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, perhaps

another terrorist on that plane might have made a difference and been able to overcome the pilot and direct that plane to washington or wherever the designation -- destination was. the face-to-face interview made a difference. that is why congress expressed concern. problem my amendment addresses the is different, and the point is to make sure the watch list hits receive the interview by the consular office they should. right now the state department is abusing the national interest waiver of the visa interview requirements. it is another law passed by congress, and now the department, the agency, is not following through after they got tired of doing it. it is why we did not have it

going on in saudi arabia at the time of 9/11. they were tired of doing interviews. waiting interviews for an entire broad inperson is too my opinion. usingcuse being used for the national interest waiver is travel facilitation. it is important but not the fault of national interest we had in mind when we passed that there is provision act of 2004. >> i would ask that by colleagues not support the second-degree amendment and support my amendment. >> the clerk will call for role in the sessions amendment as amended by the second-degree amendment.

to com>> [inaudible] >> aye. senator goodman paul was present for his boat. was present for his vote. amendedions a minute as by the schumer amendment.

your honor roll. thewe have an amendment by senator from connecticut. >> i want to clarify boat. grassley 67 i would like it reflected as a no. >> it will not change the results. without objection, it will so be noted. amendment no. 17. >> thank you. i want to call substitute 17 ande to the original say i am offering this amendment. i will not ask for a vote on it but think it is important to explain because i still hope we will eventually have an agreement on this whistle-blower protection amendment. it applies to temporary workers jobs.rform the same

essentially it provides protection for non-agricultural temporary workers who are in the h2b program who may complain about wage and hour or rules violations or fees charged to them and instances of fraud. these kinds of abuses were documented in a recent study practicesd at the h2b by employers across a wide variety of job types and found repeated violations. my hope is we can offer whistle- blower protections to those who complain because they come here in a very vulnerable situation and zero employment, often housing and obviously the legal status to their employers, and they are afraid to complain about potential violations of law. we are trying to work out compromise provisions with our

friends across the aisle. bem hopeful that we will able to do so because these individuals are in this country often at the mercy of the employers, deep in debt, at the risk of reporting and abuse that could lead to a deportation. so they have every reason not to complain, and we want to give them at least a basic protection when they do raise of violations of law. only them, but american workers. this is protection for american workers, as much as it is the temporary workers and for american taxpayers as well, because there is -- if there is brought in the programs, it should be reported in prosecuted. >> i appreciate the senator from connecticut delaying his amendment. he knows i support whistle-

blower legislation and would like to work with him, and i am sure other people would, too, but if i could just point out a couple of things for your consideration, not that you have to rebut right now, but one thing is that the construction differentll would be insarbanes oxley and i was the whistle-blower legislation. it may subject your language presently. it might subjected to new legislation that can harm whistleblowers in lieu of already litigated terms. the second thing is you include punitive damage provisions that is not in sarbanes oxley whistle-blower law. work so we had similar laws across the books, you know. if you would just consider that,

i appreciate it. to the senatord from california, if i may. and then respond to senator grassley. >> then for the schedule, i understand people have spoken and you will withdraw your amendment. to go if i may just respond, mr. chairman. i look forward to working with the senator from iowa who has been a very steadfast and aggressive advocate for whistle- blower protection, as well as the use of was a blow or information. i might just say this should be a bipartisan amendment and hope it will be. i look forward to working with you and other members of the committee. briefly, i appreciate senator

blumenthal'sse -- approach here. the senator's amendment withdrawn? to kill it is withdrawn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. -- >> it is withdrawn. let me explain why this is a 14 to the united states. it was a trustee for several groups of islands in the south pacific. it eventually became three sovereign countries. these islands are located in strategic areas that are important to our national security. one of these islands is the closest island east of lomb where the united states has significant military assets. -- east of guam.

