect that can support our medical high tech and other intellect-driven industries or, three, financial resources that can help create new jobs and businesses in america. and then finally and most importantly, we must enforce our immigration laws, whatever the consensus may be in congress on what they should be. the president and the senate gang of eight pushed an amnesty bill that fails all of these tests. it gives amnesty to people whose first step on american soil was illegal conduct. it costs american taxpayers a 50-year net tax loss of $6.3 trillion.

it does not secure america's borders. it relies on a president who has proven he believes he is above the law and has no intention of securing america's borders or enforcing america's immigration laws. america cannot afford to open massive immigration floodgates any more than it can afford an amnesty plan that awards illegal conduct while adding $6.3 trillion to america's already dangerous and exploding debt, a debt, i might add, that is already significantly damaging america's economy and national security. i can't speak for anybody else, but i can speak for myself. i cannot in good conscious ratify illegal conduct with my vote. under no circumstance will i support the president and senate gang of eight's amnesty plan. thank you. >> thank you, mo. and next up is another gentleman from texas who does stand strong

on every issue that he takes a stand on, steve stockman. >> i think this bill is unfair to the hispanics who follow the law. it's unfair to lebanese who follow the law. it's fundamental to all the people that came here legally, it's fundamentally unfair to them. they have a gang of eight. we're going to have a gang of millions because you can watch this bill as it processes through the house committees that it will rise up against it and it will fail because the people are stronger than the gang ever eight. we have a gang of millions behind us. you'll watch. this bill is not going to -- as it's being exposed, 900 pages, it will fail on its own merit and we'll stand behind our bill and modify it and make it better and treat those that came here legally with respect and

decency. we can't tell the people that came here legally, oh, you're different. we'll allow these people break the rules while you follow the rules. i'm proud to stand with my colleagues here and we'll fight to defend this constitution. thank you. >> thank you, steve. i just make a statement before we turn it over to questions and that is i want to express to y'all how bad this bill is. and some of us have dug down through it and read significant

parts of it and some of us has also gone through the people that have taken it apart piece by piece and title by title which is supposedly going over in the senate. we won't get an open debate in this bill unless we do it in some other venue than the united states congress. it will be set up in a different way. we'll get a debate all right in the house of representatives. but it won't be an open one that let's us really get down and take it apart piece by piece. here's my understanding of it. it grants amnesty to everybody that's here. it sends an invitation to everybody that's been deported in the past and says to them, reapply because we really didn't mean clause. reapply to come back to the united states. people that come here before the deadline, they'll get amnesty. everybody here, everybody deported, everybody that gets here will have amnesty. by the way, nobody's coming out of the shadows that doesn't want to come out of the shadows. the people that they think will be sorted out by this system, felons won't show up to register. here's how bad this is. you know how badly i despise obamacare. i spent years of my life fighting against obamacare. i stood here many, many times. i despies this bill because it's an unconstitutional takings of our bodies, our health, our skin and everything inside it. it's a terrible, and it diminishes the destiny of america. if i have to choose between accepting -- if i came down to this -- if somehow an offer that you said you have to get one or the other, what would you take? i'd take obamacare and take that before i'd accept this amnesty plan because the amnesty plan is far, far worse than obamacare. that genie cannot be put back in the bottle. we can over time get back to if and get back to our doctor-

patient relationship. if this amnesty goes through, there is no undo you go it. the genie will be a puff of smoke. you will not get him back in the bottle and we'll have to live in perpetuity. that was not the thing envisioned by ronald reagan or our founding fathers. i remember an article by ed meese and said if ronald reagan had amnesty to do over again he'd not make the same mistake. i hope he reiterates this op-ed sometime in this debate. questions from the panel? >> is there some things you'd like to see improved from the senate bill or other things before you entertain a dialogue on legalization? >> don't have the technical expertise to determine the best way to secure the border or when it's fully secured. what i would do, if i were on that committee, is i would ensure that those who do would testify, would give us that

