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 neighbor is a winner.

she asked, why do i have to get sports programming? espn and espn 2, she is sending a check to disney for about $70 even though she does not watch it. challenging economy, $70 is a lot of money for many americans. i'm a sports fanatic and i love espn. i stay awake many nights watching games back in arizona with a horrible three hour time change. i would never go without espn, but the fact is the majority of tv consumers have no interest in sports programming and should not be forced to purchase it. many americans are beginning to realize included in their cable bills is a charge about $10 per month to carry sports programming like espn, which cost nearly five dollars a month.

for more expensive than any other cable and even less popular channels like regional sports networks which can be almost as expensive. also bundling with -- also bundling. once again, the consumers want the bundles? the answer is no. according to statistics, in 95, the average cable household was sold 41 channels and tuned into 11. in 2008, the statistics were compiled. that average cable household was sold 130 channels and tuned into only 18 of them. these excess channels are driving up cable bills. companies like viacom do not sell channels like empty tv -- , butnd vh1 individually

bundle them together with others. say if you bundle your programming on the wholesale level, you must unbundle it and distribute your programming à la cart as well. the outcome for the consumer is a la carte and a lower cable bill. in addition to a la carte, also ensures that the public spectrum resources are used in the most efficient and publicly beneficial ways possible. you a chancegive to respond to senator mccain's opening statement and the bill that he has filed. on one level, it may seem very common sense that all consumers would have a choice and be able to go a la carte in the programming. that is kind of intuitive. that makes sense. i would like to hear your response from the industry's

perspective on what problems that presents. >> thank you for the question. senator mccain has a long standing interest in this. -- as you privilege point out, the objective stems -- seems entirely reasonable and noble and quite intuitively right that somehow if you bought less, you would pay less. , but manyogical independent third-party studies have looked at this carefully and have concluded that is not like the to be the case, gao and in 2004 and a research service in 2000 sex. they have concluded that it is a very serious restaurant -- questio mark on whether viewers would have lower bills.

when you think about it for a moment, if you take a channel that is accustomed to a large audience size and allocating its service across a big race and advertising revenue and prescription revenue that go with it and have a sold directly to the consumer a la carte, a couple of things happen. one, the audience size has strong should mattingly -- shrunk dramatically. they will likely have to raise the individual prices of the programming quite substantially than the $45 senator mccain was referencing when it is -- $4 or $5 senator mccain was referencing to when it is bundled. it is not a good deal for consumers if you pay $10 for 10 channels when you're paying 10 channels for 100. academic work shows that is a

likely possibility. concern is respectable and noble. i think we have found out that a la carte is actually delivering a lower cost product to the american consumer. , anoming up next investigation into the irs targeting conservative groups. then continuing debate on the immigration bill. then live at 7 a.m. eastern, "washington journal" looks at and theinvestigation stimulus. we'll year from attorney general eric holder -- we will hear from attorney general eric holder.

>> a few questions on the ap phone records. did you sign off on two months of ap photo records? when did you recruiters yourself -- recuse yourself? ap wrote you a letter and call this a serious infringement and a violation of guidelines and asking you to return those records and destroy all copies. will you consider doing so question -- we consider doing so? byi have been interviewed the fbi in connection with this matter. to avoid a potential appearance of potential conflict and make sure the investigation was seen as independent, i recruiters to -- i excuse myself on the

matter. theymatter has therefore conducted by the u.s. attorney general here in washington, dc bank -- d.c. the deputy attorney general would be the one who openly authorized that went to the ap. i'm not familiar with all that went into the formulation of the subpoena. i'm confident that the people who are involved in this investigation whom i have known for a great many years followed all of the appropriate regulations and did things according to doj rules. >> do understand why people in the newsgathering business such as us would find this troubling? as i said, i do not know all of what went into the formulation of the subpoena. this was a very serious leak.

a very serious leak. i have been a prosecutor since 1976. i have to say this is one of the most serious. it is among the top two or three of serious leaks have ever seen. it puts the american people at risk. it puts american people at risk. trying to determine who is responsible with that requires aggressive action. i'm sure the subpoena has formulated based on the people that it was done in conformance with doj rules. foundhas been said they out about this after records were taken. to seekno attempt made the aps voluntary cooperation? >> you're asking about things beyond my knowledge. when protocol

require you try to approach them for voluntary cooperation? >> i do not know what the circumstances are here. have the knowledge of those facts. >> i think the underlying question is the policy of the administration when it comes to the ability of the media to cover the news. i think the question for you is this newsfact that organization was not given an opportunity to try to have this in court. it leads us to wonder whether the administration has somehow decided policy wise that it will go after us. -- it this certainly not could talk about policy -- but that is not the policy of this administration. if you remember in 2009 when i was at my confirmation hearings,

we as administration took the .osition in favor of such a law it did not get the necessary support on the hill. it is something administration thinks would be appropriate. we have investigated aces on the basis of facts and not as a result of hollis he -- of policy. the facts and the law have dictated our actions in that regard. is that a hyperbole that this puts the american lives at risk? to was there any risk americans with information came out? >> i cannot answer that question. >> when you ask used yourself excused did it -- yourself when you didn't -- >> i do not know when it was.

i have frequent contact with the media. i try to make sure that this investigation was seen as one that was independent to avoid the possibility of occurrence of the conflict. i made the determination to excuse myself. , isn the irs controversy any concern that criminal laws have been broken? if so, have you ordered an investigation? >> i have ordered an investigation to be begun. the fbi is coordinating with the justice department to see if any laws were broken in connection with those matters related to the irs. everyone can agree it is not criminal, but it was outrageous and unacceptable that we were examining the facts to see if they were criminal violations. excused from the

investigation of [indiscernible] >> i will not comment on that. many americans say they do not trust administration now. what do you say? >> to the extent that we have determined that actors and government have gone beyond what they were supposed to do, broken regulations and broken laws, we have prosecuted people. we have held people accountable. you have tried to do things according to the rules. there are going to be people ok shall he who will not do so. and -- become incumbent upon us we have done that. >> regulations require that these things be drawn as nearly as possible. deeply in this case whether it is two months or so, is that in your view nearly drug question

-- narrowly? i do not know if it has been made available yet. there are a number of factual assertions in it. they contradict some assertions fromwere made by letters the ap. i would refer you to that. story,ap story, the irs a growing, there are trend on the demonstrations record that civil liberties have promises madeo in 2008 and criticisms of the administration. looking at the civil liberties record, are you disappointed? why hasn't more benign? >> i'm proud -- why hasn't more been done? >> i'm proud with what has been

done. the war on terror, we decided that certain in terrorist -- investigative techniques would not be used. we have been aggressive in our enforcement of the civil rights law. there are a whole host of things that this demonstration has done. it is consistent with what i think the president campaigned upon and what we promised at the beginning of this administration. >> during the last administration, the president signed an executive order to continue what has already happened. there are many other examples where people are disappointed and this administration both on the left and the right. do you need to change course? -- 't you >> no. this demonstration has been a real value on the rule of law. that we havections

taken are consistent with both. if one looks at what we have done in a friday of areas, i --e found more abundance that is a division that has brought record numbers of cases, 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. every to the nation -- a repudiation when we came into office. changes that were consistent with what the president campaigned upon and what we talked about early on. there is concern with the lack of transparency regarding the drone program. what are you going to do about that? >> we are in the process

speaking to that. i made a promise and a promise that i think will be cap book i me and by the president in a relatively short amount of time. we have a rollout that will be happening very soon. ,> phone records in the ap case the justice department internal regulations took the phone records. eithern your briefing, at the time are now that it has come out, can say whether internal e-mail record and content that might be older than six months, or access as of this investigation? >> you would have to refer to the letter and that deputy attorney general. i've only seen it in draft form. it is pretty specific about times and dates in which things were acquired and what was acquired. it is all in the letter that he

sent back to the ap. the boston marathon bombing, any evidence so far that the -- the attackers receive some training and support from russia? >> that investigation is ongoing. i do not want to comment too much on it. -- fbi directors in moscow we have gotten cooperation from the russians. we are exploring everything in connection. was ap the only organization that got records subpoenaed? deputyn, that is for the attorney general to respond to. whether as ay general matter it is possible to conduct a thorough investigation of leaks of information that appear in the media without taking some investigative steps like pulling

phone records? >> you have to exhaust all possibilities before you engage in interacting with the media. to havessible investigations in that way. each investigation is different. i'm confident knowing the people the decision to what they did here is consistent with their having exhausted all other possibilities. >> how many people within the [indiscernible] i think i'm the only person who was excused. i would have been the person leading the investigation.