united states operates the ronald reagan ballistic missile defense test site. because of the importance to the national security, when these three countries became sovereign the united states signed bilateral national security agreements with each country. these agreements give us an exclusive military rights to lmilitary bases on these islans but no other country can do so. these national security agreements are called a compact free association. for exclusive military rights the united states get the citizens the right to live and work in the united states for an unlimited amount of time and without need for a visa. have theseuntries privileges. there are only about 200

citizens and, and today about 50,000 of them live in the united states. the largest populations live in guam to hawaii. congress approved the agreement in 1986, the legislation stated in the" approving the compact, it is not the intent of congress to cause any adverse consequences for the united states territory and commonwealth or the state of hawaii." nevertheless, hawaii state government incurred significant costs to provide education, health care and other services to migrants. in 2011 alone hawaii's cost for migrants totaled approximately $115 million. that is a lot of money for a small state like hawaii. the bottom line is migrants are present in the united states

because the federal national security policy. it is only fair the federal government's share part of the cost for providing services to them. all ye spends 30 million-40 million per year to provide health care to migrants. the way to share it is to make this available for migrants. my amendment does not address the cost incurred by the state of hawaii, only the health care costs. but of course the federal help would be significantly important. importi am almost through. i believe it is important to address this issue as the mark up immigration reform legislation. it is up to the committee to establish concerned -- terms and conditions that apply to those illegally in our country.

my amendment modifies those terms and conditions with regard to migrants. i want to note the migrants are not immigrants. of thee here because compact. they are in a very special category. i know many of my colleagues are reluctant to make immigrants eligible for medicaid, so i save my grants are not immigrants. so the federal government should bear some of the cost of the state of hawaii providing various benefits, but particularly the medical care. i ask my colleagues to consider the national security origins in the united states and ask my colleagues to support my amendment. >> thank you. >> i agree with the code from a by this-- kofa

significant strategic advantage to the united states that we might not have otherwise. in exchange for that we have allowed them to work and live in the u.s., but because they are , statesred by medicaid showed aii significant -- shoulder a significant financial burden. i know how that would affect a small state like mine. so if the federal government is getting the benefit out of them, the federal government should .ay for the benefit other groups have been impacted by military involvement. children fathered by american personnel in viet nam. forcially emigrant visas

what they did as interpreters. i would support it. i want to thank her on this issue. these folks were excluded in denver in the fiat change in the law that was passed about a decade ago, a little more than a decade ago. no one ever intended them to be knocked out, but there were. we have a traditional relationship with the pacific islands dating from world war ii. , this will be paid for by the fis and other penalties that we have in the bill, so it is not going to break the bank in any way. i would strongly support my colleagues to support this very good amendment. i will ask for a voice for

word on this. i will not speak against as the object -- substance of what you said because i think you have laid out a problem that you have that should be taken care of, but i would raise the issue of jurisdiction. medicaid is in the finance community and we have been -- finance committee and have been very careful so far not to interfere in the finance committee. i think it would've been better to work out with the finance committee ahead of time. the meritsestioning of the amendment. all signify by saying aye. opposed? the ayes have it. i think everyone for helping us move this along. the next amendment is by senator grassley. no. 69. that is right.

best -- this of them is known as the student visa integrity act. this version of the bill that several members worked on last year including feinstein and the castle. senator feinstein is a co- sponsor of this amendment. a 1993 american people were confronted with the terrorist attack on the world trade center. one of the instigators was on an expired student be set exposing a major vulnerability of the immigration system. americans mandated that the immigration and naturalization service create a system that tracks and monitors foreign students. and unfortunately that system was not operational when the terrorists hijacked a plane. because was frustrated the mandate on the agency was ignored, and the computer system

to attract foreigntudents had not yet been implemented. unfortunately while it is up and running today it is so antiquated and the federal government remains incapable of answering those who entered the country are students containing educational institutions. this is evidenced by the recent news that one of the acquaintances of the boston bomber was on a student visa. his status was terminated. the information should have been reported through the system. and eventually made its way to the offices of customs and border protection but the system failed. today more than 850,000 foreign students are enrolled in over 10,000 schools. there is evidence that universities are taking advantage of dysfunctional student visa programs.

penn valley university 2011 is a serious fraud case. the school reported that they would bring in less than 100 students but have actually brought in over 1500. that is just one example. the judiciary committee heard from the government accountability office after they published reports that sheds light on loopholes that remains. >> excuse me. now a senator has may convince to support it. >> put the rest of the statement in the record. sponsor of a small second-degree amendment. i have talked it over with senator feinstein. take of the second amendment is

accepted. in the amended amendment is before us. take it as quickly. just quickly-- . >> this is important. i would like to put in the record 13 fraud cases of major school fraud from my own state that embarrassed me very deeply. this amendment is necessary. ever of thend >> allssley amendment -- >> those in favor of the grass the amendment? teh ayes have it. have it.es schumer this is. senator schumer is permit4.

vegetables to come to the united states for a short pyramid -- this permits individuals to come to the united states for a short time. companiese need these -- these people. countries like denmark, finland, greece, iceland, netherlands, sweden have very few native speakers here in the united states. if they cannot find united states person, they should be allowed to get them. maximum stay is 12 months, and then they have to go home. we require the state department to publish a list of eligible countries each year. first i would ask unanimous consent with the chairman's ok that the second-degree amendment be added. i would ask the amendment be voted for. i think it is relatively noncontroversial.

