includes $550 billion in $86ding and an extra billion in overseas operations. legislation c-span2 on immigration. it puts caps on visas for correct -- highly skilled workers. this morning, president obama will make remarks on the immigration debate set for 10:20 a.m. eastern. we will have live coverage when that begins here on c-span. right now, though, a look at the status of immigration in congress from this morning's "washington journal". >> we want to welcome back to our table, douglass told begin, the congressional budget office director. the senate kicks off debate

today. the motion to proceed -- they need 60. you think they get to 60? the democrats want 70 to put pressure on house republicans to take up legislation. i think they get to 60. i think they will get to the debate, no question. we have already seen the speaker of the house come out yesterday saying he would like to see movement on this issue. the house is not uninterested in what the senate does. they have their own way to do things. host: there will be amendments offered to strengthen border security. where do you come down on those amendments? if there is enough to include tighter security provisions and democrats walk away?

guest: i think that is an overstatement. the bill backed amount initially does need some improvement. there were republicans like susan collins, who i do not think have looked at the bill and said, this is not good enough. of what the bill does at the moment is say we will leave its to border security for the plan. there is a place for improving the legislation and not every amendment should be viewed as a poison pill. this is how the senate works. you get things to the floor to get enough votes to pass it. of thehat do you think prospects of immigration reform happening before the 2014 election? senator buehrer says they do not have enough votes. the final passage, they do not have the 60 votes needed.

i think that is a reflection of fact that there are amendments needed to , whether ithe bill is the eligibility for benefits or back taxes or other pressing issues that i think people ought i can stillr debate vote for the bill. it is not perfect, but i will pass it. this is our best chance in my memory for passing the immigration bill. the big difference with past efforts is that conservatives now owned this to a great extent. othering those who have aspirations. concerned -- they're saying, it is important that conservatives

solve this issue, whether it is the economic or legal status issues. that changes the dynamic drastically host: chuck grassley voted for it is today on the floor saying, what he has been saying all along, i'm not going to be fooled. they told us it would be amnesty and it did not work. how is this guest: different there is the notion that -- how is this different? guest: there is the notion that conservatives have to get in there and fix it. and not just border security. that alone will not solve the problem. it is real security issues, better economic policy -- policy. i really want to stress that. an meron based system instead of just reliance on the political

immigration. naughty issue is always what to do with the undocumented. and what you say in the way of the requirements to burnie legalization? to earn legalization? will,eryone who is here in fact, become legal. those with felonies from misdemeanors, those who have committed infractions abroad simply cannot qualify. prettyse who do face a high bar. they pay fines, they learn english, they have to remain employed at a high level. the notion is about those criteria. what you do to make this work in the future and have legitimate penalties for those who have broken the law? host: you have been on the record already saying there are economic benefits to immigration reform. you have testified about the numbers. review for their viewers are you

see this as an economic benefit. the of thekey is for population. people like me have a birth rate that is too low to keep the population growing. all of our future population growth, our labour force growth, our work force for the future will be driven by immigration decisions. immigration reform is that opportunity to say we want to compete globally and have a world-class labor force. and we have never done that as a nation. we have always used a political status as the foundation for who comes to the u.s. under 10% of our visas are granted for economic reasons. to change that and the road decide to compete internationally, no other theyry does what we do, used economic reasons for immigration policy. you can raise gdp growth by a percentage point over the first

and years. you can raise incomes per capita by about $1,500 after 10 years. you can solve budget problems by the trillions of dollars. host: explain that last part. guest: if you grow more rapidly, two things happen. you raise tax revenue and you spend less on social net programs. those are great things. any policy that helps that is a great idea. host: if your rights income explain how this increases the wages of american citizens guest:. there's a fair concern about how the if no workers show up, then somehow competition goes up and wages go down. there are two things to rembert about the global marketplace. number one, it is global. and we are already competing with the workers in indonesia. and the fact that we move them

across an ocean or across the state does not change the competition. we will not see wages go down just because we can see the competition. is out there already. and secondly, when everyone is competing on a playing field betteris level, we have work regulations. that is a better form of competition down one that is done over ground -- underground or overseas. host: the herald came out and disagreed with you. it had a very different take on this. guest: yes. host: explain what you think about their numbers and how it differs from what that -- from what research you did. guest: there are 1 million different disputes. the two big differences are, number one, it very clear look at before and after. the study i did was about what happens if you change our immigration policies, and vast growth rates and gdp growth rates.

the heritage foundation does not look at a change in the law. they just say, look, there are illegal immigrants and the cost money. and they include in their numbers the cost of schooling for children born here. the those are u.s. citizens. that has nothing to do with changes in immigration law. as a result, you get a mixture of the facts. the second thing is what you scrubs -- where you scrub about immigration. the heritage foundation emphasizes the welfare programs, the social security from the medicare been too expensive in the future. that has nothing to do with immigration. if we had a native baby boom, those same concerns would arise. that is a striking call for reform, not immigration. role labrador, a conservative, i was part of the negotiations. and he says he has dropped out

and will not support anything comes upect -- backing with. to detailedagree language on group care, they decided essentially to punt the issue. guest: we have already established at the level of the supreme court that emergency care will be provided to anyone who walks in. that it's not really an issue in this debate. there is a fair and legitimate issue about the affordable care act. it is an expensive new entitlement. there are serious concerns about whether this nation can afford it. i would endorse those concerns. it needs to be looked at carefully. quite frankly, the problem in

the house is not with roel labrador and the republicans. it is that a big piece of the democratic caucus believes there everything they can think of. that is not a realistic approach. most people think that is not fair and not affordable. democrats will have to move on what eligibility criteria will be. host: and does the senate have a more realistic view in your opinion? with: yes, they started the same, we are not just checking a box thing that everyone get everything. we are going to figure out a timetable to earn those benefits. remember, if you are here illegally under the senate bill, you have to -- if you are here senate bill,r the andhave to pay back taxes you cannot have committed any

crimes. an annual over the process of 10 years earned the right to become a lawful citizen and you will have full benefits, but not automatically host: the senate is taking of immigration reform legislation this week. there will be a motion today. our coverage starting at 2:00 p.m. we're here to take your phone calls, your comments, your questions about immigration reform. are their estimates of how many folks might be hired to process these 12 million illegals? there probably are, and although i am tempted to memorize every never, i do not know what it is. the important thing is to recognize that in all of those discussions about the house and senate, the bill will contain the financing for that. yes, it is going to take some

additional employment in the government to handle the processing, to run an employment verification system, to do some things that i think are underappreciated in their importance to keep track of entry and exit on tours and work visas. that is a big source of the undocumented right now. that is how some of the 9/11 terrorists got into the u.s. there is some more machinery to make this work. it will cost some money, but those fees being paid by those coming to the u.s. will be covering it. host: john, he republican caller. finish please let me what i have to say, if you would. 11 million. is not there is like 30 million. they cannot even count them when they have the sentence because they hid in the house. because they had hidden in the house.

income taxes.ying $1,500 back taxes to be paid over 10 years is a joke. $6 trillion, that is what the heritage foundation came up with. that is the deficit on the taxpayers. host: let's get a response. guest: these are important considerations. one is, how many undocumented are here? and because they are undocumented we do not know. most estimates are around 11 million or 12 million. and most estimates are that the population has diminished in recent years because of the poor economy in the u.s. costs.re no one should believe this is going to be free. it is not. there are benefits as well. you have to weigh the costs and benefits. but $6 trillion over 50 years is

about to send out of every federal dollar we are spending. even if you believe that number -- i think it is way too big -- is it worth it? we have to compare the benefits and you have to come down somewhere. two things get simultaneously said that cannot both be true pretty either immigrants will compete with workers, or they will be sitting on welfare collecting federal dollars, but it cannot be doing both. many people have this view that they're both stealing our jobs and taking our weather -- our welfare. neither can be simultaneously true. twitter -- guest: last time i checked for all politicians want people to vote for them there is a political party this debate. there is much discussion about republican scorching and

hispanic vote through their pursuit of immigration reform. there's probably -- according the hispanic vote through their pursuit of the immigration reform. there's probably a grain of truth in there. this is an effort to continue his average from conservatives to hispanic communities. it is based on the notion that there are many commonalities. issueics are not a one vote. the karradah more than just immigration. -- they care about more than just immigration. caller: this is from the post on thursday.

guest: i think it is a broad congressional discontent with the executives over use of power. they have done things unilaterally that japan done through legislation -- that should have been done through legislation. secondly, we're discussing immigration reform. if we want to change the status of dreamers or anyone else, it is being done through legislation. let's put a hold on things this administration is doing unilateral and for its own political advantage. host: good morning, you're on the air. go ahead. caller: they have been telling us on both sides of the aisle that there are 12 million to 20 million illegals and now they tell us there are fewer than there were.

i'm retired on a fixed income and my taxes just went up to 40%. fromchool district went 10% hispanic 20 years ago to 80% today. i do not know how they expect retired people to keep up with real estate taxes. there are not 11 million illegals. i'm telling you, someone needs to figure out how many are here. i do not think they can. guest: again, lots of efforts to count the number of folks here illegally. most efforts say around 11 million or 12 million, but you do the best you can prove there is no science fair. can.e best you there is no science there. the up-front costs are often borne by the states and localities. making sure we figure that into

the calculation is important. host: here is a tweet. can we learn anything from immigration laws in europe, particularly germany? guest: i think the answer to that is yes. europeans are among those that have been most aggressive to opening borders to labor flows and indeed he about immigration as an economic policy. germany stands out as an advanced industrial the economy that has maintained high levels of productivity and economic growth in very bad circumstances. that is in part due to their willingness to do the kinds of things that we are contemplating here now host: what are the economic benefits? guest: two benefits. number one, more numbers. more people can make more staff. and as you grow more rapidly, you get the opportunity to make the latest technologies in every factor -- in every factory. that is a bonus.

and you get the kinds of workers that you need. getting a skill mix is a center of debate. what can we do with high-tech visas in the u.s.? we have shortages of engineers and the like and as a result, we're seeing jobs go overseas simply due to the absence in the labor supply. host: and those countries like germany, are they attracting these high skilled workers because of the policies? host: illinois, republican caller. caller: i think we are passing out a tremendous opportunity by up this opportunity with mexico.

mexico have a lot of criminals and it would be easy for us to and their reach. -- you can only do that host: i will get two responses to what he was saying. guest: this is why immigration is such a hard issue pretty cover security, legal, economic, and you can use it as a tool of international diplomacy in trying to secure a better neighbor on the southern border. the question is, what priority do you put on different issues?