information. we would follow that pathway, and then and only then when we have come to that decision, made that law and then fully implemented it would i then move forward on anything dealing with those who were here unlawfully. >> what about these met ricks -- metrics? >> remember what this bill does. we'll get to the secure borders but right now we'll take care of the 11 million-plus who are here unlawfully. and it's just full of contingencies. i think the goal is 90%. right now our goal is 100% protection of the border and we're not even coming close. so we're going to lower the bar and create more difficulties and expect somehow we're going to meet even a lower goal? so i suggest again we go back to the beginning and we say let's raise the bar back up to 100% protection of the boarder, come up with a metric, follow through on the programs which i understand have already been in place but never fully implemented and then and only then do we move forward with anything else.

except for, of course, tracking of those who are overstays on their visas. we can do that simultaneously. >> if i could add on that, we know historically what has worked before, historically i'm not a big fan of woodrow wilson. we know after poncho villa came across and killed americans, woodrow wilson did secure the border. he put troops on the border. new thing called the national guard.

they secured the border. nobody came across that the united states didn't want crossed. it can be done. was with a sheriff last night from arizona who was saying that very thing. he's part of a reserve unit. they secured their sector. it can be done, and as steve said earlier, this president has the ability, he has the manpower, he has the money. he just doesn't have the will until he extorts what he wants. >> many republicans in your body have a watershed moment with the hispanic voters. after 2010 they were concerned about moving forward. what would you say to those [inaudible] >> well, i'm incredulous what they drew when the sun came up on the morning of november 7. the republicans lost.

mitt romney would be the president-elected on that morning if he didn't say two words, self-deport. is it wrong to stand up for the rule of law and the data that is contrary to the allegations that they've made? since they know this is a huge boon for democrats. they have known that for a long time. in 2006 or so on a day about like this, there were tens of thousands over on the west lawn of the capitol. teddy kennedy came out before them and said through an interpreter, spanish interpreter, he said, some say report to be deported. i say report to become an american citizen. i saw that live on c-span. i wasn't standing next to him that day. but that was the message which is we're going to recruit all you folks that we're going to give amnesty to to become democrats.

they know that. they learn that. they're seeking to process another voting block and that's why they spend tens of millions calling republicans racists and somehow the republicans advocating for this completely ignore the fact. so this is -- there's not a rational approach on the part of them. i ask them a lot. they say we have to grant this because it starts a conversation. so they'd sacrifice a rule of law on the ultra-political expediency starting a conversation to be sure that republicans would not win another national election, in my view. >> let me follow-up on your remarks. i don't do what i do based on votes. but if you want to get not politics and the vote dynamics. i seek the votes of law-abiding citizens. it doesn't make any difference to me what race they are, sex they are, where their country of origin is. recently, decades ago or centuries ago. and the american citizens who've elected me to office, to the united states congress, have

done so because i support the rule of law. the american citizens i know from all backgrounds, they support the rule of law. and that means you do not sacrifice your principles for political expediency. that is the wrong direction to go. that undermines what america is. i will do what i think is in the best interest of america and i'll allow the voters to know whether they agree with my approach come next election. >> are you against -- [inaudible] >> absolutely not. the hispanics that i know in my community, they want people who understand the importance of the rule of law. that's what this is all about more so than anything else. that's why i cannot in good conscience ratify with my vote illegal conduct. who can with good conscience ratify illegal conduct? that does not represent the principles that have made america what we are. now, bear in mind, i come back from a legal background. i've been a prosecutors in tuscaloosa. and i understand the importance of passing the laws that we passed. if the laws are bad, change the laws. if we need to have a different

metrics, but whatever that matrix is, whatever the standards are, you have to enforce it or else you become an open border society and you promote something different than the rule of law, i.e., criminal conduct, and we cannot afford anarchy if we're going to have a democracy. >> one more thing to that. when we talk about hispanics, i know the democrats have spent a

lot of money trying to vilify us, but the hispanics i know generally speaking have a faith in god. they love their families and they have a strong work ethic. those are three things i think made america great, that i think have been waning in recent years. so i think the hispanic culture has so much to bring and can help rejuvenate america. and i have confidence that once people have done the research and see which party stands for what and see which party is more pro-life and more pro-family and embraces a faith in god that they'll become republicans. i have great confidence that a majority will. so this is not about, are you giving up on hispanic votes. i think they will ultimately be republicans. but this is an issue about are we going to follow the rule of law, are we going to allow it to be abandoned on the alter of what's best politically? and there's been too many decisions made for that purpose and i think it's time to make decisions for what's best for america.