>> aye. >> how to read it more carefully. speak the shortest seem to be doing the best. next is senator sessions. no. 6. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, it is similar to the vote we took this morning so i will not ask for a vote on it. i will tell you i really believe we need to complete the biometrics entry exit system that congress has told the american people for nearly two

decades that we are going to complete. we have passed laws around here. we pat ourselves on the back. we say it will stop terrorist attacks, and then it never happens. that is another example of it. i would share a note that one of the leading, perhaps the leading spokesperson for the gain of eight, senator rubio has indicated he was disappointed this morning that the bioelectric amendment i offered did not pass. i want to ask for another vote on a similar issue. chairman, maybe we could call votes onll it. i think this is the right savesion, and it would the we do -- be so waiver program could not -- say the

program could not -- it right. i would like to have a roll call vote. i think this would require it to ensure the program would not take effect until the biometric entry/exit system is complete. call the roll.ll i will vote no. >> mr. feinstein? >> no. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> the amendment is not agreed

to. i understand you have amendment number one. i've just been advised we will have roll-call votes at 5:00 today. >> i would like to offer my amendment. this amendment is very important. it goes to domestic violence issue that unfortunately, despite all the good work in the gang of eight and the domestic violence reauthorization this particular set of pieces were not covered. this is someone that is called an abuse victim in the derivative be set trap. someone who is married to someone who was over on a temporary visa. there's a house is not illegal but on a temporary visa. when they are beaten by this person they are not able to get

any kind of help. and i have a story of someone in minnesota. the abuse began on the day she got married. soon after she got married she accompanied her husband to the u.s. and they had a child but the past five years she has been in the u.s.. her husband has treated her like a slave and physically assaulted her. she has never been able to call the police because of she went to the police she would not qualify for a vis the and most likely would be deported and her child taken away from her. this is why the very narrow provision that allows victims of domestic violence that are married to someone on a temporary visa to self petition in to pitch set -- independent of their spouse. 149 groups that are against domestic violence and have work to reduce its support this.

including the ywca. the national council of jewish women. and i will not go through all of them. obviously the support is extremely broad. i ask that we get this done on a voice vote if possible but would be helpful for a small set of victims that have somehow fallen into a loophole that is really a trap for them. take of the senator from minnesota work with us on the , andnce against women act we expanded it considerably beyond what the violence for women act had been before, actually beyond what some of the white house wanted us to, and i appreciate the support for so many in the committee. know from the experience we have had, too often abusers use this as a way to manipulate and control spouses and children.

i strongly support it. i understand the senator would be happy with a voice vote. >> can i ask a question. i do not understand, where is the spouse. in the united states. over iseason she comes because her existence is derivative of his visa. he has a legal visa. a uis not able to give because visa is not have a permanent visa. the problem arises because of its domestic violence, and well she could support it to the police, she could easily get deported because the only way to stay in the united states is based on his status. >> she would be deported? >> yes. >> all those in favor of the

amendment signify by saying i? the ayes have it. 127 debtors present and voting. if you want to describe it really briefly, i will support it. waythat that should in any influence your debate. a co-ator feinstein is sponsor. >> all those in favor of crassly 77? signify by saying it i? opposed? the ayes have it. we have requisition. >> chairman. i just note that this will plug a loophole in terms of e

tragic boston marathon bombing. i appreciate the offering. it really strengthens the bill and shows the bill is dealing with this and will make things better in terms of terrorism, in terms of ritualism against terrorism. >> you have an amendment i understand? i call amendment no. 2. the senator will go ahead and describe it. fishing line fleet faces a new card should do to a requirement that normal crew rotations for foreign crude members must take place in foreign ports. the customary crew be said that typically enable such crew rotation is generally not available on u.s. flag fishing

vessels. a typical vessel operating in hawaii is a relatively small boats with a pretty small crew of five-six crew members who were under a year-long contract. normal operations typically involve fishing trips of three weeks in length. thee-five days to unload catch and obtained provisions for the next fishing trip. unlike many other commercial vessels such as cruise ships operating in hawaii in waters that can fly crews to routine locations the unavailability of the basis requires them to sail to a foreign port to exchange the crew. >> as i understand, this would be allowed in guam i will? certainly support it. guam?