think passage inevitably involves the disgruntled. nobody gets everything they want. you improve things in many dimensions, but nothing -- no program is perfect. we will see that when the debate begins host: and that gets underway on the floor of the senate at 10:00 a.m. one plan would require bio metric systems and all land and sea ports. guest: don't count the votes

title.heir the we will see. whether you like that thereular thing or not, is support for strengthening the bill. people come in legally to study and to work. if we fixed those visas, we fix that problem. host: good morning, robert. caller: i am a navy that and my bad and- my dad was a my grandfather was a vat and which really did not fight for -- my dad was a veteran and my grandfather was a veteran and we surely did not fight for mexico.

was a man standing up for freedom. we have lost all of this. if you think my friends have not lost their jobs, i have seen it. i am watching my friends lose their jobs. all, thank you for your service. my father was also in the navy. the navy families stick together. on the labor front, i think there are two real concerns. any bill is going to take a long time to implement. -- how do we not judge policy by current circumstances? we're coming out of this

economic recession in a very slow and painful fashion. but i do not think that is the right way to measure immigration form. and we have always created jobs in the u.s. we have gone from a nation of 13 to a nation of 50 states of host: here is a tweet. guest: the difficulty is you have to give the employer a chance to comply with a lot. right now, there are too many employers trying to do the right thing, but because of the absence of the verification system and tamperproof of identification, they cannot. it is not fair to enforce something that is not enforceable. karl, democratic caller.

caller: i believe this is really just about economics for corporations. the wages are going down. they can sit there and say they're not, but the same people who are opening the floodgates to the illegals are the ones that are saying we need to do something about it. they're the main some -- the main ones passing it. most americans are working three and four and five times higher -- order. why? because wages are going down. you have no other choice to make ends meet. you bring a person over here that is used to making 30 or -- $30 or $40 or $50 a month and you offer them $1,000, $2,000 a month in a job that you may be

paid somebody else $3,000 a month. what is he going to do? he's going to go with the person that he can get for $1,000. that is basically what i'm calling to say. corporate interests are real. they have talked about the need for a particular skills, a temporary worker programs, and to make the system more responsive to economic conditions. the that is the upside. there's also a downside. in a recession, there are fewer immigrants. we do have minimum-wage laws. we do have lots of labour force projections and everyone who comes to the u.s. will comply with that. and there is a third piece to this that i think is real and legitimate. we have seen the median income in the united states all during this recovery. we have seen a prolonged stress on wage growth in the u.s. but that has nothing to do with immigration.

we have other problems we need to solve as well. host: you are on the air. caller: i agree with the last caller, driving down the wages. it is pretty obvious. and you cannot get a job if you do not speak spanish sometimes. what i wanted to call about is that when law-enforcement stops because of a reform bill, how many illegal alien criminals will just not come forward or remain unregistered? the the learning in this provision will not really be enforced, i'm afraid. it is in there just to get votes. common concern is that a lot will somehow me -- be meaningless because it will not be enforced. i think that is a sad commentary on how people view this issue. we should pass the law and enforce it. and i think it is important to pass laws that are enforceable. and we have books on -- we have laws on the books right now that our.

-- that are. there are those who have committed felonies in the u.s., crimes abroad, mr. gleaners, and they will not -- misdemeanors, able to goll not be through this process. they will be deported. host: ashleigh parker posey peace talks about what the "the new york times" says our present bills. and ran paul wants congress to write and come up with a plan for border security rather than having homeland security do it. and then you have the ear and income-tax credit, barring illegal immigrants from asking the earned -- from asking for the year in income tax credit from the irs. ask for anpected to amendment that would require immigrants to pay back taxes as they proceed toward legal

status. and then you have gunmen that gun bans that would also come up. and same-sex partners. senate -- senator leahy was going to offer this during the debate this week. and in borders of -- order defense, more rubio said he could not support the current legislation, which he helped draft. and to that end, -- what do you make of all of this? guest: a simple issue, right? [laughter] it is worth reminding ourselves all the time that we are a nation of immigrants and people

have tax issues, benefit issues, such -- gun issues, social issues. it is all wrapped into the immigration debate. i do not think it is fair to accuse anyone of offering the amendment -- to accuse anyone offering the amendment of trying to introduce a poison pill. whethere debates over -- over various concerns, whether it is security or making sure taxes get paid. these are all of the issues of the day that will show up in the immigration legislation i'm not a big fan of the poison pill label sumwalt pass and some will not. we will see how many we get at the end. says there is a piece that on immigration reform, center rubio is an indispensable man. if it fails -- if he fails, it fails. guest: he has become the face of

the republican party on this. to my mind, he has done a superb job on leadership for someone who is relatively new to the senate and young age provided is a reflection not just of his skills, but of what i mentioned earlier, the the that conservatives have come around to the fact that it is about economic growth and conservatives are pro-growth. and it is about making security priority and getting it fixed right. and they fundamentally do not trust the administration to get this right. and that is what is driving their participation. that is one of the reasons we have a very good chance of getting this bill this year. if margayou agree that rubio feels that it fails and ultimately? guest: i do not think it fails because rubio bailes. that rhymes. we dok it fails because

not have the right substance to get a vote. we need a good bill. and someone writes in, next will be talking with the former director of congressional budget office and it -- mexico is a big trading partner, but this benefits mexico as well. a big goal is to make sure we have on our sudden -- southern border a democratic, secure government. and trade is a tool of doing that. host: sandra is next in hugo, maryland. independent caller. caller: this is my first time calling into c-span. host: caller: welcome. thank you. -- host: welcome. caller: thank you.

guest neglects to mention the e-verify system as a means for employers to verify the background of people who come to work for them. that may not be used -- or there may be problems with it, but that is one tool that an employer has to be brought to bear for the background of the people they employ. also, i want to talk about hb1 visas. the problem that has greeted by backing away from having a on the numbers of people that are able to enter -- immigration legislation is expected today. we will go live to the white house press room this morning as

president obama is about to describe a way forward on the immigration legislation. [applause] >> good morning.

i am a dreamer. was 8 years old i dreamed of being an engineer. at 14, i was brought from africa to the u.s. to live that dream. at 21, i graduated with a andical engineering degree today, that dream still lives in the back of my closet where my diploma waits for immigration reform. i never set out to devote myself completely to advocating for immigration reform, nor did i imagine that out of the ashes of my darkest secret would arise my true purpose. 2006, my father passed away in nigeria.

too far for a final kiss goodbye, and fearing that at any moment i could be torn away from asfamily, i stand here today a direct result of the fervent prayers of my father, and bold action by the president. andead of living in fear , i haveow liabilities the privilege of spending my days advocating for immigration supporting efforts to achieve that more perfect union that we all desire. dad, today i am hopeful and

the presidentsent of the united states. [applause] >> well, good morning, everybody. welcome to the white house. it is a pleasure to have so many distinguished americans today from so many different walks of life. we have democrats and republicans, labor and business leaders on stage, law enforcement and clergy. americans who do not see eye to eye on every issue, and in fact, in some cases do not see eye to eye on just about any issue -- the [laughter]

but who are standing here before you today united on the legislation that is in congress this week, a bipartisan bill to fix our brooklin integration -- to fix our broken immigration system. please give tobin another round of applause. [applause] it takes a lot of courage to do what she did. shadows, toof the share her story, and to hope that despite the risks that she could make a difference. but i think she is representative of so many dreamers out there who have worked so hard. and i have had a chance to meet so many of them who have been willing to give a face to the undocumented and have inspired a movement across america. and with each step, they have reminded us time and again what

this debate is all about. this is not an abstract debate. this is about the incredible young people, who understand themselves to be americans, who have done everything right but has still been hampered in achieving their american dream. and they remind us that we are a nation of immigrants. theughout our history, promise we have found in those who come from every corner of the globe has always been one of our greatest strengths. it has kept our work force and vibrant and dynamic. it has kept our businesses on the cutting edge. it has helped to build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known. when i speak to world leaders, one of the biggest advantages we have economically is our demographics. we're constantly replenishing ourselves with talent from all across the globe.

no other country can match that history. is what was true years ago still true today. [beep] who is beating over there? [laughter] your feeling kind of self- conscious, aren't you? [laughter] that is ok. in recent years, one in four of america's new small-business owners were immigrants. one in four of high-tech start- ups in america were founded by immigrants. fortune 500 companies were started by a first or second generation american. i think about that, almost half of the fortune 500 companies

when they were started were started by the first or second generation immigrants. immigration is not just a part of our national character, but a driving force in our economy that creates jobs and prosperity for all of our citizens. the the over the past -- here is the thing. over the past two decades, our immigration system has not kept pace with the changing times and has not matched up with our most cherished values. right now, our immigration system invites the best and brightest from all over the world to come and study at our top universities. and then once they finish, once they have gotten the training, they need to build an invention or creed a system and too often, our system tells them to go back home so that other countries can reap the benefits of these new systems and the it industry's. immigrationur system keeps families apart for

years at a time, even for folks in the technically under the legal immigration system should be eligible to become citizens. but it is so long and so , thatsome, so byzantine families and have been separated for years because of a backlog of visas for those who came here illegally. they are ready to give their all to earn their place in america and they have been waiting for years to join their loved ones in the u.s. it is not right, but that is the drogin system we have today. right now, i -- that is the broken system we have today. right now, our immigration system has no way to deal with a 11 million or so the people in this country illegally. and yes, they broke the rules. they should not be let off easy -- easily and they should not be able to gain the system, but the vast majority are just looking for ways to provide for their

families and contribute to their communities. they are our neighbors. we know their kids. often, they are forced to do what they do in a shadow economy where shady employers can exploit them by being less than minimum wage, making them work without overtime, not giving them any benefits. that pushes down standards for all workers. that is bad for everybody. because all the businesses that to play by the rules to hire people legally and pay them fairly, they are at a competitive disadvantage. american workers and have been at a competitive disadvantage. it is not fair, but that is the drogin system that we have today. over the past four years, we have tried to patch up some of the worst cracks in the system. we made border security a top priority. today, we have twice as many border patrol agents as we did in 2004. we have more butz on the ground

along our southern border than at any other time in our history. and in part, by using technology more effectively, illegal crossings are near their lowest level in decades. our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and in danger in our communities. and today, deportation of criminals is at its highest level. and having put border security to refocus onng those who could do our communities harm, we also can take up for the dreamers, those who have been brought to this country as young children. and we have said might you can pursue higher education, that we will consider offering you a chance to come out of the shadows so you can work here and contribute to our communities

legally. done whatstration has we can on our own. we have members of my as it -- my administration will have done outstanding work in that past several years to try to close up some of the gaps that exist in the system. but the system is still broken. and to draw the deal with this issue, congress needs to act. and that moment is now. this week, the senate will consider a common sense, bipartisan bill that is the best chance we have had in years to fix our broken immigration system. it will build on what we have done and continue to strengthen our borders. it will make sure that businesses and workers are playing by the same set of rules, and it includes tough penalties for those who do not. it is fair for middle-class families by making sure that those who are brought into the system pay their fair share in taxes and for services.

