the five-year farm bill. in about 45 minutes, we will talk with a congressman about immigration policy. jeffries on immigration policy. we will also have congressmen 10 murphy -- tim murphy to talk with the limitation of the new health care law. >> does the fbi uses drones for surveillance on u.s. soil? >> yes. >> i want to go on to a question -- >> let me put it into on text -- in a very minimal way, very seldom. ♪ fbi directors robert mueller yesterday at the senate judiciary committee talking about the use of drones in the u.s.. at a discussion item, we want to broaden the question out of little but as we go through the newspapers here on the "washington journal" and ask you -- is there too much surveillance in the u.s. and around the world? you can see the numbers on the screen.

(202) 585-3881 for republicans, (202) 585-3880 for democrats, and (202) 585-3882 for independents. you can make a comment on our twitter feed -- @cspanwj is the twitter handle. you can make a comment on our facebook page, facebook.com/c- span, or send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org. here is how the "washington post" play that story -- fbi chief admits agency uses drones in domestic surveillance. this is on page a16.

host: that is the "post." "usae front page of opie -- millerhis morning tells lawmakers fbi has used drugs in the u.s. --

host: and finally from the "hill" newspaper on the use of drones -- in the u.s., the fbi admits using drones --

host: and the department of homeland security is widely known to use unmanned aircraft to monitor the u.s.-mexico border. that is from the "hill" newspaper. again, we want to ask you, kind of a philosophical question. whether or not there is too much surveillance in the u.s. i'm going to put the numbers back up on the screen. you can see them there. go ahead and dial in. we will begin taking those calls in just a few minutes. the conversation has already started on our facebook page. i want to read some of these comments here. beginning with steve saying -- need limits, checks, balances, this debate will never and. stephanie says -- our president was recently in germany trying to do justify spying on them.

michael says -- can you compile all that data into something useful? , come on, c-span, you can do better than this kind of question. how many do you expect to call or put -- or posting we need more surveillance? finally, christopher -- big brother is a reality, thinks bush-cheney and the patriot act. those are some of the comment on our facebook page already, facebook.com/c-span, where you can continue the conversation all day long. we will try to get back to some more comments from facebook a little bit later this morning. on the front page of the "new york times" is this article that ties into what we're talking about this morning with surveillance. silicon valley and spy agency agency bound by strengthening web --

host: that is a little bit from " front-pagek times story. is there too much surveillance is the discussion topic this morning on the "washington journal." richard is a democrat in louisville, kentucky. hi, richard. caller: yes. i think there needs to be a balance. i think a lot of the information given out there -- some of it is not needed.

if we constantly tell everybody our secrets, how are we going to protect ourselves? can get the wrong message out there. .eaks and whatnot going on now it is unnecessary. we have to protect our president, protect our country, protect us, so we're going to be unpatriotic and commit suicide. i think there needs to be a balance of what is getting out there, what is not getting out there. we, the people, are the government. when they say government is that, government is not bad, when they talk about irs's bad, it is not the irs. it is people. we trust people. it is up to us to get rid of the people we do not trust. we do but everybody in one ship

and say this government, the iris, it is a person -- the irs, it is a person. host: this is jiminy bronx on the republican line. spying isthink the going to be very difficult to stop. they're going to do it anyway. what we need to do is make sure that we can spy on them. we have to be able to know what they are doing so maybe we can have some drones in washington. host: the with -- who is "they"? --the government? caller: yes. and i think there are a lot of government secrets that we do not know. 9/11, the kennedys, all of these stories. ithington keeps acting like was something else. host: that is jim in the bronx. back to the "new york times" story on silicon valley and the

nsa --

host: to explore the legal and technical issues and making skype calls readily available to intelligence agencies and law enforcement officials --

host: again, this is a little bit from the "new york times" article on the nsa in silicon valley. craig is on our democrat line. caller: good morning, pete. in amerco, people thought the way to get rich was to be famous, and get the kind of notoriety, like the hollywood

star or a rock star so people wanted to be known. nobody wants to live a quiet life here. possibly we are giving away so much information to people because people don't want to just live a simple, quiet life. they want to somehow be known. maybe it is our ego. when a country says we are the number one country, all that does is draw attention to yourself or others to say maybe we think otherwise and we will do something about you being the number one country. as far as the drone thing is concerned, children have had model airplanes for years. it was just a matter of time before he could put a camera on a model airplane and take pictures. i remember one time they used to sell listening devices that looks like radar things. you could hear a person whispering from across the street. those things have been out for years and years. host: craig, all that said, philosophically, where'd you come down on on the use of drones and other surveillance? genie: you can't put a

back in the bottle. it is like trying to undo the atom bomb. once the knowledge is known, it becomes -- how do you leave it in the hands of people who are morally fit to control these things and have a sense of confidence that is the right way to do it? a lot of it has to be discussed, but it is not get discussed. this is the way it is now, pete. host: thank you for calling in. tracy is in san antonio, independent line. caller: it serves me for protection, and in my case, to protect my child, to protect my civil liberties, even a little bit of all that has been taken from me, that is fine. you know what, the service will be used, i feel, -- it is a matter of perception at this point. host: that is tracy in san

antonio. our twitter feed is pretty active on this issue this morning. jan says --e -- surveillance is good if you use it for catching the bad guys, otherwise most will say not in my back yard. this is benjamin -- it is time to reveal that surveillance exists among apologized and gala back significantly. we must vote out incumbents. another -- your freedom is already gone, and due to the fact that germany is the focus of nsa, our freedom of history -- our freedom is history, too. another says -- i guess the terrorists have won. they've have taken our freedom like they wanted. and this last, -- the surveillance is normal for our current police state. we get to only see the tip of the iceberg. u.s. seizure of journalists records called chilling.

this is the ap president, and this is from france 24 -- the u.s. government secret seizure of ap phone records had a chilling effect on newsgathering by the agency and other knows organizations, aps top executive said wednesday -- host: that is just a little bit from this story. another story from the "hill." google is saying we are not in cahoots with the nsa --

host: brian, commerce, georgia, republican line. good morning. caller: i believe you cannot have it both ways. people -- they want to be safe, but then when it comes down to finding out about their surveillance, they are -- or something happens, they will be the first ones to say -- well, why didn't the government do more? so you cannot have it both ways. host: wes is a democrat in spartanburg, south carolina. thank you, pete. and thank you, c-span, of course. we're just talking about government surveillance, right? consider the privates of railings going on in this country. think about choice point, which records all your credit card data, what you have purchased here or there. i tell you what -- as an

example, just go to google sometime and type in a search anda vacation somewhere, then go to your facebook page and see what comes up on the right. you see what i am saying? it is not just government surveillance. we are being surveilled all the time for commercial reasons. i think that is the root of all of it -- the money. does that make sense? do you see where i'm going with this? host: wes, we will leave your comment stand. this was an op-ed printed in "usa today" a couple of days ago. --- vladimir as remov

host: jimmy is an independent, seattle, washington. caller: what i would like to say is i feel like someone needs to question rand paul on this. he comes out about drones killing people, the reason he

was asking this is to protect people like snowden. traders and things. these are neo-nazis and skinheads, racist groups who got these militants. and then surveillance, he knows is coming he is rand paul. somebody needs to question him -- did he talk to snowden? he donated to their campaign. t a lot of is no surveillance. look at what hoover did to black people. the chickens are coming home to roost. what you do to people, sooner or later it will be did unto you. this is legal. what is happening in the united states is things are progressing. we would like to come up with new laws, just like abortion, all this is changing, the surveillance industry is changing. host: that is jimmy in seattle. this is jean and ohio.