i would certainly support it. >> it requires them to go all the way to christmas island to get the crews changed. we have had examples of the foreign crews being flown to christmas island where they cannot land because of adverse weather conditions and have to be flown back to honolulu, where they cannot disembark because they do not have the be says. then they get flown back when the weather clears. you see how much this is costing the hawaii fishing vessels. my amendment would put us in the and thetegory as guam commonwealth of mary on islands. as the amendment that is amended by the second- degree amendment. all those in favor signify by saying aye?

amendment as amended is accepted. senator sessions. you have another one? senator grassley? good. let's close this. >> i could find something. i am sure you could. as the eye. it is like your call from shakespeare. from both of the deaths. so tonight, but when i call them, will they come? let's hope we do not call. i have some more shakespeare if you like. >> are we finished, mr. chairman? senator grassley. we would be finished but senator grassley has amendments.

you want me to read just one sentence and accept it? number itve you the will become controversial. this one may very well. take a we're voting for the even once, not on ones. >> this amendment would delay the implementation of the provision that provides for dual intend for student visa applicants until the student and exchange to visitors information system is updated. we have learned that time and again there are holes in the student visa program. i already talked about the 1993 world trade center attack as an example. the department of homeland security keeps track through a student in exchange visitors information system. but this system has problems.

that is evidenced by the fact that the department is overhauling and updating the system. for years homeland security has targeted the creation of a new system provided program to fix the first program problem but has yet to announce any final implementation. according to immigration and customs enforcement, the agency past the program. this is to improve upon the current system by creating a paper this process for all activities related to student visa programs. the new system will have a better record keeping system that will unify information about students. the updates shall help determine if such a student is eligible for work authorization. the update has apparently stalled. it is my understanding the

department has terminated the contract from a company that was updating the system. if true, we're back to square one with an antiquated system. the bill before us has a provision that provides dual intend for people wishing to enter and studying in the united states. under current law student visa applicants must prove they plan to return to their home country. 01 provides for a forum at national to come and study and the u.s. and seek immigrant status at the same time. this provision will only seek to encourage more people to come as students. my amendment would trigger the implementation of a student visa dual intend provision on the implementation of the update of the program. i know that foreign students are of benefit and we learn from that and fostered diplomatic

relations and encourage peace through these foreign students, but our national security is at risk, and we cannot ignore it. that is the purpose of my amendment, and i ask for adoption of the amendment. >> anybody wished to speak to the amendment? senator schumer. >> i know we are rolling along, but i do have problems with this. what it does is it prevent students that are here on student visas and effectively done it would not allow them to have internships, a graduate or teaching roles, make it very difficult while they are here to have a job. now i know my colleague says when it is implemented it will change that. the trouble is, they have not made up their minds to fully go with it orpdat the first.

we could have it be a permanent situation, and that would make it much harder to attract the foreign students we want to attract to this country. i would reluctantly oppose the amendment. the would support amendment. i do not think there is any lack of foreign students that want to come to this country and go to school. as i understand what this amendment would do is simply delayed the enactment of provisions until the second is in place. if you recall, we sent a letter towe sent a letter immigration and customs to express concerns about student visa fraud, a huge issue. the lack of information sharing among different federal agencies to adequately track foreign students. we have student -- foreign

students to come here and do not show up. we are developing a new data system, and that that will improve the ability to monitor international students and the schools they attend. it is also expected to improve the agency ability to share information with the state department. now, homeland security has stated they expect civas be fully2 operational by 2013. however, the projected completion date has been extended many times in the past. madeion of the amendment will compel them to actually complete and deployed this in the near future. i really think this is important, because this is a huge loophole in our system. you were at the hearing and heard the testimony.