having been interviewed and having knowledge of the matter and interacting with the press, it it seemed better for me to step out. for the irs, there was a strong response. he also expressed a lot of regret. is it your desire to make a push to transfer prisoners back? >> i think we ought to use our federal court system. it has proven to be effective. it is a place where we can convict people and also get valuable intelligence. we will try to",. resident has indicated it is too expensive. we will try to close wonton among -- wonton among --

guantanamo. the president has indicated it is too expensive. why was the ap case different than other leak investigations? i know you're not managing this investigation. you describe this as one of the top investigations. what made this different in your estimation? why did it require such an extensive sweep of material question mark -- material? of what was enough compromised as a result of that week. on the basis of that knowledge, that gives me the ability to characterize it as a serious matter. >> last question. matter, what statutes might have been

violated question -- violated? thatere is the irs code i'm not really familiar with. there are other things that we will be looking at. >> with boston and the benghazi incident and irs, it seems like the fbi is involved in a lot of stuff. i'm wondering if you haven't update -- if you have an update on the -- >> we are talking amongst ourselves regarding people. >> attorney general holder excused himself from the investigation into the ap phone records. the house judiciary committee will have a chance to ask eric holder during an oversight

hearing. live coverage at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. on friday, acting irs commissioner and the treasury department pessimist patient appearing before the house ways and means committee. live on friday at 9 a.m. eastern also on c-span 3. president obama released a statement about the irs report. earlier today, jay carney says there's no tolerance for the irs targeting specific groups. >> right now there has been a confluence of issues. ,enghazi talking points, irs

phone records. in every instant, the president or you have placed the burden of responsibility someplace else. the mccarthy talking points have been political motivations on the hill -- benghazi talking points have been political -- political motivations on the hill. on the justice department issued, you said those matters are handled independently by the justice department. but it is the president's administration. doesn't responsibility set the setting,spending -- doesn't that rest with the president on these matters? >> focus on the priorities of the american people is the responsibility of the president. you see and hear him do that everyday. he fulfilled his duties as president. you have to separate these issues. if you look at the answers the

president gave yesterday in response to questions on the clear political circuit that benghazi has become and his response to questions about the reports and activities of the iris -- irs, he made clear that if the report of the activity of irs personnel troops -- proves to be true, he would find outrageous. he expects appropriate action to be taken and that people be held responsible. he has no tolerance for ,argeting specific groups conservative groups, if the reporting is true on this. he would expect action to be taken. this is a matter when it comes to the irs. it is reviewed by the independent inspector general. we have not seen that report. it is our understanding that it is released.

once we have it, we will be able to take the next up. at this point we have to wait for the action of an independent investigator, if you will, the inspector general, before we can jump to conclusions regarding what happened and whether there was a deliberate targeting of groups inappropriately. if that is the case, what action should be taken. you can be sure what the president's feelings are about this kind of action if it did take place. what is aue of department of justice investigation, as i understand it, the president is a strong defender of the first amendment. he is a firm lever and the need for the press to be unfettered to conduct investigative reporting and facilitate free folk information.

-- free flow of information. as i said yesterday, other than press reports, we had no knowledge of any attempt by the justice department to seek records from the associate press. we're not involved in any decision made in connection with ongoing criminal investigation. those matters are handled appropriately by the justice department independently. i understand there are a lot of questions about the reports of the doj actions. for my background, i understand them well. in the situation where the department of years to be conducting a criminal investigation, it would be inappropriate for me to have answers to those questions. i do not have them. >> now congressional reaction. it starts with senate majority

leader, harry reid. then senate republicans led by senator mitch mcconnell. >> what the irs did is inexcusable. this is not the first time we have seen this. it was not long ago that the irs inappropriately targeted greenpeace and a california church for being progressive called all saints church in pasadena, california. at that time, we do not hear a republicanic and -- glance at the issue. i believe that we need to take action to stop this inappropriate behavior of the internal revenue service. i believed then and i believe it now.

i spoke to the chairman of the finance committee and asked him to hold a hearing soon to determine what should be done. theeed to wait until inspector general's report is completed. i expect that to be within a week or 10 days. there is another issue at stake. .e cannot lose sight of this there is a shadowy, political .asquerading as social groups and wealthyions people -- it needs to stop. we do not know exactly how much money was spent in the last election by these groups. i acknowledge most of the money was spent on the right-wing, but there's plenty on the left wing.

$1is said to be almost billion. what have they done to improve the social welfare? these shadowy organizations are supposed to do. that is what the charter says. preventing political groups, like the ones run by paul rove -- carl rove, is critically important task. whether on the left of the right. but the irs is not the right organization to perform that task.

we advanced something called the disclose act. not a single republican sided with us on the disclose act. ofre was outrage republicans then? we should take another look at the disclose act and stop abuses by the irs and crackdown on efforts on those who try to exploit our tax code. their masquerading as social welfare. are masquerading as social welfare.

>> good afternoon, everyone. i want to make a few observations about the administration's abuse of power. we have now focused the attention of everyone, including all of you, on the links to which administration is willing to go to quiet voices. the colleagues, including a ranking member on the finance committee will focus on some extent on the irs. i wanted talk about the broader picture. over the last year, after going back to 2009 at a think about it? we have seen the efforts of the the administration to quiet the voices of the critics. back in the debate on obamacare, it was the directive of the secretary of hhs and insurance companies that they could not tell the customers, those who bought their products what they

thought about obamacare. the directive from the secretary of hhs quieting the voices of critics of obamacare. now you have noticed the secretary is out raising money from the private sector, people who are dependent upon the governments regulations. convincede government the public that obamacare is a good measure. the federal communications fec toion and at the engage in the kind of government regulatory activity that is targeted at silencing the critics of the administration. i'm not being critical of all of you, but mostly you have not

paid attention to any of that. but now i think you get it. everyone understands that they are as is. many people think the most powerful agency in the federal government with the ability to literally put people out of business. we have seen what they can do. there is a measure that expect we will see from that democrats. we saw it in the previous congress and the one before that called the disclose act. it was designed to give the irs even more power directly to quiet the voices of the critics of this administration. it is important that that legislation not only be defeated, but the administration gets the message. the federal government should not be used to quiet the voices of critics of the obama administration. i will turn to senator hatch on

the irs issue. >> let me just say this. i've never seen anything quite like this except in the past during the nixon years. with the irs asserted on friday simply not true. it was not just some lowly staffer. that is a pretty important office in the iris. --irs. senior management knew of was going on for over a year and they did not say a word. leadershiprs learned of this, they sent congress letter saying that the hardening of conservative groups -- this was either one of the great his cases and confidence that i have ever seen where it was the irs willingly not telling congress the truth. at no point intended anyone at

the irs think it appropriate to set the record straight. not at one point. american people deserve the truth. there no single agency that has the power of -- that the irs has. they can destroy people. this is an industry that can creekmore here -- create more fear than any other agencies. make it clear?t i sent them at least three letters on this. how high in the chain of command of the obama demonstration did this go before it was revealed that this was happening last friday? why did it take the inspector general's report to get the irs to own up to this? these are questions that have to be answered. there is a reason why congress is a coequal branch of

government. if theng i wonder administration fully appreciates. we will fully examine what they .re doing we're looking out for the public in the public interest. senator baucus is willing to hold hearings on this and look the it and do it in appropriate way. we're talking about liberties here. the right of freedom in america. might be- freedoms lost and we would all be the worst for it. by any measure, it has been a tough few days for the administration. the president got four pinocchio's on stories from

benghazi in the washington post. the statements were made to members of congress that the irs was not targeting political groups. administration said it was absolutely false. others are saying the implementation of obamacare is hurting their business and not helping. in 2011 and 2012, i had , tea partys in texas groups from waco and san meonio, who reported to that they felt like they were being targeted by the internal revenue service that resulted in a letter to senator hatch and i and others wrote this. other said it was false. now i know my constituents were telling the truth.

i applaud senator baucus and senator hatch for saying the finance committee was going to look into this as far as the irs is concerned. i hope all other standing committees in the senate that have jurisdiction over the fcc, hhs, and the irs will get to the bottom of this and find out where it leads. for an administration that promised to be the most transparent in history, the obama administration has a credibility gap that is growing at an alarming rate. we know there were senior administration officials who knew about the polling of conservatives leaning organizations. confidential information of conservative organizations was released to propel the cap.

publica. if you look at the various things that have been mentioned, fcc,inferiors, benghazi, this is an administration that is playing fast and loose with the rules. it should be a concern for all americans. i sent a letter to the epa because obama administration had released information on 80,000 farmers and ranchers to some liberal environmental groups. that included names, addresses, phone numbers, geographic coordinates, all kinds of information. in many farm families were impacted by that. another example of administration that has gotten out of control when it comes to this abuse of power. i think this is something that ought to concern every american. as was pointed out, investigations and hearings are underway.

we will get more facts out to the american people. this is a pattern that is very concerning. it is one i think every american who cares about the bill of rights, every taxpayer should be concerned about. >> the president's health care law is bad for paychecks and patience and bad for jobs. , there is anons additional dark cloud for the healthcare law. one relates to the irs. these are the folks who are supposed to enforce the healthcare law. if you go to one of the exchanges to get insurance, the form you sent in goes to the irs. i cannot imagine the american people will be delighted to hear about the of power we have seen from the irs. who will want to entrust them with their healthcare? the irs is looking to hire additional agents to enforce the president's healthcare law.

the second is that of kathleen sebelius. she has been going to private companies and asking for money to use to promote the president's health care law. this is what i call the sebelius should -- shakedown. she has been found in violation of the hatch act during the 2012 presidential election. now she is shaking down companies and executives throughout the company. why? looking for money to cover up the train wreck that is happening with the president's healthcare law. nothing scares american people like the three letters i- r-s.

if the reports in the last 24 hours are true, including writing to the irs and getting information that come up that acting commissioner miller learned about this in may 2012. responding to members of the house and members of the senate and a committee in the house, refused to answer the question with information he had. , he gave a great information. he should step aside or be removed. this is something that we should not tolerate. the mission should should not tolerate. the american people would not want us to tolerate this. the subcommittee has responsibility for the appropriations for the secretary of treasury, including the irs.