too much on twitter, too much surveillance by big business whose now adding facial recognition to databases on us. fbi director robert mueller was at the senate judiciary committee yesterday. here is a little bit more of his testimony. [video clip] two levels of transparency -- first is transparency for the government, transfer the two the fisa court, and also to congress. briefing them i come i think there was transparency to those elements. when you talk about transference into the american public, you are going to give up something. you're going to be giving signals to our adversaries as to what our capabilities are, and the more specific you get about the program, the more specific you get about the oversight, the more specific you get about the capabilities and the successes, to that extent, you have people sitting around saying ok, now i

understand what can be done with in thebers in human and united states, and consequently i will find another way to communicate, and i will keep that in my mind. so there is a price to be paid for that transparency. now where that line is drawn in terms of identifying what our capabilities are is out of our hands. you tell us to do one way, we will do it that way, but there is a price to be a for that transparency. facebookore of our comments, steph says the government is just not watching you peoples boring, daily lives. another says -- freedom of the cost. if they were not doing surveillance, then any enemy of the u.s. could attack us from inside the u.s. and just as -- this should be treated as wiretaps. they should have to get a warrant for the use of drones. one more comment from jeff -- anybody here on social media are an open book, anybody can spy on you. again, facebook.com/c-span if you want to continue that conversation.

diane, a republican in new york, what are your thoughts? .aller: good morning, peter i had to call in with my opinion about this whole thing. i think we americans are just so tired. i had to speak up about this administration. i know when president bush was president, he was put under a microscope every day. ever since mr. obama has been in office, there has been kindle after scandal, issue after issue. whether it is the appointment of powers or surveillance, fast and furious, spying on military courts, irs targeting ,onservatives, the nsa, drones benghazi, the list goes on and on. obama said himself -- the buck stops with him. i wanted accounting. i want an investigation. i wanted it to the bottom of this because i know know he knows about it. enough is enough. people have got to read the constitution and incensed on on theh and insist

adherence to it. i hope c-span does not give its call records to the government. there are many and out here who strongly is agree with obama. we are not extreme. obama seems to live in a glass tower, and nobody questions them about anybody -- about anything. where is he now? host: all right, diane, let's leave your comments there. of course, we do not keep our call records. "new york times" -- wikileaks says it is working to negotiate asylum in iceland for nsa leaker -- host: no comment yet from the

country of iceland. from "usa today," this article -- host: from "usa today" this morning. joe in maryland on our independent line. joe, what are your thoughts

about too much surveillance or not? caller: i think the basic thought is it is something that has probably been going on for a while. the problem comes down to we are throwing a lot of different cases together. the snooping of facebook, the internet, and e-mails, the ap, and the iris cases. i do think that they are different animals in the sense that the ap and the iris were targeted, where the facebook and e-mail issues were more through a broad spectrum where they are trying to move through data to see if they can find a hot word for terrorists. i think the question comes down our rogue elements using this information for nefarious reasons, so if you have somebody ,ho does not like liberals very liberal people, they start snooping through the e-mails, and they start finding people

that they don't politically agree with, if they utilize that information and give that information to groups, i think the penalty has to be very severe to dissuade that type of behavior. i think that is what it comes down to. if we are going to live in a nation that is not going to look -- i understand the arguments am a but are going to want to throw these broad things than to get this information and isolate where we see terrorist threats, i think this is something we're going to enforce and we have to realize it is going to be a reality. host: we're going to leave it there. from the "hill" this morning -- 65% wants congress to hold public hearings on nsa --

host: dennis, claremore, oklahoma. republican line. hi, dennis. appreciate you letting me make a comment. i think people are against a railing because of the lack of trust in the government. the new reports on the twa flight 800 is another example of the cover-up, and the reason the people do not trust the government, the show myth busters proved that the fuel tank did not blow up from internal spark or leak. for them to deny for all these years is just a cover-up, and that is why people do not trust the government, and arrogant surveillance. the "washington post," irs may pay bonuses despite sequester --

" thisand from "usa today morning about the president's trip to berlin --

host: next call from comes from kathy in cleveland. caller: i am a teacher, and i cannot agree with everything, but i am thinking back to the 1970's. i know that as a way back, but i would think about that old song, th"the revolution will not be televised." i pulled it up on my computer. i've been trying to lay low when myck in 2010 friends were getting visits from guys in suits, and i said wakit, i've got to check out of this because they're watching this. so i have have known about this since 1975. host: kathy, what have you known about? caller: about to give. i am a mathematician. i was hanging out with the physics people. host: have you been investigated since 1975?

caller: not me. i'm sure they have a file because silly me he went and them know what my iq was, but i've been chilling out since then, and now everybody acts like it is a big surprise. host: kathy in cleveland. this is from "politico" this morning --

host: that is a little bit from -- "politico" article this morning. joseph says -- is ivan surveillance any less offensive than government surveillance joyce say? joyce says -- i wonder what russians and chinese think about our government spying on citizens. deja vu? another call, what do you think? caller: we have been surveilled when hoover was around, as i recall reading about, or listening to my parents talk.

i don't know if we, the citizens, considering after 9/11 we were just supposed to go about business as normal, as usual, and to not let the enemy that was not in our country get us down. so i have gone about my if i knewand i am -- of someone, i would probably write them out. rat them out. i think some of this is necessary, but i really don't believe that the transparency is necessary. i think the dod is doing a really good job by trying to prison there in cuba. and i am a democrat, go figure. [laughter] host: all right, that is

felicity in hartford, connecticut. thank you for calling in. a new statute in the capital, and here is a picture in the "washington post." frederick douglass has arrived in the capital. this young man right here him and his name is austin frederick bailey morris, and he is the great, great, great grandson of frederick douglass. you can see him looking up at the statue. the dedication with yesterday. c-span covered it. you can watch that on our website, c-span.org. gerald, long beach, new york, independent. hi, gerald. caller: i am absolutely astonished by people that say, to protect our liberty, we have to give them up. do they understand -- do they hear themselves? our liberties, we have to give them up. that is great. what really wanted to say is obama, when sequester first hit,

he did not know what to cut first. white house doors, air traffic controllers, food for the poor, what can i cut? cut the nsa. we don't need -- it is not only we don't need, it goes against everything this country stands for. everything our founding fathers put down. if we don't have a constitution and bill of rights, there is nothing to stand up and salute the flag for. america does not exist anymore. we have to dismantle the system. nsa,dent obama cut the cut the irs, cut the cia, massively, massively, cut them back to reality. we will be america again. this is not america. this is more like not see germany. this is very terrifying. if americans are not terrified, then i am really scared. host: that is joe in long beach, new york. "politico" this morning -- joe

biden heading to massachusetts for ed markey -- host: this is also from "politico" this morning -- the next call on too much surveillance comes from carl in west virginia, republican line. hi, karl. caller: good morning. i listened to the guy from new york. the terrorists set off a bomb in new york city, he would be among the first to say -- well,