and it is fair for those who try to emigrate legally by stopping those who try to skip the line. do.s the right thing to this bill is not perfect. it is a compromise. and going forward, nobody will get everything they want. not democrats, not republicans, not me. but this is a bill that is largely consistent with the principles that i and the people on this stage have laid out for common-sense reform. the the -- first, if passed, this bill would be the biggest commitment to border security in our nation's history. it would put another $6.5 billion on top of what we are already spending toward stronger, smarter security along our borders. it would increase criminal penalties against smugglers and traffickers. it would finally give every

employer a reliable way to chat -- check that every person they are hiring is here illegally. and it would hold employers more accountable if there and -- if there knowingly hiring undocumented workers. the the strengthening security -- so strengthening security, but also enforcement within our borders. there's a lot of talk about border security. let me repeat, today, at border crossings are near their lowest level in decades. and in the past, the senate bill hasurrently written, and done before the toughest enforcement in america as ever seen. nobody is taking border enforcement lightly. it is part of this bill. this bill would provide a citizenshiparn a for the 11 million individuals

in this country illegally. pathway is arduous. you've got to pass a background checks. you've got to learn english. you've got to pay taxes and a penalty. and then you have to go to the back of a line behind everybody who has done things the right way and try to come here illegally. this will not be a quick process. it will be at least 13 years before the vast majority of these individuals are even able to apply for citizenship. this is no cakewalk. but it is the only way we can make sure that everyone who is here is plain by the same rules as ordinary families, paying taxes and getting their own health insurance. it is why for immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. we are asking ready to play by the same rules. you've got to give people a sense of certainty that if they go through all of the

sacrifices, do all of this, then at the end of their rights and there's the opportunity -- not the guarantee, but the opportunity -- to be part of this american family. and by the way, the majority of americans support this idea. bill woulde, this modernize the legal immigration system so that alongside training american workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we're also attracting the highly skilled engineers and entrepreneurs from around the world who will ultimately grow our economy. this bill would make sure that our people do not have to wait years for their loved ones to join them in america. that is what immigration reform looks like. smarter enforcement to my pathway to earn citizenship, improvements to our legal system. they are all common sense steps. they have bipartisan support.

they have the support of a broad cross-section of leaders from every walk of life. reason congress cannot get this done by the end of the summer. the process that led to this bill was open and inclusive. for months, the bipartisan gain of eight looked at every issue .uild a compromise that works then the judiciary committee held numerous hearings. more than 100 amendments were added, often with bipartisan support. and the good news, every day that goes by, more republicans and democrats are coming out to support this common-sense immigration reform bill. go i am sure the bill will through a few more changes in the weeks to come. this much is clear. a few genuinely believe we need

to fix our broken immigration system, there is no good reason to stand in the way of this bill. people, democrats and republicans, have done good work on this bill. if you're serious about fixing thesystem, then this is vehicle to do so. if you're not serious about it, a brokenink that' system is the best america can do, then my guess is you should try to block it. but if you're serious and sincere about fixing a broken system, this is the vehicle to do it. and now is the time to get it done. there is no good reason to play procedural games or engage in obstruction just to block the best chance we have had in years to address the problem in a way that is fair to middle-class families, business owners, and legal immigrants.

and there is no good reason to undo the progress we have already made, especially when it comes to extreme steps like stripping protections from dreamers that my administration has provided. we're asking law enforcement to treat them the same way treat violent criminals. that is not who we are. we ought to do better. we owe it to the dreamers to do better. we owe it to the young people and diegothe toulan sanchez, who is with us today. where is diego? right here. he came from argentina as a kid with his parents. this is where he grew up and went to school and made friends. you ask him and he says he feels american in every way except one. on paper. in high school, diego found out

she was undocumented. think about that. all the other stuff you are already dealing with in high school. [laughter] man.uddenly, aw, [laughter] right,done everything stayed out of trouble, and excelled in class, contributed to this community, feeling hopeful about its future and suddenly he finds out he's got to live in fear of deportation. watching his friends get their licenses knowing he could not get one. classmates apply for summer jobs knowing he could not do that either. when diego heard that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge for -- from the shadows, he went and signed up. ollis said he wanted was the chance to live a normal life -- all he said he wanted was the chance to live a normal life and

to live a normal life -- and to contribute to society. he graduated as student body president and student of the year. [applause] now he has said his sights higher and has a master's degree and is in law school. want to do the right thing by diego? what rationale is there out not want toould make sure that diego achieves his dreams? because if he does, it helps us all achieve our dreams. you willeks to come,

hear some proponents of immigration reform try to get up here and spread the same errors and untruths that we have heard before -- the same rumors and untruths that we have heard before. and when that happens, i want you to think about these young people and your own parents and your great-grandparents' and those who came here. the notion that somehow those who came through ellis island had all their papers right -- [laughter] -- you know, had checked every box and all of those procedures as they were getting on that , they were looking for a better life. just like these families, and they want to earn their way

into the american story. willing to stand with them and if you are willing to stand with all of these outstanding leaders up here, then now is the time to make your voice heard. you need to call an e-mail and tweaked your senators and tell them not to keep this problem down the road. come together and work together, do your job not only to fix this broken immigration system once and for all, but to leave something better for all generations to come. to make sure we can continue to be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. do the right thing. thanks. god bless you. god bless america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> president obama wrapping up here this morning. in the next hour, the president along with the vice president joe biden will meet with the president of peru. a little bit later, president obama and the vice president

will gather with defense secretary chuck hagel for meetings and there will be a campaign event this evening for congressman ed markey running in the chat -- in the massachusetts senate race. a bipartisan immigration proposals of the floor of the senate all day today. on the floor now is senator christopher kerns of delaware promotion is expected to get at 2:15 p.m.orward also during the day, and senators are expected to consider a couple of judicial nominations. those are expected to come later. see the senate live on our companion network, c-span2. the house will gavel back at noon eastern. legislative work will begin at 5:00 p.m. on land and water bills. see live coverage here on c-span went members gavel back in at noon eastern.

off the floor of the senate education committee, this meeting to mark up legislation on the note child left behind la. 37 states have a waiver from the government to operate outside the law, which ties funds to scl performance. secretary ernie duncan is called for to be replaced, but neither the house or congress has passed an alternative. we will stick with live coverage of this mark of session until the house doubles back in for morning hour at noon eastern. thank you, mr. german. chairman. >> of the issue of flexibility for rural areas, obviously our present a lot of small towns, to. o. we kept a provision in the bill

that says flexibility for certain local education agencies notwithstanding any aircraft that is eligible under services of part b of title 6 is determined by the secretary may modify not more than one of the elements or activities required under their breath away. in order to better meet the needs of students in such school. with that language is is the same language that we had in the bill to years ago providing for role flexibility. back in this bill. some language. they can under this deal, they can modify one of those things. something else. they do not have to do that.

is the same language we had in the bill to years ago. >>-- two years ago. >> mr. chairman, i have deep affection for you and senator bennett. have big disagreements in what i think is a solution. in part of the institution here for the past eight years in congress for the past 18. i remember when republicans and democrats both considered in the red area of the bull's-eye was no child left behind. that it failed and with misguided. choicee're here with the of providing additional local and state flexibility are doubling down on no child left behind. the me ask unanimous consent that i enter into the record letters from the national school board administration, school

superintendents association and council of great city schools letters that say they are not supportive of this legislation. abouto into great detail the expanded federal role. the secretary would appear to be involved in the design programs directing the specifics and addressing parents, community engagement, and the bill calls for multiple cross tabulations of wide ranging academics and non-academic student data that we believe will be overwhelming for many school systems to produce. i will not read from all of them. i will let my colleagues read them. here is what i think we are who is in control?

for ensuring every child is prepared for college or a career? am being too simplistic, but i believe if we are all looking at it from the standpoint of every child being prepared for career, then the partnership would not look as much like a dictatorship as no orld left behind was crafted as the space bill is crafted. none of this applies to you if you are willing to give up all the money. one school thought it was good enough to take them up on that offer. they have never regretted the decision. they have prospered. they have produced students at a high academic level. they have been able to do with

their way. what i think they're trying to do is to say maybe we do need to trust states and localities may be we are not the ones to make a decision, you are in the bottom 5% of low-performing schools so the first thing we will make you do is fire 35% of your teachers. hell did we come up with something like that? if the teacher did not qualify, they should be fired whether they're in the bop -- bottom 5% or top 5 percent but to say this is remediation for where the performance of the school is, quite frankly, take a breath. talk about this and think about it for a while. we're trying to create a matrix

of how we will solve their potential future. we do not even know these kids. if we have so little trust in the communities that we live in and the people they elect to be on the school board and the decision for who they accused the principals and superintendents, something is really wrong. trust, we haveof decided we will create a matrix that will be impossible for us, the united states senate to try to report on. what does this do? it empowers states and educators to set their own accountability systems, interventions. removes washington and micromanagement in favor of state and local responsibility. and it saves taxpayer money by

eliminating wasteful and duplicative programs. i cannot say it any simpler than that. senator harkin's bill, i do believe is no child left behind on steroids. promises to build future complexity for schools in hopes of crafting masks -- mouse traps. cleverds more on programs tailored to individual constituencies and mandates on proven reforms nationwide without the knowledge and state individuality and limitations. mandate and proven nationwide. does establish

performance targets. it is no different than a child left behind. different target for blacks and whites. this is absolutely the wrong direction. they could strive to get all schools up to the level of the highest achieving school in the state by a reasonable date and include accelerated achievement targets for subgroups. 3, they could submit another equally ambitious plan to the united states secretary of education for approval. which i would remark this is very similar, if not more burdensome than the no trial but behind. -- no child left behind structure.

requires states to identify 15% of schools, 10 percent that have the greatest achievement schools and 5% was the lowest performance. states would have to identify a new 15% every year. this tells states to develop their own accountability system without any requirements and percentages. it continues to report on a performance of their students publicly. i want to stress this part. can we do things that make more public and understandable to the communities whose children are in these schools the performance of the schools? are they the ones that make the

correct teacher evaluations? is the parent one that better understand whether a teacher is good and performs at high marks or does not meet that standard? where is the greatest influence on the principle to make a teaching change in a mandate that comes by us or a parent who feels their child will get left behind with the current teacher? school turnaround is the bottom 5%. they would have to adopt a one of four turnaround models under the harkin plan. one is transformation, requiring firing the principal if they have served in the school lesson two years. years. than two 35turnaround, requiring percent of teachers and principal it they have served in

the school more than two years. borehole school approach which would require a model with the level of evidence so high no one could perform in. or restart which would require schools to be closed and then reopened as a different school or charter school. those of the four options for the 5% of the bottom. this will put forward no turnaround model, only a list of possible examples that states these low-eform performing schools. get into oneto more thing. by my count the harkin bill creates 23 new programs over and above what we already have.