>> i agree we should move this , weand as was mentioned anonymous senators -- the problem is, it punishes the wrong people. it punishes the students who want to work and come here. it says they cannot do these things. i would rather punish the department for not getting this up and running rather than punish the students. >> the clerk will call role. >> [inaudible]

mr. chairman? >> no. >> 9 nays. [inaudible] >> it was a tie. i believe we have everything. do, we have to do this in the next two minutes. >> permission to do it the next time we meet? i have one short amendment? arono amendment

in the grassley amendment. we will close it off. -- or we could do it on saturday? >> what about closing off -- >> we will close with a vote. we will begin ed 9:30. maybe we should come back tonight. what has one. then i will call of amendments to title 3. we will this because it is taking so much longer than anybody expected. we will stay in friday. i hope we do not have to saturday, but we can determine that the saturday -- can

determine that late friday. will have available to title for only the ones that we just noted. i think everyone for their cooperation, i really do. -- thank everyone for their cooperation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the committee >> meet again on eastern.at 9:30 a east.m.m

. >> our markup on the farm bill during the debate to cut funding for the food program. the senator spoke about the importance of this program. you can see this on its entirety on our website. madam chairman. has to doamendment with the snap education program, which is voluntary and requires the state resources match as well as improve implementation program. he discussion about this snap program and cuts to the program into it might impact. it is not impact any beneficiary. this is basically the

used to edute people. if you look at where the dollars go today, you have some serious inequities in the way the money is distributed. in fact, it seems a little unfair that 54 percent of the resources are going to four states. this has more enrollees off than california and only receiving 1.3% of the funds were california gets 31.4%. it does not seem like it would take that much more to educate people in california than it does in the state of texas. this does not end the program like some of the previous proposals have attempted to do but in shore's the resources are spent more equitably. basically what it does is provide for a $5 per person that number that would be allowed for an individual to use this for education. that is indexed annually for

inflation. again, i think this is a fairly common sense thing that does not impact people who are beneficiaries of this. this is a $2 billion savings. if we're looking for areas to find the savings in the farm bill, and i think with the sequester are appointed out by my colleague from nebraska, the savings proposed are significantly less because of the sequester. we're down under $20 billion. it strikes me we should be able to find some areas in each of the areas of the farm bill budget where we can achieve significant savings. $4 billion is the number, and that is a 10-year number we find in savings. $760hey will spend billion. thee talking about 1.5% of budget we were able to find in savings.

this adds a couple of billion dollars to the savings we could get out of the program simply by coming up with a more equitable way of distributing that education and of the city grants dollars. we have four states that get more than half of the funding. and add up -- and equitable use of guns that should be spent equally. my amendment restructure's the grant so states can receive $5 per enrolled individual indexed for inflation. and this way all recipients have equal access to nutrition, education and obesity prevention resources that help them to make healthy choices when their shopping on a budget. i wouldon in savings say. again, in a way that i think makes sense and allows us to continue to do what we need to do to educate people about this program and does it in a more equitable way. i would ask for a recorded vote

on this amendment. >> thank you. example of the program,s in the snap and this is an opportunity to the amendment to fix it. four states get 50 percent of the benefit of this. i cannot imagine there was ever of thoughts by any member that literally this program would be designed in such a way that it would be on the floor of the senate saying to 46 states you will be treated unequally and you will get a better deal here. i just cannot imagine that was the case. this was important. if you vote to support the amendment, i can almost guarantee you you are voting to

benefit your state in the program dollars that will come as a result of the amendment to your state. this is a common-sense amendment. it is not aimed at beneficiaries and a fair way of allocating very precious dollars and a fair way to all 50 states instead of allocating the money to just four states. strongly oppose this amendment on a few crowns. first of all, the straight up cuts in the program is a mistake. at the end of the day we're spending $100 billion per year on obesity and 5 billion on cardiovascular and heart disease. unfortunately we have a growing childhood obesity program in this country. when our children go to school obese one of the challenges is they do not sleep well, sleep apnea and score lower on math

d ecause of lack of sleep or lack of self-esteem because they are made fun of. there are some of the problems. taking away the money for education with that cut, you should be investing in childhood obesity prevention, because the likelihood of you becoming obese is hyperion we want to cut costs through prevention so we did not to spend another 100 billion per year for obese adults. the second reason i oppose this cut. you are in favor of state rights until you do not think the states are doing a good enough job applying for money. just because some states think this is an important program and utilize the money and get it out to schools does not mean you should then defend the states that do not think it is important. -- of the reason why states texas only gets 1.3% of the money it is because the government chooses not to utilize the money. it is a choice of the texas