why did you not know about that before it happened? they are always pointing fingers. but what i wanted to say is every major police department uses helicopters now to track down the bad guy. so what is the difference in the a drone or a helicopter? as long as they don't start shooting hellfire missiles at the bad guy, i am good with it. he read an article a while ago .bout the irs and $70 million well, that is hush money. that is all that is. hush money. they let that woman, they suspended her with pay. that is to keep her mouth shut. this iris thing is getting to be a bad situation. irs thingthe -- this

is getting to be a bad situation. scares the heck out of me. host: linda is in knoxville, tennessee. o haro pointed out in his 2005 "no place to hide," that the reason the u.s. congress has been so reluctant to pass any sort of legislation to regulate how private companies like, sore, and exchange data is precisely because they want the government to be able to get its hands on it. this is similar to the point the "new york times" is making. i think the people who think of themselves as being so worldly -- they already know this is all in private hands. they are the ones who have been hoodwinked into thinking this condition is normal. it is not have to be this way. the internet grew up and went

public in the 1990's, there were many opportunities, as the companies began to figure out how to store this data, where it legislation could be. and they just did not do it. .obody was stopping them the companies themselves were surprised. it is not stopping here. 's ceo onhad comcast the "communicators" this monday telling us very happily how they plan to start bugging the -- your set top box. they're going to follow the clicks on your remote. nobody is saying anything. i think osama bin laden is rotting at the bottom of the indian ocean, and he woulon. host: from the "know your times -- the "new york times."

host: that is the "new york times" this morning, and this is from the "hill." host: next call is darrell in

houston, texas. independent line. what do you think? caller: thank you for taking my call. i do have a small statement about surveillance. it is not something new to us. year-round we get census, voter just ration, everything we go on is after the system. my comment is, justify the wicked, so condemn us, or an abomination to the lord. thank you for taking my call, and you have a last day. host: the eisenhower memorial design has now been approved. eisenhower memorial's overseers after 14y's design years.

, you get the last voice on this issue of surveillance. caller: i just want to make a statement on the lady from new york that called an earlier about the president. most of us out here are so tired of hearing about that. when they're supposed to be working for us and taking care of their business, and i am in nursing. you are supposed to have an opinion, which obama does not really have.

on surveillance, i have one question for them -- if you don't have it, those people spying on us, i mean, me, personally, i want to live. if they're not doing anything wrong, what are you scared of? i see nothing wrong with surveillance. what i do see something wrong with is a traitor. that is who you should be concerned with, someone going to another country, betraying their country, and all of this. it is supposed to be top-secret surveillance. now they just help the other people decide to go another route. that is what you should be concerned about. and congress should be working with him. i care more about jobs, and i speak for 90% of the people out here could we are so tired with the of session of the republicans with the president that we do not know what to do. we need to get the job done and quit all this amateur among professional talk. you need surveillance, and you need to make up your mind, whoever is out there, if you

want to live or if you want to die. this is a new world, it is a computerized world, and if you have nothing to hide, what are you scared of? i do not care what they say on the phone. and i have never seen anybody gets busted for talking about selling weed or buying it down the block. secret.d have been kept if you people don't want to live, speak for yourself. i would rather live just a little bit longer. thank you. a couple of twitter comments to finish up. i'll assess -- the difference between president obama and bush are warrants. one says bipartisan civil liberties are chilled by drones, spy versus spy, skype, google, radar guns, accident scene, etc. article, from page ," the "washington post talking about the pullout in

afghanistan, how much it will cost -- host: again, the house is coming in at 9:00 to continue work on the farm bill peered we will be going out at that time. the "washington journal" will be going out. hakeem jeffries is going to be out here, a member of the judiciary committee. he will be followed by apresentative tim murphy, republican of pennsylvania, as we continue on the "washington journal" this morning. ♪ >> in a lot of ways, this is a challenging time for people who are conservatives. we have got not only a

democratic president, but a quite liberal democratic president, who is not only been elected but reelected after being put into play some ideas and programs and projects that i think are very wrongheaded. the public had a chance to think about i, and they did real i can. so it is a challenging time. it is also an exciting time if what you are trying to do, i say i try to do, and many others try to do, is modernize conservatism. ringing in line with the challenges the country faces right now to help conservatives and therefore the country think about how to control the challenges in the 21st century. neither party is doing ever get double that. there is a lot of opportunity to think about what america in the 21st century needs to change about the way it governs itself. to get back to economic growth, to give back to prosperity, to get back to a kind of cultural revival that we need. so it is challenging, but it is exciting. >> more with national affairs editor yuval levin sunday at

8:00 on c-span's q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: now joining us here on " is"washington journal hakeem jeffries, a member of the initial committee. if we could start with where we were talking with our viewers knowmorning, and i do not how much you heard. we were talking about the nsa and other issues and asking if there is too much surveillance in the u.s.. that is a legitimate question. the question we in the congress should be asking at the executive branch level at this point. it has got to be an appropriate balance between national security interest, and certainly we live in an increasingly dangerous world. civil rights and civil liberties and privacy interests that we as americans cherish, some of the things that make us special as americans, striking that appropriate balance. we have got to make sure that there has not been government overreach as it relates to

surveillance that is not in the best interest of those privacy rights that we think are important to us in this country. host: is this an issue that has been explored at the judiciary committee level at all geck? guest: we recently had a judiciary meeting with the outgoing fbi director. several of the members did question director mueller on this particular issue. some of the information is classified and has to be explored in a closed session. but there are legitimate questions to be raised, such as -- is it necessary for the nsa and for the government to acquire the phone records and metadata of every single ofrican over a fixed period time, what was revealed at three months, without any clear indication that the particular phone records are linked to individuals who may be a threat

to the united states of america? the judiciary committee, and other issue is the issue of. where does it stand in the house? guest: in the house, we have been working up and reviewing a series of bills that have been presented on immigration with ized topics.aise most recently, yesterday, we mark up a bill related to farm workers, trying to determine what was the appropriate way of filling a clear need for those who help with the food supply in america. former -- farmworkers are individuals who work angrily heart under incredibly difficult circumstances. i believe we need to create a guest worker program that will th tode an eventual pas citizenship while filling the needs of the agricultural industry, but making sure these workers can operate in faith and -- in safe and humane

environment. host: what he think of the piecemeal approach that the house judiciary committee has taken approach -- as opposed to the senate? guest: a conference of approach is necessary at the end of the day. my preference would be the senate approach, but we can look at every single aspect of immigration. we have got a broken system. almost everybody acknowledges that. it needs to be fixed. the best way to do it, and the most responsible way, would be to undertake a comprehensive approach. cameronthe credit of goodlatte, the chairman of the house judiciary committee, he is indicated the piecemeal approach is not designed to simply address some issues and not others, but that he has come to the conclusion that a sequential approach to raising the different issues that will be important in the context of immigration reform and a manner

that he thinks is best at this moment. host: politically is the senate bill up she mobile -- bill achievable in the house? guest: absolutely. we've seen three instances this year where legislation that was passed in the senate in a bipartisan way, first with the fiscal cliff agreement in early january, second with the superstorm sandy alief package that was passed, and then thereafter, a strong, bipartisan vote in the reauthorization of the violence against women act. it comes out of the senate with the support of the american resident in the american people, land and the house of rep is in it is, where leadership, in those three instances, has made the decision to allow for a vote. there will be pressure for a bipartisan vote in the senate, for us in the house to take a very close look at it for her to be given an up or down vote.