asking them to respond to me. answersd, i'm awaiting to those questions. every american should expect evenhanded treatment by the internal revenue service. that is not in question. -- now in question. information related to their donors were released organizations that had opposite political points of view of those organizations. , think as the story continues not only is it a terrible and inappropriate that the irs would anat applications by organization with a political leaning different than another, the belief that information is being released by the irs for purposes of political persuasion, every american should be able to expect

evenhanded treatment from the internal revenue service. ort is clearly not the irs administration we have. >> let me just add one thing. as you continued to file your stories on this subject, ask yourself before you write, how would i be writing the story if this were a republican administration? i would be happy to take a few questions. >> a lot of republicans were calling for more of a crack down on the leaks of national security and information. i wondered if the subpoenaing -- subpoena of phone records was part of that crackdown was out of line? >> it strikes me that the justice department inquiry will go forward and we look forward to seeing what if anything comes from it. thatu are pretty dubious

social welfare groups were actual social where fromm -- welfare groups. does congress and the irs need to take another look at whether or not these groups should get social welfare tabs? >> as i have said over two decades and the supreme court has underscored, you have a right to engage in a political debate in this country. even corporations have a right to engage in a political debate. buyer to the citizens united case, for example -- prior to a citizens united case, you could talk about any issue you wanted to. citizens united level the playing field. we now have a system under which people are able to fully discuss their grievances was that we have a government that tonds $3.6 trillion a year impact all of us.

people are entitled to petition congress and address grievances under the first amendment and say what ever they choose to. .ext question is there some special independent investigation into [inaudible] irs?e >> i think there be a full investigation. .hey will look out for irs they intend to fully investigated. there are lots of questions. i think congress is fully capable of conducting an independent review of what went on. that will be done

in the senate as well. thank you. >> washington reporters have been tweeting about today's events. nbc news kelly o'donnell says --irs chief miller told senior democrats today, no political bias, rather port management, and scrutiny of conservative groups. from the hill, finance chairman meets with embattled acting irs chief. , bachmann toe all lead tea party's response to the irs. call, bachmann to lead tea party's response to the irs. general eric holder

live on wednesday at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. and asking questions about the with stevegations september for the committee. that is life friday morning at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. >> the cia is in the about this. they do not like what is cap thing. some people at the caa do not like what is happening. they got drawn in a little bit. what is going on? reagan has not officially told the cia to do anything like it. with is reagan to sign called a presidential finding. a document that authorizes -- it is a is a paper that says for these reasons, i order agencies to do this and and this and this. it is fairly specific. there are two things about this ever highly unusual.

the first thing is it is 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 and not after it has been going on. all finding said explicitly prior actions are hereby ratified and approved. the second unusual thing is that it states explicitly, don't tell the house and senate intelligence committees about this. don't tell them. it is a very unusual and questionable document that reagan signed. why did he do it? people at the say eight cia insistedt the that he give them some political cover. rossinow in lectures in

history on c-span's american history tv. theng up on c-span, continuing debate on the immigration bill proposed by the so-called gang of eight. a.m.,t seven a 7 "washington journal". the senate committee have their own version of the farm bill. have offered an amendment and talked about expenses meeting with fidel castro. you can see the event in its entirety at our website at c- span.org. >> with respect to cash, sales

and products to convince -- cubans, in 2005, the department of treasury issued a rule under this office. that cashy ruling payments to cuba would have to to the shipment to cuba. then in effect means all trade in cuba was halted. ofre was a potential problem a private seizure of u.s. products. iss issue clearly politically charged. trade issueat the

and not the politics, my , certainly byight america's farmers and ranchers, that we should change the ruling so cash sales could be made. ,irtually every other company large sales in cuba. canada -- the u.s. doesn't because the politics. this is dated. a amendment would correct problem that needs to be addressed. cut through the political stuff. not can push this amendment

at this time. man, it is a no-brainer. it makes sense to me if we want farmers and ranchers to sell products. this change needs to be made. i have been to cuba a couple of times. certainly with my good friend and colleague from kansas. their president -- callederred to be comandante. alvarez -- come uper products to with? write right on the spot, sure --

sure.on the spot, that caught montana farmers by surprise. then the rule changed. it stopped all cash sales to cuba. it makes no sense. i hope by the time we get to the floor we can figure out a solution to the stuff. >> thank you, senator baucus. what was said. see some of to what they were doing in agriculture. there's no question that we should be addressing this. i will never forget meeting last year with louisiana rice growers. what do you need question mark they said, opened it to cuba.

that is all we need. -- what do you need? they said, open it up to cuba. that is all we need. chairman deborah. senator from in town and i went to cuba. until 4:00 inked the afternoon and lasted until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. we learned about the world according to castro. we have been working on this for some time. that most of the focus is , but thes in the u.s. focus should be on cuba as well. you can use our agriculture production wherewithal as a tool

for peace and stability. also for countries to recognize that we can be a reliable supplier. they become dependent upon us. that means a better discussion with regards to human rights and the very things that people who oppose this man would like to see. every verse kind of thing -- a reverse kind of thing. i urge the continuation of this on the floor. >> thank you. >> this is a painting that shows lucy during the civil war. two causes important to her work veterans and soldiers and orphans. children who had been made orphans as a result of the civil war. when people -- people would come

here and visit. many would sit here in the formal parlor. lucy was a wonderful hostess. she wanted people to feel welcome here. this is where they would sit and discuss issues of the day. she hosted a number of political figures for dinner, including the future president taft and his family. as well as a number of other local and national clinical figures. as a political partner with her husband, entertaining these political figures and serving as a role of hostess, these dinners were incredibly important. on lucy hayesion is now available on our website c-span.org/firstladies. and tune in on monday for our newest program. >> the senate judiciary to midi committee discusses the

immigration bill. >> senator grassley is here. senator schumer is here. all members told me they would like to do this bill finished. i'm doing what i can to avoid a saturday meeting this week. if we get a couple more here, we can begin.

i welcome everybody here. sorry we are meeting and probably the ugliest room in the entire united states senate. inthink when the building was and designed, it was somebody who must've worked for talon -- for the stalin with the type of architecture but they were a junior member because they got even worse than the designs you see overseas. but it is safe from being the ugliest building in washington and in by the fbi building which is can and in and down -- which is hands down prized the ugliest. in and and

we have senator schumer, senator leahy, senator graham.andleahy, senator graham. you are feinstein. you and enough here. your from our first hearing inand february on comprehensive immigration reform, a key consideration for me was the pathway to citizenship not be a and false promise.and and and and the hearing with secretaryand and napolitano last month reassured the requirements in the bill are achievable. the committee worked in a bipartisan way to reject efforts poolt up a list ofin her preconditions being nothing more than obstacles to reach thatis goal. last week we met and worked through scores of amendments.in

some called our efforts a lesson and in democracy.and many noticed the commitment and to fairness and compromise. this morning we continue our work and will conclude consideration. hoping to do that quickly add to turn our attention to nonimmigrant visa revisions. and i don't believe that economists would say particularly for lower income americans that we need more andkers right now. i just don't see how that's possible. and, you know, i guess being a and and and we need to do more to keep the companies and jobs for american workers in this

country. pay ton taxpayers help innovators andf deadly tell them them they have to go back to their own .ountries the kind of like to keep them here. talented contributors from abroad boost local goods. before we start voting, did you want to say anything? >> i'm going to wait for the amendments to,. -- to come up. >> ok. we have nominations. how many do we have here? [inaudible] the nominations will be

thursday. time flies. we have senator feinstein, myself, senator grassley, senator graham, senator lee. senator schumer has just come in. and senator koons has just come in. not only in the room ugly, it's cold. ugly, it's cold. we have enough to start with amendments. senator feinstein, i understand you have amendment number 11. sub drones outside the border

areas. you're recognized. >> 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. nan not the whole region within 100 miles of the border. the reason for that is we have several million people within 100 miles of the border. county, san orange diego county, reaching all the way up to long beach within that mileage. senator cornman mentioned he was concerned about it because texas is different and he saw the drones as being valuable with that respect. i amve worked together and submitting an amendment here that says in essence the united states border patrol may not operate unharmed, unmanned aerial vehicles in the san diego

and l sent show sectors except within three miles of the southern borders. that exempts what i am concerned about, the city is san diego, other cities having these drones flying overhead. san diego has a big international airport. there is one last concern. that was just brought to my contention. a concern of mccain that these drones be permitted to operate off the ocean in the san diego sector. 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. >> with the senator yield for questions. >> i am modifying the amendment. >> she has the right to modify her amendment. as modified, it will be before

us. >> that's right. line 22.- i did not talk directly to senator mccain that i can tell you that fast those operate up and down the coast and it's a problem. it is a heavy drug trafficking area. not necessarily a bad thing. it prevents alien smuggling over the water as well. i have not addressed that yet. i would reserve to address it on the floor. it would be something we all agreed to, i hope request i we are prepared to accept her amendment on a voice vote. those in favor of the amendment of the senator from california as amended signify by saying i. opposed? the ayes have it. record, senator koons,

center trenton, senator schumer, senator feinstein, senator grassley, myself, senator sessions, senator graham, senator cornman, senator leahy. we have the appropriate number. senator sessions, you have an amendment? [inaudible] >> then we will go to senator clinton'oons. a second degree on dangerous repatriation. >> safety mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment has been developed in close consultation with senators blake and mccain to clarify and verified this amendment. i appreciate they're working with me on this. this amendment would limit

nighttime deportation would at places migrants in danger. the purpose is to limit unnecessarily dangerous practices but not to tie the hands of dhs or prevent them from using this practice. there are exceptions in this amendment when removals are done in accordance with local repatriation agreements. i would justified by a concurrent government interest. direct returns are still permitted. i remain concerned about the practice of lateral repeat reasons.for pragmatic it is costly and according to some research, does not work. there was another ap story this morning on a recent study that found no effect to the program and reducing recidivism. i would like to enter into the record that report as well as an article from the university of arizona study. >> without objection. is before us as

substituted. , theven these questions amendment now calls on dhs to conduct a study to justify the programs but developing and reporting metrics to show whether it does or does not reduce recidivism and asked dhs it takes factors relating to migrant safety into account in its operations. this amendment would require a border patrol agent to return lawful property before deporting migrants were practical. this simple change would do the most to ensure a safer repatriation by making sure migrants are not deprived of identity documents, money, and other property when they are forced back to their country origin. i asked my colleagues to support this amendment and express my thanks to senators blake and mccain for working to focus this amendment. >> is there further discussion?