governor and government. if they do not believe this is important to prevent, that is their choice. i strongly disagree with it. i think rewarding states that are not doing a good job in preventing obesity is the wrong approach and cutting the program overall is the wrong approach. >> senator roberts. think we all understand we have an obesity ,roblem in the united states and i understand the federal government is wanting to play an increasing role in regards to school breakfast and school lunch programs to a certain amount of calories. i did not think i would ever see the day when the federal government would decide how many calories we would consume. obesity problems, i think we

should all focus on that, but on a way that makes sense. receiving 54tes percent of the funding, what about states' rights and the children who suffer from obesity and the 33 state agencies that receive less than 1% of the total funding? i think what the senator is trying to do is simply replace the current index, block grants were the per capita indexed for inflation. more evenly.it out i would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i appreciate the remarks by the senator from new york, however. i think we have a real problem in the country with obesity, including mine.

to go any other discussions? ways to looking for save money in the farm bill program where marking up. you could save $2 billion in a way that does not cut benefits to anybody. i agree we have issues that we need to educate the american people about, obesity being one of them. with respect to individual states making funding, this does not present -- prevent texas. if they do not want to apply for their $5 per individual in raleigh, than they do not have to. that is still an option. what it does do is put a cap, $5, which seems to be a fairly reasonable amount, and find a way to save an additional $2 billion in this farm bill that we could pass on a savings to the american taxpayer without impacting the beneficiaries, the

people who defend -- depend on the program. a lot of folks across the country do need help from this program. this is an administrative cost. this does not come from beneficiaries or cut benefits to anybody out there. simply reapportions the way in which states use dollars to educate people about the various programs available. >> can you explain how you get the $2 billion in savings? >> that is a cbo's core. to go where is the $2 billion coming from? to statesg to grants that probably are getting funding today for education purposes. >> it will come out of education programs currently being used today. >> they are not benefits that go directly to beneficiaries.

that is correct. >> i would urge a no vote because it does impact -- does take $2 billion away from obesity. the most recent child reauthorization, the snap formula was changed so more resources could be given across a larger number of states. we expect that to begin to change under the new formula that was put into play under child nutrition. if there is no further discussion, we will go to a vote. i believe the record roll-call was expected. the clerk will call role. cochran?enator >roberts?

[inaudible] hovinr hovin? ahey? >> no by proxy. bauchus? >> no by proxy. proxy.no by >> [inaudible]

>> the clerk will tally the votes. total is eight. total knows, 12. >> the nays having the majority, it is not adopted. are there further amendments to the nutrition title? s.nator robert staf >> i have a bill that encompasses many of the amendments that have been considered and about to be considered. this is a comprehensive up from -- a man met with food stamp reform. i am going to read it very quickly and withdraw it and see if it could be considered on the floor. in that respect, perhaps the senator from new york could check her blood pressure a little bit and we can move on down the road. >> attorney general eric holder

is taking questions today on capitol hill. a judiciary oversight hearing. live coverage at 1:00 eastern here yen friday, the house ways and means committee members get a chance to ask questions about the irs investigation on acting commissioner steve miller and that i g tax administrator will appear before the committee. that is friday at 9:00 eastern on c-span3. right now you can read the report on the irs targeting conservative groups at our website, c-span.org. this weekend, but tv is live from maryland at the gaithersburg book festival. live coverage saturday morning it 10:00 eastern. including scott burke on the dakota warriors in the august 1862 last stand. iconic images of the kennedy

white house. a meal or when on the global financial crisis, recession and aftermath. followed by a panel on the publishing industry. this is live all day saturday on book tv. coming up live, this morning at 10:00 eastern, the u.s. house returns for morning our speeches. over on c-span the senate2 continue, work on army corps of engineers water projects. 10:00 on c-span the committee3, but on the farm bill. 45 minutes, congressman john mica of florida about the irs targeting conservative groups. brian higgins of new york, the top democrats on the homeland security committee on the libya

investigation and the boston marathon bombings. a spotlight on magazine series continues with week magazine that senior editor on the piece about the effects of the $833 billion stimulus. host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this wednesday, may 15, 2013. the house judiciary committee takes testimony today from the u.s. attorney general. eric holder addressed controversial topics at a press briefing yesterday, including accusations the i.r.s. unfairly targeted conservative groups and the justice department's seizure of associated press reporters' phone records. we'd like to hear from enthuse morning, what you think of how the obama administration is handling civil liberties. here are the numbers to call to share your thoughts. democrats, 202-585-3