host: senator grassley was talking about the immigration bill and the cbo report saying it would reduce the deficit if passed. i would like to get your response to what he had to say. [video clip] >> the group of eight said they would write a bill to ensure that the problem would not be revisited, we find today the congressional budget office thinks entirely different. , may not always agree with cbo i disagree with the fact that cbo has used dynamic economic effects to score this bill when they don't use it on anything else, yet they refuse to provide the dynamic scoring, particularly on revenue bills. but everyone knows what the cbo says goes. i'll we say on the senate floor -- cbo is god. they say something is going to cost something, and you want to dispute what they say, you have

got to have 60 votes in this body to overturn a point of order against the cbo. guest: well, i think the cbo report provided further evidence to the need to pursue copperheads of immigration reform. it made clear that in the first 10 years if the senate immigration reform bill is to be passed into law, it would rip -- result in personally 175 $5 billion in deficit savings. an additional 700 le dollars in deficit savings heard that it's come -- consequential. friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the moral imperative dealing with the deficit and debt crisis in america. certainly it is a significant problem. we've got to do front appeared we've got to get the economy jumpstarted and back on track in a manner that is sustainable

for the programs that we all care about. one of of the ways to clearly do that at the -- at the cbo has indicated, and this is a nonpartisan operation, is to pass copperheads if immigration reform that provides an additional piece of evidence as to why this is so significant for us to get done and to get done sooner rather than later. ,ost: congressman jeffreys what is another issue, before we go to calls, that you focus on or that you think the congress should be addressing? i think we have to do with the gun violence problem we have in america. it is, katie, i understand that, but certainly as americans focus on the problem, and the aftermath of the tragedy in newtown, connecticut, the issue that we confront in the district, i represent a very urban district that has several neighborhoods in east new york,: the island, brownsville, that in the last several decades have gunrienced issues in

violence. almostevery reagan, -- every weekend, there is an issue that has resulted from an illegal gun that is travel into brooklyn that finds itself in the hands of someone who does to an individual or child or senior in a district that i represent. this is not just affect urban america, it affects suburban america, as we saw in december of last year. it affects parts of rural america. i am hopeful that once we get through immigration reform, the senate will take another look at the comprehensive background check legislation that has been proposed, as well as other components of the package that deal with the gun violence issue that we have in this country. host: again, politically, do you think that is going to happen? guest: i think we have to get through comprehensive immigration reform first. that is not to say that the

senate or house of representatives cannot multitask, but the reality is, n incrediblye a complex issue, that has implications that people are thinking through on both sides of the aisle, we had to do it in sequence. there is momentum right now for of immigration reform. i'm will to that we will get it ore in the late summer orally fall, italy certainly in the senate with something in the house, and then hopefully that point we can turn that -- turn back to dealing with the gun violence issue. jane tweets -- copperheads of is never the way to go. the reason politicians like them is because they can sneak all sorts of favors and. guest: i certainly understand that some americans are very cynical whenever you have got a significant bill, hundreds of pages, that provides opportunities for all sorts of amendments, and individual

members of congress insert programs that may benefit their constituents, but with the brokenness of the immigration system that we have, and the fact that the moment in time to deal with this issue the last time we dealt with comprehensive immigration reform in a manner that resulted in legislation was in 1986 when president ronald reagan. there were many who looked back at that effort. there were some positive things that were done. not enough occurred to fix the broken system in a manner that has not required us to take another look at it. we have a 11 million undocumented americans who exist in this country, who are in the shadows. areoverwhelming majority hard-working, family oriented, entrepreneurs will, they want to

, andre -- entrepreneurial want to be here and want to take part of america. people on both sides of the aisle recognize you cannot ignore a 11 million undocumented americans living in this country. that is why comprehensive immigration reform is important. host: our guest is congressman hakeem jeffries. he spent six years in the new york state assembly. he is a lawyer. he has is law degree from the new york university school of at after getting a master's georgetown and a bachelor's act suny binghamton. did you get to know george sotomayor week -- judge sotomayor? guest: i have been present of

several speaking engagements. she was elevated to the circuit court. she is a phenomenal justice. some important issues right now in front of the supreme court of the united states. host: he has just been elected to his first term in 2012. if you would like to participate in our conversation, the numbers are on the screen. the line, a democrat. speak ai would like to little bit this morning about the bush administration. i think they are still trying to world order. where is his world order standing right now? host: what do you mean by that? he said he was going to have the new world order.

he is still trying to run the united states and the world. nothing has been passed in the congress and the senate. it seems like it is going their way. they are all in cahoots together brothers investing in the united states. national geographic will give you the story of the koch brothers. it is forming a communist nation, is what it is all about. host: is there anything you would like to say to martha? some: there were clearly implications with the bush presidency that president obama is dealing with. he has gotten us out of iraq. he has executed on that commitment. we are heading out of afghanistan by 2014. that is another important step forward. clearly, president obama inherited a more dangerous world. something has to be done to deal

with the threat of global terrorism. it is calling into question our ability to provide the same level of freedom we have come to expect in america. things changed when the towers collapsed. two planes struck us in new york city. we still have to make sure those fundamental commitments to privacy, civil liberty, to allowing americans to be able to maintain some reasonable expectation of privacy -- those things continue to be important as well. in congress, we have to make sure the administration and subsequent administrations are striking the right balance. host: the next call comes from mary lou on our republican line. please go ahead with your question. judiciarye senate committee with the fbi oversight

muellerley did not ask one question that he should have asked. had 1000 threats in boston. why would they allow the marathon if they were so concerned about americans? i did not hear any of the oversight as fbi that. not only that, there are mexicans who are unlicensed driving vehicles, switching license plates. i have even seen people in my own town doing that. when they get into an accident, a lot of americans are not being compensated for that because of it. areal businesses everywhere hiring these mexicans. they do not care. host: we are going to leave it

right there. congressman, is anything you would like to respond to? guest: there are undocumented americans who come to this country from all over the world. they come to this country to pursue the american dream leaving difficult economic circumstances. we have to make sure everyone in this country, both citizens and legal residents and undocumented residents who will be transitioning to citizenship comply with the law, do not have a criminal background, are committed to making sure we all hold the values that are important to us in this country. i believe the overwhelming majority of people who are here without authorization are committed to doing that. i will leave it at that other than to say at the house the sheer committee with the fbi, -- house judiciary committee with the fbi, several people asked him about the boston situation.

we should learn from it does things that could have been done that were not done to make sure we can best fend off this kind of domestic terrorism in the future. ist: congressman jeffries also a member of the economic committee. i want to get your response to what fincher bernanke had to say. [video clip] share -- fed chair ben bernanke had to say. [video clip] inwe have gone to a period the first half of the year with subdued growth. where does this optimism come from and how confident are you that these that petitions will be met? >> the fundamentals look a little better to us. in particular, the housing

sector, which has been a drag on growth since the crisis, is a support to growth. it is not only created construction jobs, but as house prices rise, it increases household wealth. state and local governments are now coming into a position where they no longer have to lay off large numbers of workers. generally speaking, financial conditions are improving. the the main headwinds to growth this year is the federal fiscal estimatesich the cbo is 100% of growth. the economy is moving ahead at at least a moderate pace. the underlying factors are improving. we will see how that evolves. we have not seen the full effect of the fiscal policy changes.