if not, those in favor of the amendment as amended by his substitute, signify by saying aye. a post -- opposed? ayes have it. our next moment, senator sessions. if not, we will go to senator leahy. your recognized. -- you are recognized. visa.s deals with the w a temporary worker program that can provide for the needs of the american economy is an essential part of preventing future illegal immigration. -- thatwill not be would be later on in title 4. protect your ability to

bring it up but that part is not before us at this point. >> commitment depositions of time -- can we bring that up at a later time? let's do that. thank you. >> you also have amendment one and three. did you wish to bring up those? >> not at this point if we could hold off on those. that would be great. >> let's have our staff discussed that.

mr. chairman, this is schumer amendment one. it adds technical corrections involving spelling, grammar, are striking redundant language and makes a few technical changes for clarification. clarify the reauthorization of the brand you as a travel promotion funding, prior language to not make it clear that bill did not intend to redistribution -- to redistribute funds meant for travel promotion. .t clarifies the manner family backlogs will be reduced. a $500 fee charged to employers visairing people in the j1 program only applies to the summer work travel program. this fee is to encourage the hiring of american workers. it clarifies the fees funding the w visa program also funds

the bureau of investigation and labor research.secretary of homeland security . police amendments we have all of these amendments we have discussed with many members. >> i appreciate the hard work the senator from new york and his colleagues have done on this. understand you have gone over that with others. senator grassley. >> it is not so much on the issue of the amendment. second race, there are about about five or six parts of this bill and the jurisdiction of other committees. this is one of them. have you consulted with the committee of jurisdiction on this? are they ok with putting it in

here? we delayed other provisions of this bill until we get some of those issues settled. >> most of these of the appropriations committee. we have consulted with them, yes. >> in the case of reauthorization, that would not be the appropriations committee. >> we consulted with them. >> is there further discussion? those in favor of the schumer amendment signify by saying aye. opposed? ayes have it. , i called aions youearlier -- called on earlier. now back to you. thank you, mr. chairman.

this is dealing with the biometric exit system missing currently from current law. beginning in 1996, congress has passed a series of laws, six different kinds to mandate and require that a biometric intrigue, exit system be established for the united states. the 9/11 commission has concluded and recommended this as being essential for our national security. the reason is very simple -- most seaports and airports, you clock in with a system but it is by a graphic which is easily portable and not secure. but it is at least on their. -- it is done there. nothing is donw about the exit. result, no one can

examine somebody's documents and determine whether they left the country when they were supposed to leave the country. this is a big hole in the system and it has gone on for years and years. this is one reason the american people have so little confidence in any promises we .ake we promise we will fix the enforcement issues in the years forome or months to come many years to come. we haven't fulfilled that. for example in 1996, congress in 2000, they pass another law requiring exit into systems. 2000, congress required a

fully automated control system to record injury and departure information for all elements .articipating after 9/11, congress demanded the implementation of an entry exit system through the passage of the patriot act. --s was what congress said it is a sense of congress that the attorney general should fully implement the integrated entry and exit aid assistance , seaports and land .order ports for entry as part of the patriot act, congress amended the system be biometric.

do this. this is not that hard to do. requires --system there are a variety of ways to make these documents. from myally think experience in law enforcement that the fingerprint system should be the basic eta system. that is what happens in our states. whetit illinois or alabama or hawaii, if someone is may bed for a crime and fled the area, their fingerprints are put into the and by checking fingerprints, you identify fugitives. according to the homeland security's website, unlike names and dates of birth which are biographic which can be changed, biometrics are unique and

virtually impossible to afford. it helps the government prevent people from using fraudulent documents. it also helps prevent your density. in the event your documents are stolen or lost. in 2002, congress reiterated demand for a biometric intrigue exit system. it all -- all points of entry visastamper-resistant and other travel documents that use biometrics. it has not been done. it also required government installed biometric readers and scanners about ports oin t unit.

not been done. in 2002, the department of homeland security initiated the immigrant status. in the program to develop the system. two years later, u.s. visit collected biometric data on aliens entering the united states. in 2004, congress demanded a biometric system to the passage of the intelligence reform act. congress finds that completing a biometric intrigue and exit at is an- and exit system essential investment in the efforts to protect united tapes by preventing the entry of terrorists. this was in 2004. the secretary of homeland security shall develop a plan to accelerate the full of limitation of an automated,

biometric intrigue and exit data system. that's a congressional action. so this is the status of what we do. and intrigue capability is operating at about 300 ports. we do hastve an that's operating. ho the program has never .one beyond because of that, it is impossible to know how many aliens have overstayed their admission. gao has found that without the exit system, it's not affected. it is a fatal flaw in the plan. after years of the services that dhs has been working towards permitting such a system. it appears they have finally given up.

they have quietly terminated the last iowa program and there have been several pilot programs over the years. the 2013 budget proposal does .ot specifically request money fencing70 million for .nfrastructure and technology dhs is now cementing biographic's systems -- is now implementing biographic systems. the law requires just the my amendment requires we do what basically current law requires and not back away from that.

it backs away from this system. you can read cards as you exit the system without any real delay if proper actions are taken to make the system work. which i hope we will be. >> with the senator yield for a question? under the biographic system, with that permit someone whose to evadeisspelled detection in terms of the injury exit system? >> yes, it would. if your name is misspelled, you would like it to hit the viewer on the terrorist watch list. system proposed in the bill that would not happen.

it has to be machine readable. we use the picture. the picture is camper proof and every bit as secure in terms of not letting people in as a biometric. everyone who comes and gets a picture, goes on a database. if you go out, they know it's you. so it's just the difference between what senator sessions wants to do and what's and are billed. our effectiveness is just as high. not having an exit system was a huge hole in our enforcement regime. 40% of all people here in america illegally did not cross the border. rather they overstayed their visas of various types. that will not be allowed to happen under our proposal. billionof costing 25

dollars, it will cost much less than that. but it is the same effectiveness, using the facial picture on file. it is rd change her face and to change your fingerprint. you havet think that the exit system set up that will work for therefore we can't determine who is staying in the country and who's not. >> will the senator yield to me on this point. i don't think the pathway to --i hate tohould be keep saying it will be just over the mountain. then the next mountain and the next mountain. -- thereers were

triggers are realistic. i don't think this is. i will stick with the bipartisan drafters of the bill on various. they have met and still meet regularly and decide which amendments will leave -- will live and die. they decided this one's is going to live and die. i don't agree. >> the intrigue exit visa that requires.urrently there is no doubt this legislation weakens the security of the visa system relevant to current mandated requirements. i would note to my colleagues oft at this point, 40% people in the country illegally entered on a visa and just did not return.

who didcan't determine not return if you don't have an exit system. i would be glad to work with anybody trying to make the system as time goes by as efficient and productive as possible. the proposal explicitly eliminates the current climate that there be an exit system at land borders. you don't dispute that, i trust. so that's where we are. a right and is reasonable approach. it is essentially what the current law requires. we should apply with the law we have rather than weakening it. mr. chairman, last week we considered a number of amendments relative to border

security was a failed. i think that was a mistake there is one way somebody can significantly improve this piece of legislation. that would be to adopt senator sessions, and approach. 40% of illegal immigration does not come across the border. ,nd we don't locate them until unless they commit some crime or are picked up by the police then their name is run against the database. 9/11he fact is the commission recommended a bio intrigue exit system. , the senator from alabama has pointed out this is been the law of the land.

but it is never happen. i believe the failure to enact .n entry exit system could lead some to conclude this bill was designed to fail. we are going to improve and fix the broken immigration system. i understand the chairman is saying we don't want to put obstacles in favor -- and the way people who want to get on a pathway to citizenship. i would think very least the other side of that is we want to create a system that works. this will not work. i don't know how after 17 years .ater

somehow we have had a conversion and will happen now. absent a trigger. my conversations with senator share that walt disney world in florida uses a biometric system to make sure people don't prevent -- to make sure people don't commit ticket fraud. it biometric systems with an easy and affordable, it should be good enough for the united states of america. i don't know any of the the department of homeland security under the current leadership will ever give up congress mandates them to do. i mostly uses trigger to compel them to do it. it's just that simple.