i think it is safe to say there is a sizable cost that comes with it. i am willing to spend this if in fact it works. you this is quite believeure from what i is something senator alexander was very gracious to put in on my behalf. that is a consolidation of programs. we do not touch the title 1 money. it is there. it is designated for low-income at risk kids. it is going to the right area. then you have all of these different pots of money. teachers and principals.

i am doing is taking all 62 programs and bring in one pot and acknowledging this excess of one school may be different from the success of another school. that north carolina may be different in colorado. in to say to a district or to school where you can have this money in the pot if you do this. what if this is not what they need? then they forgo the money. would be novel to throw the money in a pot and say all you have to do is prove for the use of the money you are furthering the academic advancement of your students? you come up with the program in need of your system and no longer will we limit the money -- the money from you, we will

make some money available. to a school in colorado the challenge may be how do we increase technology? to a school in rural north carolina may be how to read -- how we get kids out of the trailers and into classrooms? they are not going to have the choice in colorado or north not fit in they do the box we created to get the money. i would tell you how we treat the pot of money i think is crucial to the success of not just the low was 5 percent, but even to the top 5 percent that we want to strive even higher. i want to mention one other thing at this time. a my count the bill creates new requirements ranging from discipline procedures such as

expansion, expulsion or pregnancy rate among students and the academic achievement, rates of school violence, bullying. the number of students that thick of employment. -- advanced placement. and many other data points. the bill requires all of the current data points in law, as well as the new data points i have just discussed be reported by major subgroups. children with disabilities. english werner's and creating a matrix of reporting within itself. it goes on to further cross tabulate the data points by tender and type of disability. this could include autism and blindness. in sum, almost 500 new data reporting requirements and calculations collected by schools in supposedly used by

the federal government for accountability purposes. our rest my case. -- i rest my case. we are not making it easier for schools to succeed in raising the standards. we are not even providing the ability of the top 10% to find a new level they can get to and students can excel to compete with people all around the globe. what we're doing is tying their hands and devoting the resources not to the classroom or education of kids, but to further reports to washington to justify just how we are in control of k-12 education. i only say this to my colleagues. for the past several years, most, if not all on this committee have said we have to get away with no child left behind. wehave to change the things

know does not work. we're not getting rid of anything. at least we kept some of the stuff we saw did work and alexander substitute, but we are not getting rid of anything we said did not work, we're just bubbling down. i trust parents. i trust principles. i trust superintendent a lot more than i do my own judgment to craft something i think will solve a problem in colorado or in iowa or massachusetts or any of the states represented at this table. i thank the chair. you, mr. chairman. i would say to my friend from north carolina that the chairman's bill does make a huge change in their child left behind, because right now applies to 100% of schools.

what the chairman says is this will no longer apply to 95 percent of schools, for all the reasons you said, which is that these decisions are made, many of them, much better at the local level than they are here. bottomspect to the very 5% of schools, we expect people to make changes for the benefit of the children that are there. they said earlier i would much rather have the decision made by people at the local level than people in the united states congress who i think have very little understanding of what is going on in schools and classrooms. to say this is not a huge change or to argue it is doubling down, i do not think it is a fair characterization of where we are. if we had a rally today in the leftal to keep their child behind the same as it is, there's not a single person that come to that.

i think there is a real opportunity for us to find a way to work on a bipartisan basis to try to change this law so that it allows us as a country to have a set of expectations that says the fact that you are born into poverty should not mean you are confined to a horrible school. at the same time, says we believe the people that will deliver this education our teachers. the people that will consume it are the kids. and they are in a position to figure out how to do that than we are. >> can i ask the senator a question? to go what i'd be incorrect to believe the data reporting did not apply to 100% of the schools or that annually all school systems will be required under the accountability provisions to designate the 15%, which would make of the 10% of the largest gaps and 5% for the low was

performance? does that not apply to all schools? all schools,ply to and believe me, all the people sitting around the table, i am at a sensitive as anybody for the idea we do not want more data requests that are absolutely necessary to understand what is going on in the systems, but just as the ranking member has said, the secretary should publish a consumer report on schools for him to be able to do that, he will need the data that is called for in this bill. are there places where we ask for too much? i am sure there are. senator alexander is working on a program to see which are required by federal law and which have been laid out and hop -- on top of everything else. ito do together but the idea tht

the federal government has no role here is a mistake. that did not even have to do with the money part of this. this has to do with the fact that we are the united states of america and a kid born in chicago is a chicago kid and in illinois kick, but also an american kid and we need to care about the outcome. i promise i will be brief. i agree with senator bennett and others that their child left behind has lived out the usefulness. it is time to change it, and i commend you and the ranking member for doing so, but i want to say something on behalf of the local boards of education. i represent a county that has the third highest wealth per child or tax base of any county in the state of georgia. the 27th largest public school system in the state of georgia

and the last five years they have put by day furloughs on every school teacher in the classroom. people are now back to where there were in the 1980's. the stress public schools have been under financially and my states and around the country have been tremendous. with every man date there is a cost. with every man they you have someone designating time to compliance and not to education. and the chairman and i share a passion for the act passed in 1978, a very important piece of legislation that mandates 40% expenditure of over the average of tea per student. the federal government is only 17 percent of meeting our share of that match and now 40 years later or 35 years later. every time we put another mandate on, we add another cost and are forcing the states to pay for things that we are making them do that were is the amount of classroom dollar going

to the student and increases the amount for the administration. when people talk about too much mandates and regulations, there is a cost component that every school some -- school system would be glad to come here and lecture about. thank you. to theuld just respond man from georgia, and every time i hear about this mandate i have to correct i think a misperception. schools to on provide free and appropriate education for kids with disabilities is not a federal mandate. it is a constitutional mandate. have to wrestle a little bit because it is a terrible

misperception that people have. you have to go back to pennsylvania parc. -- a pennsylvania association of retarded citizens. the court found that there is no constitutional, no u.s. constitutional requirement for any state to provide it free public education to any student. that comes as a shock to many people. it does not say to any state you have to provide free public education. somestates indications -- states have that. what it does say is that if you do use taxpayer dollars to provide a free, public education, you could not then say we will provide a free public education to white males.

or people of certain religions or excluding others. they said you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex organ. -- basis of sex or origin. so it is a constitutional mandate. whatsoever, aidea local school district would still have to provide a free, our purpose of education for kids with disabilities. that is the u.s. constitutional mandate. what we did, and i was in the house at the time, and we came through and said -- it is called educational handicap children's act. we said look, ok, states, you have to meet this requirement. we will help. we will provide federal money that, and heredo

are some of the things that we would ask that you have to do if you want to access that money. has to take one money -- one nickel of money but they have to meet the constitutional mandate of providing a free opportunity. i have heard about a 17%. yes, we said at the time our goal in federal was to pride -- provide up to 40% of the additional cost of what it might cost to provide this supports the necessary to educate kids with disabilities. into law.er written that was our goal. quite frankly, the only time we ever met that goal was under the recovery act when we put the money in there to do that for a couple of years.

then we backslid again. i agree with my friend we should do more in that, but it is not a federal mandate. it is a kind of partnership. i want to make that very clear. it is a constitutional mandate. secondly, i want to respond to my friend from north carolina. we have six and turnaround models. there were four turnaround models and the department of education. we added two turnaround models to that, one of which was the amendment that senator alexander put on the 2011 that a state can soa locally designed model, we inc. that's into the turnaround model also.

on the 35%, i would point out that 37 states have already agreed to 50%. in other words, if they choose that model, 50 percent of the teachers. back down third -- that it down to 35%. they could agree to 50%. we just said under the federal system that if they choose that model by have to do at least 35%. being more lenient. that only applies to the bottom 5%. senator scott. pick up think you, mr. chairman. i certainly have enjoyed and listened intently to the debate

around the table as it relates to education. i find it inspiring we of some of the folks at interest in and the outcome for kids that desperately need a path forward, a path to prosperity. this is really because of the portability of education funds. as a kid that grew up in some any of the neighborhoods we continue to refer to, there are so many issues we cannot deal with, so many issues which cannot address. there are few that we should address that. there are some of the unintended consequences.

this really focuses on the kids that are in poverty. i attended five elementary schools. you can transfer teachers for very long time to catch up with the kids in poverty. but we can't understand is if we had a way for the money to be backpacked and brought with the child to the school, i believe we could very quickly improve the outcome of those students, because at the end of the day, the reality is when you are poor kids living in tough neighborhoods, the likelihood of a move is pretty strong. while we are well intentioned and the objective of finding a way to fix the problem, sometimes the easiest way is to simplify the solution.

i think you will find us did it comes away with a better education and better outcome. while there are really complicated problems we are going to digest and then debate over the next several hours, i believe, one of the simple solutions is to empower the parent of resources necessary to make the best decision on behalf of that child as a child may have to go one, too, or three or five different elementary schools as i did. . attentionfocus the back on the student and provide this has not met

the needs and obligations we feel. thank you. you, senator scott. mr. chairman, i will not make a long statement. i am delighted to be here and to the elementary secondary education act. sorry i was not here for the opening. consent my full statement be in the record. i think you have done a great job of focusing on the bipartisan effort in looking at how we can help our children followed the best they can and the talents that god was given

to them before supporting the bill. the appropriations bill when we have authorization. >> thank you very much. senator murphy. >> thank you. mr. chairman. thank you, committee staff, for all of the fantastic work you put into this bill. i think we are effectively having the guts of the argument here with respect to the alexander amendment which is what is the appropriate federal role with providing oversight to schools and state education systems. i completely agree with the senators supposition that our mandate may be first and foremost is to stick up for the five, six% of kids who have fallen through the cracks appeared in one of the things i may have a chance to talk about later is new provisions in the

bill to look at kids who have effectively been pushed out of the public school systems through disciplinary measures the very quickly to occur in to the juvenile justice system. -- who very quickly trickle into the juvenile justice system. suggest something else is at work here. 50 years ago there was a reason for the federal government's detached was a fair approach to local education, because we were really competing amongst ourselves when it came to growing jobs. we were not in the global economy. the difference between educational outcomes was the difference whether jobs were created in georgia or texas or connecticut or her new hampshire. that is not the world we're living in today. we're competing with the rest of

the world. by almost every measure we are not keeping up. the studies come out every single week with new and stunning news. the most recent shows that countries like brazil are getting educational gains that are three times the gains of those in the united states. we all know how far we have fallen. numbers in the aggregate are just as amazing. by the time that my four-year- old and one-year-old graduate from high school, china will graduate more kids from college in the united states has workers in the workforce. india will have five times as many college graduates than the united states. we have a reason as united states senate and congress to

protect the quality of local education, because this is now about trying to compete globally. when you have one at of every four students graduating not ready for college, when 40 percent sure what to community college and have to take remedial class this because they are not ready to get that level of education, then it suggests we're not doing the job we need to do to remain equant -- economically competitive. i completely agree part of the mandate is to stick up for the students that have been pushed to the sideline of the educational system. as to words of the economy, now more than ever before, we want to be able to grow jobs in this new global context, we need a federal economic strategy does not tell school districts what to teach, but at least expect they will do better than they have. >> thank you very much.