we want to see how it evolves as we get through the fiscal impact. several things were mentioned that i think are important. the economy is improving. it could be doing even better if not for some irresponsible policies we have allowed to take shape in the congress related to sequestration. $85 billion in randomly distributed cuts. nobody in congress think this is a good idea. my constituents and others can reasonably ask the question, why have we allowed it to take place? independent economists have suggested it will cost the economy 750,000 jobs, 1.5 percentage points in economic growth. byislation sponsored congressman john conyers to repeal the sequester.

a sequester replacement has been offered. the problem we face in the congress right now -- the senate and the house have passed budget resolutions. the next step would be for con ferees to have a conversation and figure out how to find common ground. after four here is, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, led by the speaker and the chairman of the budget committee say, we want rental order and we want conference committees. now there -- we want regular order and we want conference committees. now there is a chance to have conference committees. we have had a very schizophrenic economic recovery. corporate profits are up. the stock market is up. the productivity of the american worker has increased. unemployment remains stubbornly

high. the wages of the american worker have been stagnant. we have been losing ground, not gaining ground. we need a more robust economic recovery related to working families, middle-class america, young people starting out in pursuit of the american dream. congress can do more. we should do more. instead, what we have been left policy isr fiscal holding back economic growth. host: congressman, he said the budget impasse of the conference will hopefully break soon. do you have knowledge that the leaders in the house and senate are moving toward having a budget conference? bipartisanave seen calls on the senate side for conference committees and for the house republicans to move forward with the next step in the process.

ofcan sit down, both sides the aisle, and have a conversation about what is the correct approach as it relates to our deficits, debt, reducing unemployment and stimulating economic growth. there are dish -- issues that are pretty significant in terms of what we believe is the right thing to do, a balanced approach to deficit-reduction, investing in our economy, finding additional revenue, standing up for important social safety net programs such as social security and medicare. on the other side of the aisle, the budget that what -- was put forth by the house seems to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society. we are in a divided government context. what that means is that the american people have sent members of congress to

washington to say, work it out. figure out where there are areas of common ground so we can advance an agenda that makes sense for the strongest possible economic recovery. i am hopeful we can do it. as we approach the end of the fiscal year and the beginning of a new october 1, 2001, that will provide the opportunity to revisit the need to sit down and began to work things out. host: does the budget committee have in hearings scheduled? isn't the work done for the year or not? guest: we will have some hearings moving forward. there was legislation we marked up yesterday related to the budget process. many of us believe the most significant thing the budget committee and the congress on the house and senate side can be doing at this point in sitting down and talking about a budget for this country.

we cannot continue to govern by continuing resolutions. there is no forward-looking planned for investing in america, standing up for -- -- for standing up for america. things that government is supposed to do for the well- being of the american people. there is no forward-looking road map. i am hopeful the budget committee will turn its attention toward that. houston, texas, independent line. immigrants say most come from all over the world. the indisputable fact is that 67% of them come from one

country, which is the country of mexico. mexican, there are 30 stations on the radio. it is hard to get an english radio station. not want toants do assimilate, to learn english or be part of the american culture. they want to make this the same as the place they ran away from, which does not make sense. why are democrats so reluctant to secure our borders? republicans are fighting to secure the border. they tell us the borders are secure and we know that cartels are in 200 american cities, which flies in the face of telling us the border is secure. host: a lot on the table. thanks for calling in. points thatates two

i would like to address. two point i'd like to address. we have been even more focused on making sure whatever happens moving forward in the context of comprehensive immigration reform must involve secret -- securing our borders for the immigration reform package will be something that will have to be reviewed down the road. that is not something any of us believed would be the appropriate approach. the last time immigration reform was discussed in any meaningful way, 2005-2006, there were several benchmarks put into place as it relates to securing our borders, many of which have succeeded. 20,000 customs and border patrol agents. that would have represented a dramatic increase.

right now we have 21,400. surveillanceideo assets, radar, things of that nature, cameras to help secure the border. at this time, we have an excess of 250. construct a sense along the southwest border in particular, which is the most an idealnt one -- in ,orld, 652 miles should be done at least in the first days. significant progress has been made. the obama administration is reporting record numbers of undocumented individuals, 400,000 or more in the last year or so. there has been progress in this area. with respect to your other point, it is certainly the case

that a significant number of undocumented immigrants cross over the southwest border. this is an incredibly large border. many of them come from mexico, and economically distressed company -- country. things are improving their. there are latino immigrants, eastern european, south asia. i come from a city that has had a long immigrant tradition of folks coming from western europe, from ireland, from italy, from all parts of the world. it has made new york city the greatest city in the world, a tremendous international city. we come from a country of immigrants and that is a tradition that should be respected. host: our last call comes from barbara, a democrat. caller: hello? we are listening. just turned down the volume on your tv and state your question.

caller: i hear about all of the jobs. what about the people who are married to american citizens. i am an american citizen. my husband is an immigrant. it is just so difficult. i am being punished because i have not been able to get everything legalized and everything. in other words, it should be a little bit easier for somebody who is married to an american citizen. you did not mind issuing why not license, so make it easier for someone who is married to someone who is illegal? guest: thank you for that question and observation. you are absolutely correct. one of the suggestions that senator schumer and the gang of

8 on the senate side and the negotiators on the democratic and republican side of the aisle of the house are attempting to promote the value of family reunification. it should be easier for people who are on a pathway toward lawful citizenship to be able to get the paperwork for themselves, but bring their families here. people with a family structure are more likely to make a positive contribution to our society. it is a value that i will be promoting and i believe people throughout the congress on both sides of the aisle will promotes if we move forward in this debate. host: congressman jeffries, how would you describe the economic health of your district? guest: things are improving. in the economic collapse of 2008, several people lost their jobs.

many are under-employed or not working in their field of chosen professional endeavors. that is problematic. the economy is perhaps still the most significant issue that we confront. that is one of the reasons why is one hopeful that the socially divisive issues we have dealt with -- the american people want us to turn the economy around into what we can to make their lives better. that certainly continues to be the most significant issue i confront and i am hopeful things will turn around in the next several months. host: we have been talking with congressman hakeem jeffries. we appreciate your time. timng up next, congressman murphy of pennsylvania. outside the pittsburgh area is his district. we will talk to him about

several issues, including the health insurance exchanges as they come on line. we will be back after this news update from c-span radio. >> an update on afghanistan. a conciliatory gesture it is needed ahead of any direct talks with washington about peace in the country. the group once five of its senior operatives released from guantanamo bay in exchange for an army officer who disappeared in 2009. secretary of state john kerry is expected to have a meeting with the taliban as he travels to qatar. abc news is reporting that the senate gang of 8 is moving to strengthen their bill. is second capitol hill source says there will be a major

border buildup with a huge increase in border personnel and an increase in fencing. the legislation will deliver the 70 votes desired by the bipartisan group. on an historical notes, on this day in 1782, the great seal of the united states was approved. thomas jefferson and john adams were assigned the task of creating the seal for the new country. by final seal was created john thompson. 13 stripes on the flag, 13th 13 arrows, the seal is a testament to the number of colonies at the time. the steel can be found on the modern-day $1 bill and the rug in the oval office. to ourus not be blind

differences. let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. if we cannot in the now our differences, and least we can help make the world safe for diversity. all free men, wherever they may live our citizens of berlin. i takere, as a free man, pride in the words -- >> you see a much different president kennedy than in the first year. in 1963, you see a different one again, who is preparing the a real shot at the ban and his nuclear test treaty. at the same time, also building up defenses and seeking a way

toward peace with this american university speech. >> looking back at the 50th anniversary of jfk's peach speech, part of american history tv, every weekend on c-span 3. " "washington journal continues. host: now joining us is representative tim murphy. he is a member of the energy and commerce committee. he is chair of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. implementation and creation of health care legislation. we wanted to start there, if we could. this was a front-page story in the wall street journal yesterday. health insurance exchanges are falling behind schedule.