i believe this is a constructive amendment that she's a state of .oals ensuring our immigration system is fair and workable. we willoose to ignore, create a system that is to be invaded that we have ignored. .ur constituents concerns without a fully deployed biometric exit system, the only things go karen to use will someday be sitting in the exact spot

promises in the results. >> let's go to senator feinstein, senator grassley. senator schumer, senator turbine. >> i have looked at this now for 15 years. we have pushed and shoved and pushed towards a biometric exit system. he assures me the photograph cannot be changed. i don't happen to believe that. the other problem is the cost. it would raise the bill to cost.

i have real frustration. we have had homeland security executive after homeland security executive committee timelines and not be able to carry those timelines out. i have two think about what i am going to do here. has not seems to be able to do it. thenderstanding is that last $10 billion in the bill -- .> it is $25 billion >> over what period of time. >> it is not a guarantee. and tried to buy in atlanta somewhere else. it did not work. more people got through. the system we put in place in this bill after my friend of texas did it.

of course, the president loves terror. we know that. we tried to put in the best system that is workable within a reasonable period of time. >> what you are telling me if there are autographs if you grow a beard -- a photograph if you grow a beard or filling your face or deplete your faith in some way to lock all of that >> the placed up? where you can change what your face looks like and the visa card that you go in and out has to be the same. it.cannot tamper with >> an individual would. in any event, i am for the bill. i do not want to stop the bill. i am concerned that identification will be the best identification we can come up with. i have seen too much fraud. i have seen cards about four hundred $10.

social security and driver's licenses you name it. the fraud is enormous in this aria. use thestanding is few iris of the eye, you have a failsafe mechanism. that is what i hope this bill will do. >> you can always change the iris of your eye, too. the system we have used, i have been advocated -- advocated for the biometric system. as we study, this was the best system because the biometric is felt through. and second is a database that shows who the person is as well. you have a backup and it is proved -- no system is 100% failproof. comes as highem as any to making it work. >> i believe there was a lineup.

>> there was. >> senator grassley, you are next. >> first of all whom a we heard this figure -- all, we heard this figure $25 billion. i do not know where it comes from. the airlines do not want this. that is why you get that figure of $25 billion. if there is another source, i would like to hear it. in the meantime, with this charge that has been made it is easier to change fingerprints began the face. i would take issue with whether or not this delay citizenship. we should not delay it longer than that period of time. in the meantime, if this has been on the books for more than

10 years oma this should be done. we have another 10 years. if we cannot get something right and 20 years, there is something wrong with what we are trying to do. people are in repeating it as opposed to let's get the job done. that is the attitude we need to take to everything we want in this bill to secure the borders and to make sure people get citizenship to make sure there is legalization. and that is the goal of congress and we pace a bill and do it, week -- and we pass a bill and do it, we ought to make sure it is done. i will add my name as cosponsor. this amendment will make us and on this issue, if we pass this bill the way without this amendment, it will be weaker than current law. it seems to me that we ought to

be strengthening law, not weakening glop. there is just a lot of lessons we learned going to back to the --0 trade center bombing 1993 world trade center bombing. we have got to learn from our past mistakes. the amendment would make sure that the account of loss carried laws carry out if we want to strengthen our immigration system. if its good is a system -- if only we keep track of departures. when you get down to the bottom line, is a border security issue without a system like this in place we are not in control. if you are not in control of your borders, you are compromising the sovereignty of your country.

every cargo that goes out on their ships, they know what is inside or whether or not there be usedial that can for terrorist activities. surely we should be able to tell who comes and goes from our great country here. the greatest country on the face of the earth. i yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ofanted to address a couple issues. he said there were no amendments adopted from the republican side. on reflection he would relies we --pted some significant mmx amendments including the corn in amendment. cornyn amendment. this has been bipartisan. walt disney has two ports of entry. one in california. inhave 329 ports of entry

the united states. if we were talking about being able to read cards and every word of entry, it is a more daunting task than for disney world or disneyland. what we are trying to do here is to do something that is achievable and make america safer. we all concede that the biometric approach is a more sophisticated and perhaps a better approach. we also have to concede it has been a lucid. we have set this system 9/11 commission. because of the expense and catalog -- technological challenge, it is not likely to come about soon. we have come up with a strong alternative that will make america safer. it is one that is affordable and can be implemented and will provide is a verification on those who are leaving the nation. i used to ask this question why

is it taking so long to build a biometric system. it turns out to be a dramatic challenge and an expensive challenge. we will continue along the path as the law requires us. in the meantime, what we include in this bill is a dramatic improvement over the current situation. let me add one other thing. thet results in delaying implementation of this bill, it means that fewer people will come forward to be identified and the united states. that cannot make us safer. we want to make sure that those who are eligible for temporary status or citizenship status comes forward and identified themselves. those who are in eligible because of disqualifications are not going to be in this country any longer. we want to continue this process to eventual citizenship for the people involved. the amendment sets a standard

that is not a tenable or affordable. not one that we realistically look forward to implementing. >> just one moment. i am glad that senator durbin mentioned the cornyn amendment. last thursday to indicate, all like the comments made by some that this was totally parts and we adopted a grassley amendment. we adopted another amendment. cornyn sixa amendment. a 2 amendment. 1 amendment.ley and the grassley 24 amendment. those are just some to indicate

that we have for both the democratic and republican amendments that we have adopted. the way ahead oma senator sessions. >> this is not so much a harness and manner -- a partisan manner. modestll accept amendments. it does not make much difference. the integrity of the bill. there will not be a delay here, senator durbin. surely do when not oppose a bill if we have a biometric system in it. surely do would not delay the passage of the bill if we comply with current law and it guarantees 10 years this trigger to get around to it. that era my and my knowledge said it might be $10 billion. they have all posted this for the past 20 years. that is why it is not happened.

another senator went through this for years. another senator remembers this. one of the greatest frustrations was the failure to receive -- and reach an agreement on this very subject. he blamed it primarily on the airlines. it is not a technological problem. you are correct that the government has established a system already to collect fingerprints and pictures of every foreigner entering the country. they get that at the embassy before they get their visa. when they come, they are clocked in. it is when they go out and that do not have the system and work. , theo, the failure further away we get away from 9/11, the less interested unrest has become an assistant we have an exit system.

we lost our will along the way. michaelthat is what chertoff who was homeland that is the gold standard for security. "u.s. today" that biometrics are the way to go. these are not people making parts and charges. as head of this organization remain convinced that biometrics is the way to go. 99.73% accuracy rate. , theyday does not score used a figure of $3 billion as the cost that might be incurred. it should be done for less than that if careful. it does not take a major alteration of the system at an airport to have a person go

through a line where her card can be read. when they get off an airplane, how hard is that? what we have got as secretary napolitano told us that she believes isometrics is sufficient. that is what she is committed to. the bilge rafters has put that into it. it does not strengthen security at our ports and our entryways. have putll drafters that into it. and they said they are making it stronger when it makes current law weaker. i really believe that so much effort has gone into this. i was involved with this. i urged him as my colleagues that the importance of fingerprints to any criminal justice identity system because

local areas, criminals are fingerprinted if they are convicted. if they are fugitives, they are available in the national center. it is available to any inquiry and could be picked up by this system. what i would say is i spoke to secretary ridge at length about it. he was not sure for a long time but the months after i left, when he left office, he said have one advice for my successors and that is use the fingerprint system. he had given a lot of thought to that. as a result, i urge my colleagues to support this. >> senator graham wishes to speak before recall roll. >> this is a very good debate for us to have a about immigration but not limited to immigration. how the protect the nation at a

time when the nation is at risk? 2 of the 9/11 attackers were overstays. they were not able to find a system would inform the police that that this person is here illegally. has to bet probably addressed in light of the world we live in. apparently not a lot of willow by republicans or democrats to make the concept a reality. on our the white house watch, apparently we did not move forward. biometric of the day, identification coming and going would be a good thing. takenat we have done is the current system and made it better. if you want to spend multiple billions of dollars to have a biometric entry/exit system, count me in her moving in that

direction. i would just say to senator sessions, check in your wallet and see how many biometric cards you have. how many drivers license are biometric? is our synod id biometric? -- senate id is biometric? it is generally not deployed throughout the country. senator grassley mentioned disney world -- disneyland or disney world. this new world use a fingerprint and then when disneyland use their system oma they want to a picture because they thought it was better. >> i have new -- i have no idea. i am too busy to go to either place. this is mypt -- >> drivers license from vermont. no picture, nothing.

but i was suggest you prove that in vermont. -- >> i would suggest you prove that in vermont. [laughter] a social security for employer verification. senator feinstein is right. if you paid a democrat, you would like to be named after -- i couldn't do that in an hour. it will cost you less than $100. when it comes to verification, e-verify will work. the best solution for all in the country is to turn our pay per car to a biometric to protect american jobs. we are not going to do that because costs so much money. count me in forgetting there one day. senator sessions, count me in for having having a biometric system applied. orhave not shown the will desire to do that. there are technological

barriers. the current system is not where we need to be. berent law, nobody seems to driving toward that goal. we have had a lot of time to do it. our bill improves the current system to make us all safer. >> mr. chairman? the biometric system has not failed. it is being used across the government. ,hen you go in to get a visa you get a biometric identifier that is read when you exit or come into the country. when you enter, they are doing 30,000 inquiries a day in the united states on biometric identification visas. we do not have the system complete. it really works to protect america and a sophisticated way. it is doable. it is already being done. it can easily be done. i am disappointed that the sponsors are not willing to

make the system actually work. >> the ideas we have in the id's we have in the senate do have our pictures on it. when you go on the floor, whether this staff member has more privileges or not. i suggest senators check that. --you put your id in mama id in, it was a you do not how floor privileges. maybe they are trying to tell us something. call the roll. [inaudible] >> mr. schumer? >> no. >> mr. franken? >> no. >> mr. blumenthal?