both sides have had adequate exposure. i now look to senator and talent -- alexander to wrap up the argument. >> i appreciate the comments of all the senators. on focus should really be the children. let me emphasize again we're talking about 100,000 public schools and 50 million children. how do we best help them succeed in the kind of world the senator from connecticut has just described? it reminds me of the discussion that we had when we were successfully putting together the compound in pharmacy bill. i used the example of the nuclearwho ran the submarine program in the 1950's. the question is how do we make sure the reactors were? what he did was to tell the captain that if the reactor failed, at the career failed. so we have never had a death on

a navy said reactor because of the consequences of that. i think that has to do with the question of accountability. whose job is it to help children succeed? it starts with parents. next is teachers. i think we all agree on that. we all agree all -- we all agree on improving schools is finding there and their ways to pay teachers more. the real difference between the chairman's bill and our bill is whether we think the responsibility is here or whether we think it is at home. it is an exaggerated notion to say we consider in the table for

few hours or a handful of well- many people in the department of education where i used to work can envision the circumstances better than a really good school superintendent are really good governor are really good legislature. the answer obviously is the well, but what about the communities that do not. is look at the colleges and universities. we of a completely different system there. the money we have from here goes to the students as we choose the schools.

that used to be the idea of the left in this country. if i were king, that would be my solution to what we should do, but i am not. and i am a washington, and at a distant place. do we think a national school board can help these children more than we do placing the responsibility squarely on the backs of the parents, classroom teachers, legislators, and others closer to the child? i have spent the past 30 years on the other end of the program trying to help our state succeed. it was not easy. i have superintendent to say to me, you have to help us because we cannot get it done unless you make us do it. i do not accept that idea. i do not know why a senator from

tennessee should have to create -- make as superintendent from new york do something. the workers are as smart as tennessee hands. they should have as much courage as we do. fight them like we did. that is what it takes. i believe we have rolled to create a national environment in which parents, teachers, states can succeed. our state have a long way to go and we took most of those steps before race to the top. i fear that making it look like accountability is up here, rather than their, will slow things down, not speed things up. mistake, this bill does create a national school board. it is not meant to insult anybody, it is just a fact. when you take the combination of no child left behind in greece to the top of the waivers and

freeze them in the law for five years, you are putting the decisions in washington that ought to be with the local school board and government. i do not know why senators from either party is would want that to happen. many of us come from states that have better schools than that. why would you run it -- once as running your local school? the standards have to be approved by the secretary. the tests have to be approved by the secretary. whether a teacher is qualified has to be defined in washington. a teacher evaluation system, which is a complex things to do, the definition of that and approval of that has to be here. it also says you can take 10 percent of the money we spend here and require states to completely change the funding formulas in the name of comparability.

these are all decisions that a local or state school board makes. they are not bad ideas, they did should not be made here. i think they will retard progress for children not help. conclusion, iin will say who do we trust? do we trust the states? i think if we took a survey of teachers,and put state legislators, governors, congress, washington, who do we trust to help our children? i think we would come out last. the alexander substitute that republicans offered and for which we believe people of all parties we hope will support create a national environment in which parents, classroom teachers, state legislators have a better operas -- better

opportunity to succeed but does not tell them how to do it. i would hope during this time we will not be talking past each other but thinking of ways to create that environment rather than freeze into place the national school board. i appreciate the generous amount of time the chairman has allocated for full discussion of the amendment. take up think you, senator alexander. senatorank you, alexander. we do have a quorum for a vote. thethose in favor of alexander substitute say aye. >> roll-call vote. >> roll-call vote has been requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> senator mikulski? >> aye. wait, no.no. no. no. [laughter] >> we are making progress.

>> i maintain my exuberance but vote no. >> first impressions are often the best one. >> senator murray? >> no by proxy. >> senator sanders? >> no by proxy. senator casey? >> no. >> senator bennett? >> no. baldwin?r >> [inaudible] >> senator murphy? >> no. >> senator alexander? >> aye. >> senator burke? >> [inaudible] paul?ator >> aye, by proxy.

>> senator robert? >> aye by proxy. scott?tor >> aye. hawkins?chairman >> no. agree amendment is not to. we will now begin the process of working through amendments that have been filed to the bill. it is the chair's intention to recognize people in order of seniority as the go through the amendment process, and that is to go back and forth in order of seniority. we will go as far as we can today until least 1:00. we will break after the vote and

they come back to this route after that vote. -- come back to this room, after teh vote. he vote. we will go and will lease the regional hour this evening. i would obviously recognize myself for the first amendment. would like to call parkin title amendment no. 1 without objection. -- harkin. this is a very simple amendment. section 1127 voluntary participation. a state is free from all federal requirements under part 8 of title one of the elementary and secondary education act of

1965, 20 usc 6311. if the state chooses to not receive funding under such part. it is my intention to be very clear, this is not a federal mandate. it is not a federal school board telling the school board exactly what they have to do into the have to hire and fire. no state has to do one single thing in here if they do not want to take the money. be of, if they want to like hillsdale college, that is fine. so i would does offer that amendment. if there is no further debate? just to make a brief comments. this falls into the category of

economic reckoning that chief justice roberts wrote about when he said this committee in congress and the president could not cope worse fates into expanding medicaid by the threat the chief10% so said justice, of the funding. it just so happens that federal funding is 10 percent of state and local funding. the federal government basically has states over their role and a gun to their head. those are also words the chief justice hughes, a gun to the head. that exceeds the federal government's authority under our constitution, which reserve its which reserves- to the states' rights and responsibilities. i do not think it is appropriate to use that argument. if we wanted to use that

argument, then i could say it is our belief that much better use of our federal dollars would be to get half are children $2,200 voucher, call it a pell grants for kids and let them go to any accredited school, and then requires the states to do that with their money. chairman's the amendment. i think it would run into the same risk of economic dragooning that the chief justice found when he invalidated the law on constitutional medicaid expansion. my friend byd to saying if the friend wants to offer an amendment to provide a bill for a about to kids to take it wherever they want, that is a valid amendment. that can be offered. the second part that we would then mandate states what they

can do with their money, that would not be valid. we cannot do that. we should not do that to states. that would be, i think, totally unconstitutional to mandate with the state does with its own taxing resources. but to the extent that a state, if they want to -- you can say we have them over a barrel, but that is 10%. we will come up with that money ourselves. they can do that. my amendment makes it clear they're free to do that if it wants under the federal system. we are addressing a nationally. the senators have spoken to the national need for kids who live in tennessee.

we do have a national obligation to ensure we meet our national means of an adequate, a proper education. times will change. i believe will be done to get rid of their child left behind, the fact that so many states have come forward, 37 states have come forward on their own and wreak grandfathered them in -- and we grandfathered them in, we do not ask them to change anything, we are working on a real partnership. >> if i may make one more point. i am pleased not with the amendment but the senator's comments. i think i heard it makes it sound like he would not be in favor of senator bennett

position that we can use 10 percent of the money that we spend on the so-called comparability issue to require states to change the state funding formulas. thatll get to that when comes up. becausell get to that, if the state of south out of this system, then they do not have to follow the comparability formula, do they? i would still say they would probably still confront a u.s. constitutional problem, but they would not have to follow what we do here. we have the 12th here. no further debate, all in favor of the harkin debate say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. of all recognize someone on this side for an

amendment. senator nancy. >> i would call it my first amendment. i thank you for the opportunity to do this. it is straight forward. it will get washington out of the business to decide whether schools are failing by conforming to adequate yearly process mandate. however you phrase it. i believe we need to empower states to develop their own accountability systems to ensure students graduate from high school prepare for the work force and college. here is the key phrase, without the need for remediation based on state-developed standards and assessments, as well as any other measurement determined by the states. i believe we need to empower states to develop their own systems to identify schools that need assistance and asked local districts to develop their own strategies for improving these schools. any list of standards that should be locally refined in

most complaints i have heard have to do with the mandatory reading list. that always happens whenever you have a reading list. there will be objections to the reading list. state andld maintain local control in developing academic standards and assessments. the reporting of those. and i think the reporting of that information has made the biggest difference in having people realize it was not the school failing, it was that their child was a leg and a child was part of a group of children failing. so i highly favored the desegregation of the information. i highly favored the reporting of information. what information we make them report on, i have a lot of difficulty stipulating all of

that. great discussions about computer-adaptive testing and the effect of that where we contest kids out of their grade level. again, with adequate reporting, i think parents would be extremely pleased to finally have understandable knowledge about their child and how well they are doing. the reports have come out are so academic that unless you have an education degree or unless you can get a teacher to explain it to you, you do not know where your child is. there are some other mechanisms, and i think states would use those if they have the right to do that, instead of trying to meet accountability standards that we have put in place. i hope everyone will take a look of the actual wording in the amendment. i think it provides a lot of information, but it will

overburden the schools with coming up with a reporting mechanism that will meet all of the requirements in the current bill. i think that will be an over reach. notar as accepting or accepting the money, i do not fit credit will because the money is greater than the money received. i think if you look at the requirements and accountability of this, that the cost will be extremely high for the schools, particularly in comparison to what they will get out of it. think the same thing -- seeing things and plainer english. i do think that can come better from the local areas than they do from the federal area. going to be having a dinner with senator frank and

tomorrow night. we each have daughters better teachers and will be at the dinner, too, and so is a guy named paul tough. senator franken and i have a book exchange that we are doing. that is the book he shared with me. it put a little different light on some of the education things and some of the things we have been doing and no child left behind. even mentions the chicago school district and how they have done things that were wrong and could have done them better. that was under the direction under -- under the direction of the secretary of education. i am learning a lot about education. all of you received this, i am sure. it is no wonder kids do not learn, look at what they teach teachers. i would warn you the first 500 pages show you what they teach

teachers now. it has more to do with the speech i remember by senator byrd when i was about in my fourth year here. he happened to make the mistake of looking at the algebra textbook for his grandchild and found out the first 150 pages were cultural inspection -- instruction. he was pretty upset about it. i know i would be, too. take a look of the last 40 pages of the book that talks about what thomas jefferson expected , im the education system and do not think it would be quite the reporting requirements that are being placed on here. i would ask that you adopted a simplified method of accountability that will still provide all of the information to parents that will need to know whether the child is succeeding or not. that is what no child left behind was about, whether the

child was succeeding, not whether the school was succeeding. and all of the things we could do to make the school look better. it was to make sure the kids are learning. i think my amendment provides an accountability system that will do that. we will leave our coverage of the hearing to go live to the u.s. house. the senate health committee, the hearing will continue live on c- span.org. there will take a break for party lunches at 12:30 eastern. there will continue with more live coverage on the c-span networks. now live to members of the u.s. house as members are about to double in. george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate.