>> go over here. yes, ma'am. >> i see a lot of border states represented here but i don't see any californians. >> i have to look across the roster and see but we have a lot of rule of law republicans that stand with us that aren't here today as well. this number is growing within our conference. i want to say this that for people to take on a label and say they are conservatives but they are for a bill that is a $6.3 trillion deficit over that period of time and a bill that would identify clearly that the groups that they would bring in could not make a net financial contribution in any single year, that ought to take care of the conservative side of this. we are here for the rule of law. i want to see a healthy nation. i've said many times and i think is an important point to make. there is a vigor that comes with legal immigration that's unique to america. i could go down to the pillars of american exceptionalism where we could name them, speech, religion, press, we could go on. there is another pillar in addition to the rule of law in a

we talked about today and that is american vigor because this country got the cream of the crop of every donor civilization on the planet. we saw those inspired and thought they could become what they become only in america. they sacrificed when they came here. they didn't squander their opportunities. that's part of the equation for american vigor. then each generation taught that same thing to their children. that's why we are a can-do country. i don't want that to be destroyed of an idea being debated in the senate that destroys the rule of law. one more question and wrap it up. right here, sir. >> do you believe the house leadership, chairman goodlatte, speaker boehner, do you believe they're on your side of this debate or the other side and if they are on the other side, how are you going to prevent this? >> if they are not on our side i suggest they are convertibles. i worked with chairman goodlatte for more than 10 years on two committees, judiciary and ag.

i know him well. i know how he thinks. he's a very smart man with a good set of values. he's put out, proposed agenda that will be one bill, one issue at a time. one issue is what i saw chris van hollen say the other day, we could pass out of this house one, two, three immigration bills that would be messaged to the senate. it might be an everify, guest worker bill. and once they got sent over to the senate, if the senate passes their amnesty bill, i'm concerned that house leadership could appoint a conference committee and that conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill that's in the senate and send it to the floor unamendable, one or down vote, in which case every democrat would vote for it, it would take a couple dozen republicans and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. i'm most concerned about that and i'll continue to talk about that.

i've got confidence in bob goodlatte especially since i worked with him so closely. thank you so much for being here. thank you my members and >> coming up on the next washington journal, congressman john mica of will discuss the investigation into the irs targeting of sickness -- of conservative groups. the ranking member of the homeland security counterterrorism counterterrorism and intelligence subcommittee on the benghazi investigation and homeland security in the aftermath of the boston marathon bombing. later, our spotlight on magazines features peter suderman.

"washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. eric holder is taking questions tomorrow on capitol hill. live coverage at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. news committee members get a chance to ask questions about the irs investigation. steve miller and the present -- treasury department for trash ministration appear before the committee. that is live friday morning at 9:00 eastern on c-span three. >> this is a painting that shows lucie tending to a wounded soldier during the civil war. two causes that were very

important to her were veterans and soldiers. also, or friends, children who had been made orphans as a result of the civil war. they would sit here in this formal parlor. lucy was such a wonderful hostess. she wanted people to feel very welcome here. would sit andthey discuss the issues of today. future president staff and mckinley were guests for dinner. as well as other local and political and national figures. entertaining these political figures and serving in that role as hostess in these dinners would have our conversation on lucy hayes is now available on our c-span website at c-span.org/

firstladies. commercenate subcommittee looked at -- you can watch an entire program on our website at c-span.org. consider the following story offered by cable executive on the significance of a la carte. he says my next-door neighbo