enc your point at the committee, where does this stand? guest: we are a couple of months behind. we have several levels happening. we have the small business option that is supposed to have been exchanged going. they may have only one to choose from. that is going to affect competition and choice. you have other exchanges that are supposed to be ready to go soon. how can businesses start to review plans to make determinations? how can individuals make those determinations? by october 1, they are supposed to be ready. on several levels, we are just not ready. my committee is asking for more documentation, more leave you to determine how far along we are. we have had hearings on this and have been told, do not worry, everything is fine. i liken it to be seen in

baconl house" where kevin says, all is fine while everyone panics. a neutral organization, is saying things are far from ready. we are not actually trying to slow anything down. we are trying to find out if it is ready. we do not want the american public or employers to be fed false information only to find in october they do not have the choice. what we are seeing in the gao report is that some things are ready and some things are not. in these next three months, the biggest change in anything done in this country, is it going to be ready? i have my concerns about that. every member of congress' office

will be loaded with calls about, what do i do about this? we simply do not have anything to say yet. host: when it comes to the exchanges, are you supportive of the approach to the exchanges in general? should the states run their own? guest: as part of the gao report, that is not ready. it is the law of the land. how do you make this thing work if it is going to be there. if it has problems, point it out. good.has strengths, i would like the marketplace to be wide open nationwide so you really can choose. if there is only going to be one plan, there is no exchange, there is no competitive marketplace. the nationwide survey of askednce companies -- we

them, how you think rates are going to go? a said they expected rates to go up 90%. in some cases, 400%. it will depend on your age in your agenda. for the most part, the promise that this will lower costs -- the crew -- the groups are out there saying you are rates will go down. this is not true. that is another area we are concerned about. host: your subcommittee has been looking at the issue of hhs secretary sebelius getting money for enroll america. what is the status of that investigation? guest: we have asked for information on that. we hope it will be forthcoming. to the extent that anyone uses their office to solicit money,

you should not do that. i do not know if she has done that. i do not think she has. it is something we need to get honest answers about. to be raising all of this money to be advertising a federal plan is a concern. is someone crossing a line? we have asked for information so we can review this. host: representative tim murphy, a republican from pennsylvania, is our guest. he represents the 18th district in pennsylvania, which is where? guest: south, east, and west of the city. the southwest corner. the mason-dixon line ends in my district. when mason and dixon were setting up that line, the cam across an indian chief who said, you are not going any of -- came across an indian chief who said, you are not going any further.

host: representative murphy, we started off this morning asking the question, is there too much surveillance in the u.s. by government, by private business, etcetera? do you have its philosophical approach to that issue? less than when a first read 1984, we were all frightens. -- i first read 1984, we were all frightened. people are posted on facebook where they are and what they are doing. that is all out there. if you are telling people about yourself, that is going to be out there permanently. the most private things you do in interpersonal communication

may be the u.s. mail. that is not the way people are looking at things to anymore. we will continue to watch for over reach. certainly things about the nsa concern us if they are doing more than what the law says they should do. if we have this database of phone records -- we have been assured that they are not listening in on calls or the content of calls. they are looking for links between them. they told us 50 plots have been thwarted through this. we have to it knowledge that we have to continue our review of nsa. tweak the law. certainly the young man who exposed to this, if you wanted to tell people that there was over reach, why did he have to go to china? why did he have to expose so much more.

it is different if you are saying we are reviewing more of these calls than saying by the way, russia, china, we are doing this on you. host: representative murphy is a psychologist. he has spent 30 years in private practice. andt: private practice also children's hospital in pittsburgh. the first call for him -- host: the first call from him comes from susan. i just wanted to say that i am glad the republicans accepting the affordable care act. they have not come up with any plan to cover americans. i am glad you are on a committee that is looking into -- even if you tweak it -- making it

better. all americans should be covered. i am sneaking in another topic because you were not sticking to the topic, so i feel validated in talking about immigration for a second. i think republicans are going backwards. congress is going backwards on the immigration issue. you should stop with the document link -- start with documenting all of the immigrants that are here. terrify and to e- prosecute employers who hire and prosecuterify employers who hire people who are not documented. then you go to the border. you will always have a desperate people doing desperate things to get over the border. even with the berlin wall, people were shot at.

the wall did not stop them. the wall -- america does not do that. people will still try to get over the wall. the point.t let's get an answer from congressman murphy. guest: republicans do have a plan. that allows you to purchase plans across state lines. you should be able to join other groups and make purchases. you should be able to see the doctor you want at the price you can afford. affordable care act does not have that. i recognize it is the law of the land. we have to make sure it is working. on the immigration issue, the bipartisan plan will look at the e-verify issue. people here must get documentation or they are going to go. it is critical that we do take care of the border.

a lot of people are coming across the border who are not simply escaping an area where they have problems and what a job. those who come across with we have a concerns, long history of opening our arms to immigrants. the issue is not that. the issue is making sure we do all those things at the same time. we should be doing both. there has been a promise of dealing with the border security problem for decades. we have funded those things and they have not been put in place. for the security of america, we should do that, too. think of senator coburn's plan, a red card to allow easy access to work here and to cross the border easily? red cards,n cards,

visas, all of those things should be on the table to be addressed one way or another. if the bill that gets through the house of the senate should take care of those who are here and should have some documentation and deal with border security. the other question should be how do we handle people who automatically get enrolled in a health-care plan. such persons who are not citizens should not automatically get the health care supplement. host: the next call comes from william a republican in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i have a question and concern about the affordable care act. i understand the affordable care act will raise costs for many people. i understand there is much conflict in the house and senate about the plan.

i wonder why the representatives mnd congressman -- congress with not supply people another plan that cause people $418 annually. americans make up the difference in the cost of that. with regard to cover some members of congress have, there is a question as to whether the staff will have any coverage at all. we do not know what is happening with them. officeitol physician's -- 90% of the work they do covers the tourists who come to the capital. it is something that members of congress pay into so that they can have some care. in some cases, members going on

official trips, they make sure they get their proper immunizations. for the most part, it is like any other insurance plan. you are paying for some care, but not this vast health-care plan that people and getting for free. members pay into the health-care plan. host: from michigan on the independent line. representative tim murphy is our guest. peter. hi, this whole health care deal. first, the common the lady made. how are they going to -- first, the comment the lady made. c-span knows this. they did a deal your are so ago. , showing back 75 years

all of these cliffs. healthuld have passed care in 24 hours. i do not know how anyone could say it was rushed. c-span did that special. it has been part of the conversation for anyone running for office. host: can you hang on for a second? you have a question. we are able to a little confused sitting up here. you have 17 seconds to ask a question or make a statement. thisr: how do they expect health care deal to go through when funds have been withheld? health care costs have been skyrocketing. c-span was showing hearings -- the affordable care act, i do not think it is affordable or fully care.