the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. last week i was home. on saturday i had the pleasure to speak to about 50 citizens in the third district of north carolina, which i represent, and i carry this poster with me, mr. speaker, and also have a one-page flier. the purpose of this is to continue to wake up the american people that we are in afghanistan and unless you have a loved one you probably don't think about it. that's human nature. it's not a criticism. but i take this and then i give the flier and it has the

cartoon. mr. speaker, the cartoon says -- it has karzai with a little debit card and he's standing at an a.t.m. machine and at the top it says ciatm. then he says, i'm just making a quick withdrawal. he's got bags of cash at his feet, and then sadly, there's a soldier in the background that says, "i'd like to make a quick withdrawal from here." mr. speaker, last week we had two american soldiers killed and one civilian, and the war keeps going on and on and we in congress just act like it's not happening. i don't understand it. the president has signed a bilateral strategic agreement with the afghans that will keep us there from 2014 to 2024. we're spending $8 billion a month in afghanistan. the c.i.a. admitted in a "new york times" article that they've been given tens of

millions of dollars for 10 years to karzai. he's got to be one of the richest men in the world. we keep borrowing the money from the chinese to give him money. i do not understand it, and i'd like to read just a couple of points from the c.i.a. article. the c.i.a. money, mr. karzai told reporters, was an easy source of petty cash, and some of it was used to pay off mbers of the political group dominated by warlords. mr. karzai said when he met with a c.i.a. station chief, karzai said, "i told him because of all these rumors in the media, please do not cut all this money because we really need it." well, mr. karzai, so do the american people. here we are in congress cutting programs for children and senior citizens, and the congress has a deaf ear to afghanistan. the bill coming up this week from the armed services committee, which i serve on, will have $85 billion

additional money going to afghanistan. mr. speaker, it is time for the american people to show outrage to those of us in congress and say it's time to bring our troops home, it's time to stop wasting lives and limbs and giving money from foreign countries like china that we have to borrow to pay karzai. i do not understand it, mr. speaker, and i'm pleased to say that the people of the third district of north carolina, the home of camp lejeune marine base and the wright brothers took their first flight from my district, they're tired of this war. they're fed up with it. they see no end to it, and we in congress are not meeting our constitutional responsibility for oversight. when you see the kind of money that i just made reference to going to this crook in afghanistan named karzai, there should be hearings being held on that money going to afghanistan. i understand benghazi. i understand the i.r.s. i understand these other hearings that we're having, but

no hearings on the waste, fraud and abuse in afghanistan. mr. speaker, with that i will yield back, but beforehand, i first want to ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to please bless the family of our men and women in uniform. the families who have given a child dying for freedom, god, hold them in your arms. god, i ask to please bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people. i ask god to bless the president of the united states that he will do what is right in the eyes of god for god's people and three times i will say from the bottom of my heart, god, please, god, please, god, please continue to bless america and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington, mr. arson, for five minutes. -- mr. larsen, for five minutes. mr. larsen: mr. speaker, a two packed up o,

their c56r7er and headed out to interstate 5 and headed to their favorite campsite in washington state. crossing the bridge at the skagit river, a large truck ahead of them clipped the frame above. without warning and without time to react, the pavement under dan's pickup fell out from underneath him. next, dan said, it was just a white flash and cold water. like thousands of constituents, i myself have driven over that bridge many times. but now today no cars are crossing it. recovery workers have been hard at work pulling pieces of that bridge, along with dan's pickup, from the flowing waters of that river and quickly . ilding a replacement the fact that no one died in this collapse was a blessing. my colleagues in 2007 when a bridge spanning the mississippi

river in minneapolis killed people and injuring people. today i want to ask my colleagues a simple question. should americans not drive across a highway bridge with a reasonable expectation that it will not crumble away from underneath them? on thursday this week, the senate appropriations, transportation subcommittee will hold a hearing on the river bridge collapse. i spoke this morning to the chairman of the national transportation safety board about its investigation. i'm eager to read the report on the incident. but we already know our aging infrastructure should be enough to make this congress act. 67,000 bridges in our country are rated structurally deficient. 67,000 bridges. when those bridges fall, it isn't just the unlucky few on those bridges who suffer. whole economies that rely on safe and efficient transportation suffer. skagit ridge over the

river connects the entire west coast and has millions of dollars of trade between canada and the northwest. here's the good news, we know how to build safe bridges. there are thousands of civil engineers devoting their lives today to building good structures that don't fall down. but we need to pay for them. we need to maintain our bridges until they are old and then we need to replace them. we can't keep waiting until they crumble into the water below. president obama wants to fix it first by spending $40 billion on highways, bridges, transit systems and airports that are most in need of repair. now, that's a good start, but -- and congress should approve that funding, but if we're really going to do something about our long-term transportation needs, this body, this congress needs to get to work on a long-term transportation bill that doesn't just patch our aging roads but invests in an infrastructure that meets the needs of america's 21st century

economy. have a big league economy with little league infrastructure. now, over memorial day, more than 31 million americans hit the roads. i ask my colleagues, were you among them? how many bridges did you drive over? how many were structurally deficient? if you think your constituents should be able to drive over a bridge without wondering whether it will crumble beneath them, then this congress must act on a long-term transportation bill. it's time to put our money where our safety is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo, for five minutes. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. speaker. it's been just under two months since the attacks in boston, and in those intervening weeks, the silence of muslim leaders has been deafening and that is sad but perhaps most importantly it's dangerous. there have now been at least a ozen attacks of muslim attacks

since february 26, 1993. some have caused death and injury such as the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and hassan's mass shooting in fort hood, texas. other attacks, such as the times square bombing our the unsuccessful underwear bombing a flight were thwarted or aborted. successful in reducing our freedom in the most freedom-loving nation on earth. successful in slowing our economy and successful in demonstrating that an open society can potentially be vulnerable. they were in the former attorney general mike mukasey's words, crimes that are nonetheless meant to send a terrorist message. when the most devastating terrorist attacks on america in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith and performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation falls on those that are the leaders of that faith. instead of responding, silence

has made the islamic leaders across america potentially complicit in these acts, and more importantly still, in those that may well follow. if a religion claims to be of peace, mr. speaker, it is leaders that must reject violence that is perpetrated in its name. some clerics suggest that jihad is nonviolent and it is about making ones self a better muslim. when they understand jihad to be holy war. mr. speaker, decades of middle eastern oil money have propounded this most extreme violent interpretation in mosques throughout the world. less than two months after the 9/11 atrocities, an egyptian muslim brotherhood preacher who is probably the most influential declared suicide bombing to be will he jidge mat. he -- legitimate. he said they are mart irdom attacks -- martyrdom attacks.

there is never any justification for terrorism. no political goal legitimizes terrorism. terrorism is never excusable as a relistens. terrorist actions, killing and maiming, solely islam. they must also publicly and denounce radical clerics who seek to justify terrorism. it is not enough to deny responsibility saying one's own interpretation doesn't support terrorism. moderate emadams must strive to say -- they must cite the koran as evidence that murder of innocence is not good and must refute all claims to the contrary. finally, muslim leaders must say that there is no room for militant islamism in the relidge only of peace. these statements must be made publicly, frequently and in the mosques. yes, in the mosques and where many learn their islamic religion. you know, we have to call evil by its name in order to stamp

it out. downplaying atrocities and rampaging ensures more of them. every muslim leader must unequivocally proclaim that terror committed in the name of islam denies the prophet muhammed and they must do so period. my religion, including in kansas, by fred and his baptist church. in response, hundreds of protestant ministers preach that his actions violate the most fundamental christian traditions sand denounced he and his church's evil acts. spoke n paul similarly spoke out against the evils of nazism. muslim religious leaders must refute terrorist theology. we're now two decades into the islamic radicalists attacking u.s. soil. i know not all muslims support

these actions. one of the islamic forum for democracy has spoken out in a clear and consistent way. another but the silence in the face of extremism coming from the best funded islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across america is deafening. it casts a doubt of peace. this is utterly unacceptable, dangerous, it must end. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega, for five minutes. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that two letters that i have here be made part of the record, one from the national congress of the american indians and the other one from the native american rights fund. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that

the full text of my statement be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i rise today to decry the disparaging name of the national football league's washington, d.c. franchise, the redskins, which i will refer as the r word. for decades, native american leaders and organizations have advocated for an end to the use of the r word as the washington franchise brand because it is derogatory, it is demeaning and patently offensive. recently, 10 of our colleagues explained the violent history and disparaging nature of the r word in the letter to mr. roger goodell, commissioner of the nfl, and what can be deemed as an ignoreant response, mr. goodell responds claimed that neither the intent nor the use of the name was ever meant to denigrate american indians. then, in a dismissive manner, mr. goodell further declares that the r word has a positive

meaning and represents many positive attributes. mr. speaker, i join my colleague, the gentlewoman from minnesota, the co-chair of the congressional native american caucus, congresswoman betty mccollum, who states that mr. goodell's letter, and i quote, is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of mr. dan snyder, owner of the washington franchise, and other nfl owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of native americans. . to embrace the twisted logic that redskin stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect is a statement of absurdity and a total lack of appreciation of the culture of the native american community. i also join, mr. speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from oklahoma, the co-chair of the congressional native american caucus, my dear friend and colleague, a member of the chick saw nation of oklahoma,

congressman tom cole, i state, which he says, this is the 21st century. this is the capital of political correctness on the planet. it is the, very, very offensive. this isn't like warriors or chiefs. it's not a term of respect. and it's needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. they just don't happen to live around washington, d.c. i also join, mr. speaker, my colleague, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, representative eleanor holmes norton, who states, mr. snyder, i quote, is man who has shown sensibilities based on his own ethnic identity. yet refuses to recognize the sensibilities of american indians. and i could not agree more, mr. speaker, with the gentlelady from the district of columbia. mr. snyder more than any of the owners of these nfl clubs to show greater sensitivity towards