>> no. >> no by proxy. >> mr. sessions. >> aye. mr. cornyn?in? -- >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. 12 no.e, >> it is not agreed. as indicated -- ,> i spoke to senator schumer we can put something in that will continue on on the development of a biometric system. i am convinced that as the technology becomes a better the cost will go down.

i will work with him to see if we can put some addendum in there. >> do you have an amendment was mark -- amendment? >> i will not be common for a vote on these amendments. i want to explain why i put these together. and replacestrike that we could do this in incremental fashion. we could be passing immigration reform with one bill that deals with employment verification with either five. one that deals with these of modernization and so forth. we do not have to lump everything. pending the outcome of the contentious issue being that related to what to do about the 11 million. in the interest of time, so we can move forward, i will not ask for a vote. thank you. >> ok. >> as i understand, you have the

.mendment to replace the bill >> yes, these are substitution. i am not asking for a vote. >> thank you. they are withdrawn? >> they are. >> i appreciate it. we have one more with senator sessions. then we can close out the session. you have another amendment or do you? will close out -- we will close out. set oft test -- amendments are a, b, c. we will begin with a second amendment and go to senator grassley amendment. >> my next amendment may come up

next. -- i will wait if you do not mind. why don't you call it up now so we can close this out? go ahead. senator sessions? >> we are doing this one. >> this is very important. it deals with -- >> all of your amendments are important are you would not bring them up. >> what is the number? it dealsn one the with the numbers and how much immigration the nation can and should support what works for america and what allows immigrants to have a reasonable opportunity to be successful if thinkome and try

about in a very serious way what it is we are doing here. this legislation that is before us today will give in the next 30 million ore to cards inm carts -- the united states. that is a huge number. told current law, we have the american people we have a legal system that admits over $1 million -- over one million a year legally. that is a lot of people. that number is the highest of any nation in the world. would cause us to understand what we are doing. we have one million people that would come legally currently. you have this 11

million who are here illegally and they would be given legal status one time. -- 11ould be a note million people getting status in the united states. , ite is a so-called backlog is not the perfect word because it suggests that people have not been processed properly, more people are applying for the emily base or chain migration -- for the family base or chain migration. they are waiting their time. you have 4.5 million that are waiting. subject to the criticism that you have allowed people waiting in line to be delayed while you allow illegal people to become legal sauce that dilemma byeo

e -- legal by allowing people to become legal. for morep the cap individuals to move in to that chain migration. they come without any reference to skills, education levels or standards. they wait their time. either.t skilled base of the 11 million that are here half of them do not have a high school diploma. they are lower skilled people. what is a bill do about the future. the future flow will be about a 50% increase.

..

>> is as show that many firms, including many that are not dependent are not conducting the good faith recruitment that microsoft claims to be doing. that is why all firms should be required to meet the standards to ensure that american workers are getting a true first shot at the jobs, and of the quote by ron hera. he also said at the end of the makeshe bill before us them stem labor market more attractive for american workers and students. when asked about the bill, he said, american workers and students will face more unfair

competition from lower-cost guestworkers, germanic a higher number of green holders and the increased outsourcing of jobs overseas. we have homegrown american talent, we have qualified people here to do many of these jobs. why shouldn't we require companies to look at home for americans before they employ workers? it seems to be common sense. if you had town meetings in your district, your state, you would find that they agree with that and they would find nothing wrong if people need workers and they can't find them in america, that it is ok to bring people in elsewhere. bewant americans to productive, and that takes two things, capital and labor. if you don't have the people to do it, that is what h-1b stands for, that is why we have the program.

that is why i support the program, but we've got to that the fraud out of the program and we've got to make sure that the firstare given chance. what is more simple than just attesting that he made a good- faith good-faith effort to higher americans first? i yield the floor. mr. chairman, this is a difficult amendment. it creates a huge bureaucratic solution in search of a problem. let me say this, we have come to a careful balance on h-1b. on the one hand, we have a high- tech companies who busily want to say we should be able to hire anyone we want at any time. that is what a pure capitalist would say. we are not just talking about anyone worker at any time, we are talking about bringing and somewhat odestates. what we tried to do is find a

balance. as you have seen, some people think the balance is too far in the direction of labor, so senator cruise had it is -- cruz had his amendment. , if you force people -- what we are requiring, these are highly skilled workers. .e have had a division for low skilled labor, we were tough foer. theree tougher because were americans who work outside of agriculture. we all know the market is much more of a buyers market than a sellers market for that service than a buyers market.

we have somewhat fewer protections but plenty so that right now, senator hatch is offering a whole bunch of amendment because the high-tech world is not totally happy. to push it too far in the other direction so that someone in one of these apartments can make -- departments can make life miserable for someone trying to do a job and giving them too much flexibility, which is what this amendment does, will not bring the result we want. i would strongly urge my thisagues to oppose amendment. we have plenty of protections for the companies that have taken advantage and a large percentage of h-1b. we eliminate them or put in more protections. let's not forget, you have to pay a level to wage here. wageave to pay a higher to a foreign worker than an american worker. to pile on protection after what's the i think

pendulum too far in the other direction. i would urge my colleagues to vote against this. >> senator from california. i understand the amendment, all this requires is that all h-1b employers not just h-1b dependent employers essentially have a good faith recruitment obligation to be able to show that they have tried to recruit a qualified american worker here. what is wrong with that? onas i said, it sounds good the surface. what employers really don't like or employees -- i don't like it -- it can be interpreted in different ways great -- ways. one person's good faith and one regulators good- faith is another one's bad faith. i would say the problem here is

that it is so undefined that it is going to get in the of actually hiring good people when there is no american available. how do you prove good-faith? i interviewed seven people, why didn't you interview 17? those are the kinds of problems. this i understand, restores current law, nothing more. >> no. right now, it goes way beyond current law. our bill would be a middle position. there is no requirement to hire an american worker right now. >> for these particular companies, do they have to attest they would look for an american? >> under present law, no, under our law, yes. >> i would like to see that part of the bill.

>> fine, we will give you the section number. >> a while back, i met with a group of workers in san diego. they were all above the age of 50, they had all been replaced by h-1b workers, and you saw it clearly. .hey were traditional engineers technology had moved on. what seemed to be desirable was the young, highly qualified techy, generally asian in california. i felt very badly for these people because, you know, above the age of 50, it is very hard for an american to get a job grade >> i know the example you're talking about. you are not allowed to fire american workers -- this happened in the city of new york. the mayor fired a whole bunch of workers who were tech workers

and brought in one of these h- 1b firms to fill the jobs, that is what happens. -- isrohibited prohibited under our proposal and will not change. >> i would like to see that. --mr. chairman >> senator sessions. in my mind no doubt that there is a charge between a between an choice american worker or bringing in a .oreign worker national interest would favor the american business hiring an american worker. wemail hub that national -- need to be working hard to get , first and working foremost. remember, this bill is not the .ntrepreneurial type individual

these people come for a limited. of time -- limited timeframe and they can petition to have a green card and stay. that is not happening. ,wo reasons have been suggested they are not staying and they're going back to other countries. one is that countries like sort of indentured servant for three or five years and let them do return. the other is they are allowing them to return can establish business outlets in the home country and end up outsourcing other additional american jobs created that it -- jobs. , would note the top 10 users h-1b workers, the top 10 users, only three percent of those workers were sponsored for a

permanent green card in the united states. a lot of the jobs, for example, 5000 go to k through 12 workers. it is hard to imagine there are not enough people to fill education jobs in america. i appreciate senator grassley's amendment. it would help to tighten up the bill and increase the likelihood that an employee would find an american worker to find a job, taking them off unemployment and helping the economy. thank you. senator whitehouse. i am in a position which i am being performed this would be a dealbreaker to the deal. i frankly don't see how that could be the case, but i'm not privy to the understanding.

i'm going to vote in support of the agreement that has been reached. i am going to vote no. i have an open mind to this. as we go to the floor, if this appears is not a dealbreaker, i think with this and the last amendment, it would make a lot of logical sense. so you will see me voting no, senator grassley, please view me as somebody who might be willing to work with you between now and the final vote on the floor. >> thank you. -- 60 seconds. referring to the group of eight, surely if we protect american workers, this whole agreement is not going to fall apart. you think it would be very american to protect american workers. senatornd thing, the from new york made it sound like --s is very, located

complicated. it is not complicated at all. you made the same good-faith effort for nondependent h-1b companies that you do the language that is in his bill for the h-1b companies -- dependent companies. he makes a statement that it sounds simple. it is simple. -- you need to do is attach attest that you made a good faith effort grade what is wrong with that? if you want to bring people in, make a good-faith effort to sure there's nobody there. -- ought to go to some town meetings. that theu all realize

afl-cio things not to hire americans first. >> these are not simple issues. --ove my colleagues [indiscernible] we have 120,000 needed stem workers every year. we have 40,000 americans to fill those jobs. it is apparent we need to be more open in this area. to be honest with you, we need these people. ways that wes of can take care of this problem.

you will be turning over to the department of labor invents and i'm immense power not willing to do that. i just want to call the roll. we haven't heard from you and several minutes, so go ahead, please. >> these are what some of the most recent publications say. ,sn money, u.s. talent shortage that is whooey. the atlantic, the myth of .merican talent shortage how about the washington post, shortage of skilled workers

vastly overstated. washington post, u.s. pushes more -- for more scientists. i am delighted i yielded to the senator from alabama, as he has quoted the new york times, the washington post, welcome home. let me just say this, the h- in five daysed this year. if that doesn't tell you something, i don't know what does. we don't have enough stamina people graduating in america -- stem people graduating.

there is a way of doing this and this is not the way. >> senator franken, do you wish to speak? -- i'muld be happy to going to vote no, but i will be happy to work with senator grassley on this as we go forward. i don't want to be a dealbreaker. >> i find myself very much in the same cap read the clerk will call the roll.