there are tax increases that have hit and some are yet to hit. the supplies will be taxed. your medicare tax will go up. other things will go up. betill do not think it will enough to cover what is happening. beyond all that, we have looked at some things that needed to be stopped, which will have a huge negative impact. tax forms on small businesses and this whole disability plan which would be money to come out. i think it is underfunded. land,t is the law of the we have to point out weaknesses. if there are things that are strong, let's keep them. this is the largest investment in change this country has ever made. i do not expect it will go

smoothly. we are still trying to work out the kinks in medicare and medicaid. i do not think it will be ready in october. for the sake of the american poet -- people and my role on the subcommittee, if there are problems, let's see what hhs will do to fix them. host: you are also share of the mental health caucus. are you pleased with the mental health provisions in aca? what theydo not know are yet. we have yet to see the regulations. when we have asked about those in the hearings, we have been told by the administration that they are coming. i am is still deeply concerned that people with mental illness are almost a second or third class.

it is a brain issue. a covered entity, that is a concern. we are told the affordable care act will correct that. host: can you help us clarify what the will of the irs will be when it comes to the aca? role is supposed to be one of making sure fees are paid in taxes are paid by those not purchasing insurance. not purchasemay insurance if they are going to be fined $90. where i think there is some overreach is what kind of records are they going to keep them of my committee mounted an investigation into a march 2011 situation where the irs went into the office of the california insurance company and

seized the records of people. they were not just looking at building. they took medical records. i think those are protected. what are they going to do with them? we are already pretty clear that there are people there who have political motives. we have to be assured that there is some purity in this. we'd like to think that when you go into an emergency room, your doctor does not ask about your political affiliation. they are there to take care of your medical needs. the irs should not be involved in any aspect of medical records. i intend to watch them like a hawk if they are getting into areas they should not be. american citizen should know their records are trusted. no one in the irs should be getting into those. host: as someone who has been care as ain health

practicing psychologist, what do you think of electronic medical records? guest: electronic records can be helpful in going back and forth between care givers. i am also in the navy. i served as a navy reserve officer at bethesda. as an example of a problem, a soldier was wounded in afghanistan has one set of medical records that go to walter reed. another set goes through the va. and then there is another private said. those three records to not talk to each other. isset --here is there private set. privacy throughout. in the future, it will be helpful to be interactive and

intelligent in the sense that, as elsewhere writing down information or given a diagnosis, it should also prompt the provider to say, have you considered this? have been prescribed in this? the patient is already on this prescription drug and there could be harmful side effects. an alert comes up that says abnormal from a lab report. all of those things can be extremely beneficial. we have to make sure the privacy issue is paramount. host: how close are we to fully electronic records? guest: we still have a long way to go. the government has been supplementing other areas, but not mental health areas. we will be going through more betterions as there is and better software. hospitals have incredibly sophisticated software. we are another 10 years away

from what i want to see. host: i want to ask you about this article called of florida. the bill in florida where it is going to governor scott's desk. people with mental health illnesses are being denied gun permits. do you agree with that approach in? guest: i am not sure -- and you agree with that approach? guest: i am not sure what is going on in florida. those who have a history of violent mental illness should have a record that says they cannot buy a gun. about half of the cases of schizophrenia or a bipolar illness with violent tendencies are not even aware they have an illness. what happens is, if a person voluntarily find themselves in, they can still purchase a gun. what if a person is violent and

they sign themselves in in their name can still be on this list of purchasing. thatave federal agencies gives grants to organizations that fight state laws that have been voluntary commitments in in patient or outpatient. a doctor has to say, if you do not want to take your medication, you are a risk to yourself or someone else. we need to force you to do that. and they get better. now, there are 2.7 million names that should be on this list. onlyat 2.7 million names, 1.2 million names are on the list because the states do not give that information. then you looking how these background checks worth. in 2010, 14 million guns were tempted to be purchased. pinged totheir names

say, you cannot buy a gun. 13 or 14 were prosecuted. if we are not enforcing these do not buy lists, that is a serious problem. the other part is, are we providing the care of these people need? in most cases, someone with severe mental illness, they weighed a hundred 20 weeks before they first seek care. weeks before they seek care. it might be 15 times more likely to commit a violent act. one more caveat, the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent at all. those we know have a propensity to violence, we should be doing more. we are not putting the dollars with the need is. host: the next call for representative tim mercy -- tim

murphy comes from fran in florida on the democrats' line. caller: i noticed one of your callers called in and was thinking representative murphy for being on the committee to help with the affordable care act. that he is fact trying to help is disingenuous. confederates are doing everything they can to make it not be successful. they have been trying to repeal it ever since it passed. from the beginning, it was repealed and replaced. i do not know what they were going to replace it with. that of the appealing, they should have been amending and working to make it better. respond to that.

i serve on the committee of jurisdiction in congress. we all for it many, many amendments over just a few days. when the bill appeared on the floor, it was a different bill. we tried to make a lot of changes to it. i still think it is going to have huge problems with regard to accessibility to insurance plans and doctors. you cannot pick and choose the plan you want. so be it. that is how it is. our role is to put a price by law -- spotlight where we think there is a problem. as someone who spent 35 years of my life working in health care, i think there are problems. it is also the law of the land. we have put out several plans to stop it or change components of it. as it is, the pressure is on

from the federal -- pressure is on the federal government to find a way to make this work. i would think you would want me to point out if this idea that costs are suddenly going to be low or go down for everybody is not true. or what kind of access to doctors or who is going to decide what kind of where you get or what the cost is? i have got to shine a bright light on it. let's see what the solutions are. host: now come from louisiana, a republican. caller: as a person who has to pay from -- pay for his own medical insurance, the affordable care act is striving to bankruptcy. before it passed, every year my medical insurance costs would go up a little bit. i paid for my wife and i. since it has passed, it has gone month -- -- $9,000 a

$900 a month to $1,700 a month. that is unacceptable in my opinion. the republican leadership is terrible. boehner these to go. he is a terrible speaker. he is more of a liberal and a progressive than people realize. have a good, blessed day. thank you. guest: i like john boehner. the issue with regard to the affordable care act -- oftentimes we hear that people will have subsidies if they purchased individually. , 3%d upon your income level or 9% of your income can go into health care. as it goesary through. we will have more data as the plans come out. we do not have the full numbers

on what your plan will cost. there may be some subsidies. for many americans, there will not be subsidies. this is where small employers and large employers look at this thing and say, what are we going to have and what can we afford? host: i want to go back to that caller's comments about speaker boehner. about once a week an article appears about speaker boehner being attacked or threatened by the right wing of the republican party. can you shed a little light on those stories and whether he is threatened? guest: the speaker is trying to deal with a wide spectrum of people on the republican side of the aisle. he also has to keep the whole house moving forward. what happens is the same thing on the democratic side of the aisle. you have people who are far left and people who are more moderate. when speaker pelosi was in charge, he was trying to keep