our native american community. in fact, i commend mr. snyder for building the third most expensive football franchise within the national football league at well over $1.6 billion as part of our free and open market system in the field of sports. but, mr. speaker, why are we allowing this to be done on the sweat, tears, and suffering of native american indians? recreptly in an interview in the "usa today" newspaper, mr. snyder defiantly stated, and i quote, will never change the name. it's that simple. never. you can use caps. such arrogance is wholly inconsistent with the national football league's fundamental diversity policy, which states, diversity is critically important to the nfl. it is a cultural and organizational imperative about dignity, respect, inclusion, and opportunity. mr. speaker, it is critically

important that the nfl promotes its commitment to diversity and uphold its moral responsibility to disavow the uses of racial slurs. the use of the r word is especially harmful to native american youth, it lowers their sense of dignity and self-esteem. it also diminishes the feeling of community worth among native american tribes. whether good intention or not, the r word is a racial slur akin to the n word among african-americans or the w word among latin americans. america would not stand for a team called the black skins or the yellow skins. such offensive terms or words will no doubt draw widespread disapproval among the national football league's fan base. yet initial coverage by our national media and sponsors of washington's football franchise profits are a term that is equally disparaging to native americans. mr. speaker, so that the public

may better understand, they be more informed, i want to share with my colleagues the history and real origin of how the word redskin came about. mr. speaker, i thank you. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, the administration has a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. no more illegal wiretapping of citizens. no more ignoring the law when it is convenient. that is not who we are. that is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. we will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers and that justice is not arbitrary. this administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. it's not.

mr. speaker, that was candidate obama in the year 2007 when he was attacking another administration. but that was then and this is now. how times have changed. fast forward to the summer of 2013. the summer of surveillance. the department of justice seizes information from 20 different associated press phone lines. the department of justice seized phone records from fox news reporter james rosen and his parents and several fox news phone lines. the n.s.a., which i call the national surveillance agency, seized from verizon business network services millions of it telephone records, including the location, numbers, and time of domestic calls. thursday we learned about another secret government program called prism.

that allows the n.s.a. to search photos, emails, and documents from computers at apple, google, and microsoft, among many other internet sources. mr. speaker, the american people have lost trust in this government. you think? the government spooks are drunk on power and it's time for congress to intervene to prevent the invasion of privacy by government against the citizens. the administration says its snooping activities are lawful. not so fast. let's start with the patriot act which needs to be reviewed, but let's look at it as it now stands. the patriot act requires, quote, a statement of facts showing there is -- there are reasonable grounds to believe the tangible things sought are relevant to foreign intelligence. international terrorism or espionage investigation.

i see no way that the national surveillance agency could be lawfully conducting such a widespread intrusive fishing expedition based on the patriot act or fisa. they are supposed to be justifying each individual search based on lawful grounds. not snooping and prying and spying through tons of data hoping to find a hit on some bad guy. in other words, the government should only be able to collect phone records with a court order for someone they have reasonable suspicion to be connected with a terrorist. government cannot use the soviet-style dragnet approach hoping to catch a big fish while also catching the endangered species of freedom. what the patriot act does not allow is widespread warrantless invasions of privacy where government blindly snoops around looking for some mischief. but the government claims it got some bad guys, two or three terrorists, it says.

well, if so. show us the cases. those cases should be public if charges were filed. but that still doesn't just fight invasion of privacy. let me continue. the administration could also be seizing emails of citizens over six months old without a warrant in its snooping frenzy. unfortunately the law allows this to occur. this needs to be changed. represent zoe lofgren and i are trying to fix that with legislation to reform the outdated electronic communications privacy act by requiring a warrant for government to search and seize emails. such a basic constitutional requirement should be made the law when government wants to arbitrarily take people's emails. the badgering of the fourth amendment must cease. the federal government tries to scare citizens and arbitrarily red lines the fourth amendment.

mr. speaker, technology may have changed over the years but the constitution just does not. we can have security, but not at the cost of losing individual freedom. because, to quote, the constitutional law professor, there should be no choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide. let the summer of surveillance -- but the summer of surveillance continues. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12, section a of rule one, the chair declares the house in recess

u.s. law, from this morning's "washington journal." host: and we're back with steven aftergood here to help us with our conversation about the n.s.a. surveillance

program. let's just begin with how did edward snowden obtain this foreign ument from the intelligence surveillance court? how was he able to get this information? guest: it's a mystery. clearly he had a top-secret intelligence clearance. he was working at an intelligence facility but that does not account for the broad and deep range of access to information that he apparently had. possibly part of the explanation is if he was working as a systems administrator, he could have gotten access to all kinds of compartments that wouldn't necessarily have been part of his job or he had no particularly need to know but he would have been able to access anyway. but it is one of the outstanding, one of the many outstanding questions about this story, how is this even possible? host: you tried to track the government secrecy for your

job. is it easy, difficult? i mean, how would you go about trying to do this? guest: well, i of course am on the outside -- outside of government, outside of the classification system trying to shift the boundaries of public knowledge bit by bit. it's extremely difficult. the system is set up to discourage any kind of -- sometimes any kind of disclosure at all but certainly any unauthorized disclosure, and there are serious barriers in place, physical, cyber, personnel, all kinds of barriers in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening. in this case they all failed. host: why do you think that is? guest: not clear. it may be lack of personnel security. maybe the vetting of this individual was not as rigorous as it ought to have been.

maybe the computer security procedures were inadequate. maybe he's simply a very skilled and determined person who is, you know, able to circumvent the barriers that were in place. i think in a security policy point of view, people want to probe very deeply into that and to understand what happened and what are the lessons to be learned. host: from what you know, how often is a government contractor allowed this type of access versus an employee of the n.s.a.? an n.s.a. official versus a government contractor? guest: well, i mean, neither government employees nor contractors ordinarily would have access to surveillance orders of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, so this level of access is extraordinary for anyone.

but the general principle is that to get access to classified information you first of all need a security clearance. you need to have been vetted and approved as someone who is trustworthy and loyal to the united states and not vulnerable to coercion and so forth. you need a security clearance, but beyond that you also need to have a need to know. in other words, you need to be identified as someone who needs a particular item of information to do a job. and if you have a need to know you can get it. if you don't have a need to know you can't get it, you're not supposed to be able to get it even if you are cleared for that level of classified information. host: in your opinion, is he a traitor or hero? guest: you know, i don't -- i don't subscribe to that framework, and i don't think it's very useful. i think it's, you know, one can say a few things. one is his actions have substantially enriched public

discourse on surveillance policy. we know lots of important things today that we did not know a week ago, so that's in the plus column. in the minus column, well, certainly he violated his nondisclosure agreement. he broke his word. that's an ethical problem. and if government intelligence officials are to be believed he also compromised significant intelligence gathering programs which could put people at risk in the future. so are those the actions of a hero or a villain or someone in between? you know, i think that remains to be seen. host: if he's prosecuted, and some in congress, specifically the chairwoman of the senate intelligence committee, said that he should be, what laws are in play? guest: well, primarily the

espionage statutes, the provisions of thette peenage act which pro-- the espionage act which prohibit the disclosure of the so-called national defense information to an unauthorized person. there are also -- there's also another provision that specifically prohibits the disclosure of communications intelligence which might play -- which might fit into this scenario. these are felony statutes and in principle each count under these statutes could lead to a 10-year prison sentence. host: let's talk about surveillance history lesson written by walter pinkus his column in "the washington post," he writes about 43 years ago when he was a staff director to one of the committees and he asked -- he and the committee chairman went out in the field overseas,

found out what the n.s.a. was doing, listening in on conversations of foreign citizens, came back and said you're going to testify and you're going to tell us everything that you're doing. the n.s.a. balked at the time and then relented. he goes on to say, some legal history, in 1979, the supreme court upheld a decision by the maryland court of appeals which said there is no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed into a telephone system. "the phone company automatically creates and stores a record from the -- host: in other words, what's new here? guest: i'm an admirer of walter pincus and i of course respect his work. i think it is a bit of a contrarian piece that he published today.

there is a difference between saying there's no ectation of privacy associated with a -- your telephone number and saying, ok, well, let's go sweep up all records of all americans and store them in a government database. you know, one thing doesn't necessarily follow from the other. and, of course, a government database is different than a telephone company database. the government has powers and authorities and capabilities that the telephone company does not have. and so it's a -- there is a distinct issue. and it also leaves out a -- other aspects of the history of this issue. 40 years ago, there were extensive public hearings on the conduct of domestic surveillance. we've been missing similar hearings in present year -- in recent years.

the kind of public engagement and public disclosure that characterize the era when walter pincus was in congress is not what we're seeing today. host: he also writes about "wire" magazine and a story in march of twelve, wrote extensively of a utah facility store every google search, every phone call, every piece of data coming in and out of this country. and he asked, were there any follow-up in the mainstream media to james' disclosure or anything close to the concerns voiced on capitol hill this past week? no. guest: you know, what's the difference between some of those past stories and the stories of this past week? the difference is that the latest stories include government documents. this is not their opinion or impression of what's going on. these are actual government documents saying you, verizon business, hand over every day

all of your call records of all of your customers. that's not speculation. that's evidence and it changes the character of the story and also i think helps explain the reaction to it. host: what do you think should be done? we asked our viewers earlier. how should congress respond? guest: well, i say, first, congress should respond. what we've seen up to now is press statements saying, well, we knew about this. we think it's fine. there really isn't any problem. go away. and i don't think that's an adequate or, you know, satisfactory response. i think there needs to be, you know, now that this logjam has been broken, now things that were secret a week ago are public knowledge, there needs to be some real follow-up, some clarification of what are the rules of the road, what is exactly is happening, what protections are in place, what

threats are -- is this program geared to deal with? how well has it been working? what lapses have occurred? what violations of policy are known to have taken place? and so on. think these issues need to be erred. i think i have a prrch which tends towards the privacy perspective, but i don't think that's the important issue. the important issue is that the public be engaged and that public consent be obtained for this program. right now this entire program is being conducted outside of public awareness or public consent, and i think that's a problem. host: on twitter, "i doubt a low level contractor could have gotten these documents. this must have been given to him. there's more going on here." guest: you know, there is something seemingly unusual and definitely unexplained about

the level of access here. it could just be sloppiness in a local facility. many people were also surprised wikileaks y leaks -- episode of the access bradley anning had through the sipir net defense classified network. so strange things happen. host: you talked about engaging the public on this, what this has done has brought it to the forefront. we the people, the white house's website for petitions, just want to show our viewers some of the petitions that have been put up dealing with this. classifying government surveillance of phone records and internet activity, 1,400 signatures.