[indiscernible] >> i will pass and i will be happy to work with the senators further on this. yay's.votes are 2 -- 10 yea's. number 62 strikes all in tuning democrats with reference to h-1b dependent employers. >> i am for this. [laughter] let's start over.

[laughter] >'m st listening. thishi wtereferences to intendig immigrants in reference to h-1b dependent employers. h-1b dependent employers are defined under current law and again in this bill as employers that have certain number of its one b visa holders very -- holders. if that employer has more than 51 total workers and of those at --st 15% are h-1b immigrants nonimmigrants. h-1b dependent employers have to live by a different set of rules under this bill, but

attorneys -- i left out the -- found a way to write a big fat loophole. this says that if a company has filed a labor certification for a person on a h-1b visa, then they need not count as an h-1b worker. .o very simple you may get a green card and you are no longer an h-1b worker. companies claim they shouldn't have to count foreign workers if the plan to keep that person on the permanent payroll. this is when i ask the professor about this issue and this is his answer to my question. this is a very significant loophole that has little , companies would begin to sponsor workers for green cards, not because they want them to stay permanently,

but instead to exploit the tipperary worker program. .- temporary worker program of course, that he finishes this is a perverse use of the precious assets. he is talking about the green card. i am concerned that this provision will be taken advantage of by firms across the spectrum am including outsourcing firms that simply want to take work back to their home country. nothing would stop these big firms from applying for green cards for there is one being h-1b workers. all you have to do is talk to a lot of workers and somebody is outsourced at some foreign company and the job doesn't even stay in this country. this is a loophole that has got

to be closed, and this amendment closes it. thank you. i would have preferred to oppose the at -- the intending democrat exception, but this do. concernsst say the the member expressed would be valid, i think, if this were written differently. we want to make sure that particularly those innovative are puttingat innovative products on the market have access to those that can help them as they happen to be foreign and that's the case in most cases, then we want to recognize that. here, what we're doing is saying that -- remember that the process for a green card is long and lengthy and we will be penalizing companies that are bringing in people and we -- trying to make them part of the permanent workforce and to do the right thing. we tried to incentivize good

behavior by supporting the green card process. the gentleman is concerned about companies ply for a greeny to get around their exemption classification. these companies will have to have 90% of their workers go to stage two of the green card process. simplyill be able to apply for green cards in order to get around this cap or to get around from being the h-1b dependent employer. i think each of us concerned about this are dealt with in the legislation. we want to incentivize good be -- good behavior. people herering who will stay and be part of the permanent workforce and to build this economy. by allowing those who are stem degrees with

to stay here and out count against other quotas -- not count against other quotas and is the same kind of behavior here were trying to incentivize. if you applied and really intend to make your employees internetwork or is, it should not count against this cap. dealtk the concern is with in the legislation and i would oppose the amendment. very briefly, the last thing punish we want to do is somebody for doing the right thing. the wrong thing would be filing a petition with no intent to follow through. senator sessions said something that struck me that only 3% of the top 10 countries that use this program actually petition.

what we are trying to do is make sure that the numbers -- i find myself in the middle between hatch. cruz and i agree the numbers should be larger, but i sympathize with the idea of you losing an american worker. if you can't find the money after you look diligently, you need to be able to bring labor to bring jobs in america. we don't want to count against the cap those people who are filing a petition to have that person become part of the american workforce in a more permanent way. that will be punishing people for doing the right thing. >> call the roll.

[roll call] >> mr. chairman, the vote -- >> the amendment is not agreed to. this is my last one on the session. this is number 56, the bill would water down the in person interview that is required for

people abroad seeking to enter the country on a visa. it specifically waters down section 222 of the immigration and nationality act. this was written to specifically limit any exceptions to the in person interview and only give the secretary limited ability to quote,he requirements, if in the interest of the united states, end quote. prior to the terrorist attacks, only two of the hijackers have interviewed. as a result, congress established all visa applicants be required to go through an interview process. we provided very few exceptions, including one for those who were under 14 years of age and those who were older than 79. the past couple of years, our state department has been trying to water down this law.

on january 19, 2012, president obama signed an executive order to increase travel and tourism in the united states read as part of this initiative, many interviews would be waived for individuals reapplying for temporary admission to the united states. the ministration has aggressively used -- administration has aggressively used the waiver allowed for in this section 222 to waive these interviews and do it worldwide for a vast class of people. , thesing the interview administration has blatantly ignored the safeguards that congress put in place to prevent -- the terrorism that we all remember, we call 9/11. they are doing this in the name of tourism through a desire for more tourism dollars is not

exactly the sort of national interest that we had in mind in justifying a waiver of the visa interview requirement. so this underlying legislation waters down the law even more. visa interviews would not be necessary if the secretary determines that an in or an -- or that a person class of persons are generally .uote unquote low security risk the section does not even define what is a low security risk. once again, the bill leaves it up to the secretary to define. there is another example of our delegating where we ought to be legislating, at least you ought to be able to define as a congress of 535 people what you

mean by three simple words, low security risk. it is not defined. -- toleratet the lowering our standards on personal interviews. they serve a good purpose and that is to prevent 9/11 from happening again. >> thank you. i really don't think we are in a position to determine each and every case what is going to be low risk. i think i would be more comfortable relying on the as pretties -- equities -- [indiscernible] certainly there are some areas where it will be obvious and frees them up to concentrate on

the ones where there is a question. i think rather than try to tell in eacht they might do and every country, knowing the countries are different, i would rather keep the flexibility that is in their. -- there. >> it seems to me you could have some definition without curbing some administrative discretion. to leave it entirely seems to being abdicating our response ability as a legislative branch. i think america post-9/11 understands the phrase low security risk. those three words are very obvious. the situations we are envisioning, so what is in an auto bill -- automobile

accident in iowa, near death, the mother lives in mexico, wants to be by her son cited the hospital. for ainterview necessary woman to come to davenport, iowa? .he is no security risk that is when they would wave it. waive it. >> with all due respect to senator grassley, i would like to speak in opposition to this amendment. this would strike an important provision that gives authority to the secretary of state to strengthen our visa system. the authority would allow the secretary in consultation with the secretary of homeland security to waive interviews for low risk applicants. congress mandated the

state department department interview with hunter percent of all visa applicants with limited exceptions. here are two exceptions. under current law, those under 14 years of age and those over the age of 79. doesn't it seem plausible if these interviews can be waived for a 79-year-old without putting our national security at risk emma perhaps the same is true for a 78-year-old thorpe -- or people who are 15 years old? while this may sound good on paper, in reality, i think what it would result in is longer visa wait times and little security. in technology and data sharing, we need to look beyond just the interview process to inform visa and decision-making. the provision would allow the state department to do that and clearly when the consult with homeland security, which is all

about security, i think we can feel assured that the provisions of the bill are reasonable. i would inc. -- i would encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment. >> it is my understanding that current law requires every person between the age of 14 and 79 applying for a nonimmigrant visa to submit to an in person interview with a counselor officer. this requirement can be waived for certain applicants, though a interview is still required, certain backstop provisions apply. for example, if the applicant is not a rational -- national residents of the country where he is applying, the aliens name shows up in the counselor lookout system, the alien is a national of the state sponsor of terrorism, the alien requires a security advisory opinion, the alien is identified as a member of a group or sector, state department opposes

a state -- substantial risk. the bill expands the ability to waive an interview for classes of aliens determined by dhs and states to be low security risk. review ofcruiting -- supporting documents, the backs of requirements would remain in place. , it wouldstand strike the language permitting the new waivers of the interview requirement. i support that language. listened tond counselor officials when they interviewed and made mistakes on some of the assailants and 9/11, and i really don't want to be party to changing that. so i'm going to vote yes. -- thethere further clerk will call the roll.