host: what do you make of this? guest: not very much. people get hink caught up in the -- as snowden himself said, people personalize political issues. i think there is a -- you know, this case, this story, this individual become a proxy in many people's minds for other objections, whether they are partisan or personal or political to administration policy. i don't think that's the right point of pressure from my point of view. i do want -- you know, i want to see our institutions of government functioning properly and accountably and to me that means either congressional hearings or some kind of new commission that is set up to investigate the issue and report on it publicly.

it needs to include significant declassification of -- not of operations, which are likely to be sensitive, but of legal criteria and standards. what is the government's interpretation of the law governing surveillance? that is something i believe is properly public but is not yet available. host: all right. let's hear from john in loveland, colorado, democratic caller. thanks for hanging on the line, jaurn. go ahead. caller: you're welcome. i am a retired police officer. after 9/11, the presence of explosives that may have helped bring the buildings down and -- host: john, i'm going to interrupt you. what does that have to do about our conversation? caller: independent scientists found residue in their own world trade center -- host: all right. we're talking about the n.s.a. surveillance program, so i'm going to move on. adam in stevenville, ohio, republican caller, go ahead, adam.

caller: the world trade center building seven was in a free fall over 100 feet falling 9/11. why isn't the n.s.a. calling for a new investigation -- host: all right, adam, concerted effort here from some callers to call in and talk about this topic. we've addressed it many times here on "washington journal." we have talked about it. let's stick to what we're talking about here which is the n.s.a. surveillance program. steven in hinkley, minnesota, independent caller. go ahead, steven. caller: yeah, good morning. host: good morning. caller: little food for thought. i've been reading a book and -- about lincoln and he said in a statement, america will never be destroyed from the outside. if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we have destroyed ourselves. and mr. snowden, he did not give out any information to any country. he wanted to know -- let the public know this is happening and have a good day, thank you. host: steven aftergood, what are your thoughts? guest: you know, i think

judging from mr. snowden's statement, he was acting as a matter of conscience. he was not out to profit literally or figuratively from the disclosure. he seemed to demonstrate a degree of selectivity. he didn't throw out, you know, all of atabases and that is to his credit. as is the fact that he stepped up and said, yes, i'm the one who did it. that's very unusual and i think commendable. i think it stops short of the kind of responsibility taking that would be appropriate. if he believed it was the right thing to do, i think he ought to turn himself in to authorities and submit to the discipline of democracy, so to speak. he's not done that up to now. you know, this, as far as one could judge, it looks like it

was a public spirited act and motivated by genuine concerns. was it the right thing to do? it's difficult to answer. clearly it comes with a cost, not only to him personally but more importantly to the intelligence programs that were exposed. host: dennis lane tweets in. apparently the whole world is on the n.s.a.'s terror list whofment is watching the watchers, not congress or the courts. guest: you know, congress says that they are watching the n.s.a. and that the court has been put in place to supervise its operations. but it's hard to know exactly how seriously to take that. the senate intelligence committee last year held only one public hearing all year long, and they have not held a hearing with public witnesses are for several years.

so, i mean, they have basically shifted away from the public domain towards the intelligence community. they're providing less and less feedback and information and insight to the interested public. and i think that ought to change. host: how so? guest: i think we need more public hearings, we need more open hearings, we need more outside witnesses, we need more public investigations. senator feinstein, the chair of the senate intelligence committee, said that a report that was completed last year on the record of c.i.a. interrogation programs, post-9/11, is the most important thing that the intelligence committee has ever done. it is completely secret. so the most important thing that the intelligence committee has ever produced is totally unavailable to the public. that makes no sense to me. and i think it needs to be fixed. host: "the baltimore sun" editorial says "weak oversight

is the problem." they say, a more robust separation between the intelligence community and the lawmakers overseeing it is -- guest: you know, it's a serious point. i know it looks different from the inside. the congressional committees are concerned about their own relationships with the intelligence agencies about the degree of cooperation they try to obtain. they sometimes feel they are at a disadvantage and they can't get the information they want. in other words, they feel towards the intelligence agencies the way people like myself feel towards them. but even if that's true, that's

not -- you know, a satisfactory explanation. there have been efforts over the past year to increase disclosure and public reporting on domestic surveillance. i think if some of those efforts had been successful last year then edward snowden might have made a different choice. he might have said, you know what, this thing i'm trying to expose is clear people are already getting better informed about it, i don't need to do this. but the silence from congress created a vacuum that may well have contributed to the decision to leak these documents. host: another posts this morning --

host: reports are he remains in hong kong. donna, republican caller, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say first of all there's more information supposed to be coming out that's being reported this morning. i don't know how much or how they're going to allow it to come out, but it can't be stopped, of course. but we don't know what's coming out. previous n.s.a. whistleblowers have said over and over since this broke that they're warning us that this is not good for us as a nation and, again, they're warning us. so be careful who you're getting your information from and who you're believing here. host: well, let's take that sentiment. steven aftergood. guest: well, that's universally true. need to be ll

skeptical and educated readers and listeners. that doesn't mean that the most alarmist perspective is necessarily the most authentic or the most true. i mean, the way i understand it is people approach this issue from different per expectives. there is a strong privacy perspective which says that there's no justification for the government to be collecting all call records on all telephone users. there's just no justification for it. it's probably unconstitutional. it may violate the fourth amendment. we don't want it. if it's not being abused right now it could be abused in the future. it's unacceptable, period. you could put a lot of people's opinions into that basket. on the other side, there's what you might call a strong security perspective, and that says, look, there are serious

threats to not just individual lives but to the security of the nation. proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. this surveillance system that's been put in place is one of the most effective tools that we have. it has already proven its success, according to the d.n.i., in countering proliferation networks. we've done the best we can to limit the potential for abuse. we have installed oversight mechanisms in other branches of government, and we need to protect security. and from that starting point it leads you to the status quo. you know, my own perspective is somewhere in between there, and i would say what i'm concerned about most of all is strong oversight. and what that means is a confidence that there's robust supervision of these

intelligence programs, including public accountability, public reporting, declassification of the legal standards that are in play and then, you know, let us see where the -- where public opinion falls. but to get this right we need a lot more information and accountability than we've had up till now. host: following up on what that caller said about more information to come. glen greenwald of "the guardian" who first reported this information quoted out of the associated press out of hong kong -- guest: essentially forever.

i mean, since early in the cold war. you know, spy satellites, the u-2 aircraft, those are built by contractors. contractors go all the way back to the 1950es, the contractor role in intelligence. in most cases, they are, you know, they are very effective and efficient. in some cases they are extraordinarily skillful and we couldn't do without them. host: bob, miami, florida, democratic caller, you're up next with steven aftergood, go ahead. caller: yes, mr. aftergood, i have to make a point that when daniel alsberg committed the same type of crimes that these other people have done, he was brushed off by the courts and by congress because it was an unpopular war. also that the russians gave information about the boston

bombers that were ignored that was true. and talk about secret that during world war ii, the machine that the u.s. navy used, similar to the german machine, it was still top secret after all these years, and i'm sure that technology is obsolete. that's basically, sir, i'd like to make a point that incompetency and secrecy go together. guest: thanks for the point. i think that's true. you know, we -- one of the basic fundamental problems with secrecy is that it inhibits error correction. it inhibits the discovery of problem -- of deficiencies in government programs or other programs and makes it harder, therefore, to correct them.

and so if you're -- you know, if you're doing something really great and doing it very well as occasionally happens in intelligence government programs then secrecy can help shield and protect it. if you're doing something stupid or reckless or illegal, secrecy can also help to protect that. so somehow we need to find a way to protect the good secrets that we want kept and to expose the bad, illegal, corrupt incompetent secrets so they can be fixed. host: james r. tweets in -- host: what does the n.s. do, who works there? u.s. the n.s.a. is a government agency. it's part of the department of defense established in 1952 by president truman, and its mission is signals

intelligence. hat is the collection of accident tronic intercepts -- electronic intercepts, electronic transmissions and also computer security. n.s.a. is responsible for code making and code breaking which is an essential part of military and national security communications. they have a work force that is both civilian and military and also increasingly contractor -based and, you know, they are in certain -- in some areas the very best in the world at what they do. and, you know, but they also problematic y of episodes. many of which first became

public in the scandal investigations of the 1970's. so there is, you know -- we need an n.s.a. we need -- just as we need an intelligence community but we also need a short leash to keep it on. that's proven to be a challenge. host: couple tidbits from "the washington times" piece, it's actually an associated press story they're running in the newspaper.

host: n.s.a. code breakers were part of the team that tracked down bin laden that tracked down bin laden at a compound in pakistan in 2011. mike, independent caller, go ahead, mike. ller: i've been sitting hear listening to -- about telephone calls. i watched a program on c-span for facial recognition, and it seems to be they're putting cameras in tv's now, digital tv's and they can be turned on at will. what's to say this is not next? host: steven aftergood. guest: technology is advancing apidly and there's a kind of imperative that says if it can be done it should be done. i think -- you know, this is where public policy has to step forward, play a role in

constrange -- constraining the application of new technologies. , ere's some things that can you know, do great things that were impossible in the past. d.n.a. testing can prove someone convicted of a crime was actually innocent. they can, you know, it can help to locate lost children or to a deceased know, person. there's all kinds of possibilities, there's all kinds of improvement for security that are possible but we need a way to factor in privacy considerations, constitutional values and public opinion. and when it comes to intelligence policies, those kinds of consideration have been missing from the process. host: senator rand paul writes a piece in today's "wall street journal" saying he'd like to protect against the invasion of

american privacy -- host: what do you make of his proposal? guest: well, i mean, there are me assumptions built in that description. it presumes that the activities that are -- that have been disclosed are contrary to law which they may not be or that they are -- that there is data mining of americans' information which i don't think we know to be the case. the d.n.i. said that, yes, we're collecting -- we're doing broad collection of telephone call records, but in order to get access to the

communications, the content of those communications, a particular court order is required. does the collection of the call data alone constitute a violation of privacy? many people will say yes. other people will say no. other people will say it may but it's worth doing in order to prevent acts of terrorism or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. that's a conversation that needs to be flushed out and publicly conducted. host: i would support a privacy amendment, the collection of data does not constitute spying , matt smith. what do you envision? what sort of legislation might work to deal with this privacy issue? guest: you know, the biggest surprise to me out of the last week of stories other than the fact that these leaked documents were leaked was the act that there is broad,

systematic collection of call records, not just of, you know, individuals who might have some relation to a terrorism case but of everyone. local calls, you know, if you're calling your child's preschool or your veterinarian or whatever, the government wants that. .