[roll call] >> it is a time vote. -- tied vote. the amendment fails.

next we will consider subtitles d, e and f, which affects andmmigrant visa, tourism reforms to the visa program. [indiscernible] senator schumer? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the objective is to promote free trade, broaden the pool of nonimmigrant come into the united states to encourage goodwill and foster american values and parts of the world. we had a diversity visa program and his country for many years read it brought in people, particularly from europe and

africa who were not favored by family status because their relatives or third, fourth and fifth cousins. we agreed this head out lived its usefulness, but there were certain groups that were left behind, including those from africa and the caribbean. it is a visa that requires , it's not ang in lottery, it is a diversity program. it is similar to some of the others we have in here, high school education, two years of the attestation that a animmigrant will be paid prevailing wage. i urge its adoption. >> we are trying to find a

balance. , i diversity program understand, the politics, the emotion and really one existed but were trying to bring -- create new immigration system that brings talent to the country and not just those closest to us. this is somewhere between the old system and a merit-based but it has its place. they0,000 reasons, i think are not going to tape things. they are add-ons, and there are requirements that make it more merit-based, but it is not like the new system. this is all about compromise and i would very much support it. , i just want to speak in support of this amendment. has over the last 13 years dramatically increased our

exports to sub-saharan africa and recognized a move to a visa program that is designed to with africa.ions it has been a real win-win. every state in america exports .roducts to -- africa i have enjoyed working with senator durbin on a separate bill that was not part of this discussion to accelerate our trade relationship with africa and i want to speak briefly in support of this amendment which i think is a wise way to balance competing interests and to ensure our relations across the continent of africa do not suffer in any way through this alignedut are better with our economic and political interests. thank you, mr. chairman. i just ask unanimous consent.

to my recollection, there are 30 countries -- no, 1300, .aribbean -- 13 countries what you're amendment does is allow 10,500 from each of those countries? >> no, total. for all those countries. >> ok. >> what is the principle -- i mean, we have established in -- i think in current

law we would have a principal approach to comes into the country. what is the theory to add special benefits here for these countries? >> fulfilling the place of a diversity visa, which we're .bolishing which was 50,000 african-ll recognizing americans, caribbean and americas best caribbean americans. >> i don't dispute that at all and hopefully the law is fair to all countries or else he would not have brought it forward. it seems to me you are providing a special incentive for one group of countries for some political reason, i don't understand the diversity iscess, the whole system now

to be a more diverse system. anyway, thank you. in thetrade policy african growth and opportunity act and also to the caribbean recognizes a desirability of promoting and sustaining a business and export relationship between the united states and sub-saharan african continent. there is no better way to strengthen those relationships of entrepreneurship, business partnerships than through the community in the united states. i've met repeatedly with communities across the country i think this-- aligns our immigrant visa policy with our trade policy. >> all those in favor of the amendment, sayin aye. the aye's have it.

the next amendment is by senator grassley. take ofgoing to amendment number 70. this amendment would delay the 5 visase of the new e- created by south korea until south korea removes the age- based import restriction on beef from the united states. the united states and korea entered into a free trade agreement in march 2012. congress has made it clear to the united states trade representative that immigration to thee to be left congress and not be an issue to be negotiated in an agreement. now, that was a lesson that was chiled after the agreement and after the singapore agreement. special tradeh

the reasons -- provisions or promotion authority for an agreement to be approved by congress and you get before you and you have all these immigration things in it that were never supposed to be subject to negotiation. that is the way chile and singapore got approved area -- approved. congress also outraged about it, we said never again. here, i was not negotiated in the case of korea, so we come along in this and said something -- set up something special. this creates a special visa category for the republic of korea. this is similar to the category for chile, singapore and australia. each of these countries received 5000 visas for people to come to the united states to solely perform services in a

specialty occupation, the employer must complete a labor attestation. i'm not surprised to see the .pecial carve out for korea we entered into a free trade agreement with them, however, we are on the verge of giving them our word on this issue while they continue to impose unreasonable restrictions on usb. in 2004, u.s. beef exports were halted after usb was discovered in the united states in a cow that i come from canada. in reaction, korea re-strengthen restrict exports. our department of agriculture is working to urge kor on our beef, but is time for korea

to understand that this recession is not helpful to them and is not supported by science. 5000n't need to give them special visas, we are not obligated to. i would like to see my to a lay thesed issuance of visas until south korea abides by the obligations and removes restrictions on our beef from the united states. they are working on this issue. i would hate to mix this. this was not part of the -- the beef issue did not come up in

the negotiations for the free trade agreement. this provision here is basically because of commitments mean -- we made during that free trade agreement. we agreed at some point to increase our visas are allowed. i don't think it would be a good idea to mix this issue in with the immigration issue. it is something that needs to be dealt with. that is on a separate track and probably should not be part of this negotiation. that is my own feeling. i will oppose the amendment. difficult amendment for me. we have such a good relationship with korea, trade and otherwise and national security. uneasy therefore being about opposing it, but ira member distinctly we had quite a controversy over using fasttrack authority to amend

other provisions of law, immigration being one of them, and the administration agreed not to do that. it is a bit offensive to me that -- theyld not put the sent a trade agreement over that i supported and agreed in, but they had a secret promise, it appears, to do immigration that should not be tied to that. we should be doing that on a matter of principle and policy. i appreciate senator grassley offering this amendment, it is just difficult to know precisely how to best handle it. i am decline -- inclined to withve the relationship korea is an excellent one and these visas would be positive. ?> all those in favor it.no's do have

next is being -- [indiscernible] i this is an amendment cosponsored with senator leahe. it asks the department of state to implement a pilot program to conduct interviews for certain nonimmigrant visas using remote technology. in andthat want to come spend an average of $5,000 in this country. we have seen a decline in international tourism since 9/11. laws have to be as modern as the technology that we have. we are not asking for security

changes here, we are asking to make sure that we are able to use available technology. we have not gotten opposition to this, and we are pleased to have a bipartisan amendment here. the amendment supported supported by the u.s. travel association, the u.s. chamber of commerce and the american hotel and lodging association. on the pilotct program the state determines in a particular security risk and they don't have to do that? >> exactly, they would vacate the decision -- they would make toecision on the technology be piloted to see if the technique works. >> i think it makes a great deal

of sense. all those in favor, signify by saying aye. the aye's appear to have it. have it. do .enator sessions, a no vote two are recorded as no votes. the next amendment is one by senator sessions. continuing this discussion, this amendment would require aliens who may be a threat to national security to submit to an in person interview with a consulate officer when applying for a visa.

>> number 13? 1330., number the state department is using a visa interview waiver that is only to be used in the national interest of the united states. the secretary has gone further in using that to waive the interview requirement for whole classes of individuals from various countries deemed to be low risk. senator grassley has raised issues concerning that. what this amendment does, i believe my colleagues could support, requiring the national interest waiver that the secretary is using be exercised only in consultation with the department of homeland security. to waiveto be used

interviews for persons of a national security concern who would create a high risk of degradation to visa integrity or form your travel facilitation or reducing the workload of consulate officials. the most significant aspect of the program is that it fails the current program to require visa interviews for national security threat where -- where a security threat would be posed. it leaves it to the state department. we do not know if any terrorists or spies are using the program to enter the united states. we know the problems it has caused, for example, 9/11. all received visas they sought in part because the visa express program initiated by the united states ambassador of saudi arabia issued these without interviews, the exact

same process the state department is now using under this program. congress reacted to that after the 9/11 report. 11 commission final report specifically lists the failure to conduct visa interviews as intervening factor to enabling the terrorists to be successful in turning the united states. it repeatedly emphasized the importance to national security of face-to-face interviews stating in a letter to the 9/11 commission the state department should not deem an applicant as having established his intent until all process related to the visa are complete and until a face-to-face interview has been conducted. september 11 officials were allowed to temporarily approve applications when they were

incomplete and no face-to-face interviews were conducted. the findings support that interest and this would focus on the more critical situation that i believe would be a proper response to the waiver process of the secretary, which is too broad. >> senator from new york. >> i would like to, second- degree amendment called eas 13563. the amendment that the senator from alabama has is an admirable goal but tries to publish this goal with a blunt instrument that hurts the other way. wall off ouruld borders and not have anybody come into this country. be no traffic facilities if no one drove and no one crossed the streets. you have to, with a balance. i don't disagree with senator , but i thinkions

his goes too far and would cost us jobs in this country, cost us towards an dollars, and all of that. i have been in china, they have six consulate. you have to travel 800 miles, then they may turn you down. peoplembers of chinese want to come here to visit to spend money in minnesota, new york, delaware or vermont. , by doing videoconferences, you keep the security level in my judgment, but at the same time, allow many more people to come. this amendment, we want to do the same thing and strike a balance. here is what it requires, instead of having a whole new department with different results, three things we do. offices beequire the required access to all terrorism record databases.

anyone who was on the broadest willlist, the consulate know and give them much more attention. this will prevent situations like the christmas day bomber. his name was on the database but it was not on -- at the consulate. i think it was ethiopia or kenya. second, it prevents people whose name is on any watch list being provided admission to the u.s., unless the state department and homeland security both theory that the person does not pose a threat. there we do have a double third it requires all consulate law enforcement and terrorists databases be updated when an alien visa is

revoked. the notice of revocation should be required to all consulate withes and this is dealing some issues we have had with previous terror cases. bring travel tourism dollars to a standstill, i would urge the second degree amendment be adopted. -- may iour question ask you a question? >> are you saying a terrorist on the watchlist could be given a visa? >> he has to go through both the state department and homeland security. the second amendment is agreed with that the provision. is there further discussion? senator sessions. well, i believe the second

degree is incorrect and may be in legal -- illegal. the amendment provides consular officers with access to all terrorists databases and requires-security of applications for persons listed on terrorists databases. offices don't have access to terrorist databases because they are not deputized officers. they don't have clearance to get access. also, there is a strong process in place for visa interviews in the law. that is why we have the ice agents in a unit overseas

because consular offices do not have access to these files. on the watch list and make a security to the advisory opinion and the intelligence community. if you want to give them access, you need to return to and overhaul it because the state department should have the opportunity to respond to that. i would note here that on 9/11, the plane that crashed in pennsylvania, it could well have been heading to the capital of the united states. one of the terrorist projected to get on the plane was not subject to a face-to-face interview in saudi arabia, but when he got to the united states was interviewed. they determined something was wrong. he was not admitted,