them in check, too. speaker boehner is soft-spoken, straightforward with people. he also recognizes that if you have a dozen or so members saying we won these things only and we will not go along with anything else -- we want these things only and we will not go along with anything else, it is difficult. i am not suggesting people compromise their basic principles. if the road is a lot, you have to take a detour even if the trip takes a little longer. , you the road is blocked have to take a detour even if the trip takes a little longer. speaker boehner is a straight shooter with us. he puts pressure on people if he thinks they are getting out of line. herding catse and it is not always an easy job. host: a few minutes left

between -- before the house comes into session. on the independent line. you are on "washington journal." are c- by husband and i i span junkies. with what is happening in regard to the health problem, i do not believe republicans are trying to solve the affordable care act. when you have 38 votes against the plan, that does not indicate you are trying to solve it. that. another comment on if you are trying to save money, i would suggest you stop using private contractors in the army. years ago, soldiers peeled potatoes. we watched the c-span hearings and we saw the enormous amounts of money being paid to independent contractors, or

whatever they are called. a lot of those people are political people involved in giving tons of money to the party. one question always puzzled us. why are there so many republicans that are doctors in the congress and some of them are still practicing? host: a lot on the table. data when people think of elected officials, the -- when people think of elected officials, they think of them as lawyers. there are doctors, lawyers, farmers. they should reflect america. about the pentagon, a huge amount of money is spent by the pentagon on outside contractors. many times, military active-duty and reservists can do a similar

job at lower costs. there is something else we need to pay attention to. that has to do with u.s. invasion policy. if we continue to send our soldiers to other countries to protect their oil wells and toelines and shipping lanes, the minister area and the persian gulf, that is a huge cost we are bearing. what upsets me is that in addition to the huge trade deficit, we have masses of -- massive amounts of our own oil we could be using here and we do not need to send our troops over there. they are going to sell that oil somewhere. they are going to send the oil to british columbia and ship it to asia. these beuch rather american jobs.

the issue about the reservoir was solved long ago. we should be doing this for our jobs. host: is fracking taking place in your district? guest: fracking is taking place in my district to a large extent. a large amount of jobs, a couple hundred jobs in pennsylvania. anddealers and restaurants operating engineers and electricians all doing work there. i like that. good paying jobs. most of the job growth in america has been low paying jobs. the nice thing about using america and natural gas is that we are seeing jobs in other areas grow. host: are you concerned about the environment when it comes to fracking? i have a picture. we can have our soldiers in

other countries working to protect interests of opec areas. that was one of the wells blown iraq war.the kuwaiti or we can see our american workers taking care of american oil wells. i trust american oil policy. i would much rather see american hard hats than wearing hats as soldiers. appreciate your time this morning. the house is just coming into session in order.se will be the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

washington, r is d.c. june 20, 2013, i hereby to be the orable signed t pro tempore john e. boehner. >> the prayer will be offered by chaplain father conroy. we give you thanks for giving us another day. your presence and acknowledge our dependence on you. the men ur blessing of and women of the people's house. keep them aware of your presence face the tasks of this day and no burden be too heavy, difficult and no worrisome. help us to obey your law to do in your way. walk grant that they might be good in

gracious in work and generous in deed and great in spirit. make it a glorious day in which alive, eager o be to work and ready to serve you our reat nation and all of fellow brothers and sisters. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. >> the chair has examined the journal of the last day's announces to the house her approval thereof. 1 suant to clause 1 of rule the journalism stands approved. >> madam speaker. what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. clause 1 i demand a vote on agreeing to approval.

>> a quorum is not present and order that a f quorum is not led by the gentle illinois, ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlelady from indiana seek recognition?

mrs. walorski: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walorski: thank you, madam speaker. in recognition of the 50th annual national small business week, i rise today to celebrate the hoosier small businesses that have been serving our communities for decades. growing up in south bend, my parents owned a small appliance repair shop in town, and i learned the value of hard work firsthand. many of our small businesses were started in hoosier families and past on to the next generation. in uch place sits right the middle of the city. of rd's began as eight rows corn and now has many acres, including a greenhouse, bakery. it provides healthy food to hoosier families. it contributes to our economic engine. awarded business of the year by

the greater elkhart chamber of commerce, bolards is a shining example of a hoosier small business. on small business saturday, i look forward to visiting them and help mow in joining -- help in joining me in supporting small businesses. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. barrow: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. barrow: very soon thousands of folks in my district in georgia and even more across the state will be furloughed as a result of the budget sequester. studies have shown the sequester will cost the georgia onomy approximately $107 million. and the president's upcoming trip to africa will be about $100 million. we never question the need for

the president's needs. a trip of this magnitude isn't unusual, but these are hard times. $100 million could be better used to keep folks on the job. i urge the president and everyone at the federal level to lead by example and not take the fact that congress can't get its act together and rub that in the faces of hardworking americans. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, recently we learned that the n.s.a., what i call the national surveillance agency, seized millions of phone records of americans to try to find a few bad guys. overreaching and unconstitutional in my opinion, it violates the right of privacy. f.b.i. director mueller has now confirmed what many of us already believe that the f.b.i. has used drones domestically to peek on americans. who are they spying on?

do they have probable cause? do they have a warrant from a judge? we don't know. madam speaker, by 2030 there will be 30,000 drones cruising, filming, spying, snooping, looking and hovering over america's skies. so congress needs to regulate drone use to protect the right of privacy and ensure the fourth amendment is actually protected. congresswoman lofgren and i have filed the preserving american privacy act to make government snoops and private entities follow the constitution and the use of drones. we must regulate lawful and unlawful drone use because drone laws are needed to keep the peeping tomcats out of our business and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the entlelady is recognized.

ms. duckworth: the cuts we're considering to snap $20 billion, will be devastating to millions of american families. the average benefit is only $4.50 a day, just $1.50 a meal. these cuts will slash benefits to two million americans and cut more than 200,000 children off the school lunch and school breakfast program. this is a very personal issue for me. i was one of those children. after my father lost his job for several years when i was a teenager, food stamps, school breakfast and school lunch were the only things that saved me. they were there for me so i could worry about school instead of my empty stomach. they nourished me so i could develop the skills to serve my country for the next 20 years all the way here to congress. i believe in the wealthiest nation on earth no american child should go hungry to

school and no parent should have to make the difficult decision between paying rent or paying for groceries. charities like the church of the holy spirit food pantry are already stretched to the limit trying to meet the needs of our communities during these tough economic times. this means that hungry americans will have nowhere else to turn and i ask my colleagues to reject these draconian cuts. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckinley: madam speaker, today the great state of west virginia is celebrating its 150th year birthday. the unique history of the mountain state is a source of pride for all west virginians. on this day in 1863, west virginia entered the union to become the 35th state. it is the only state born during that divisive war

between the states and the only state formed by a presidential decree. from these challenging years, our state has become a significant contributor to america's economy. west virginia's natural resources, coal, oil, natural gas and timber have played an integral role in the industrialization of our country. now in addition to providing energy to continue fueling our nation's economy, west virginia has grown into a leader in health care, research, education, biotech, aerospace and many our diverse industries. the mountain state's natural beauty also attracts people from all around the world to visit and enjoy its breast taking scenery. mr. speaker -- enjoy its breathtaking scenery. mr. speaker, we take pride in our wild and wonderful state. we celebrate our past and look forward to our future. happy birthday, west virginia. here's to the next 150 years.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise today on behalf of many, many illinois residents and one in seven american families in opposing the $20.5 billion cut to the supplemental nutrition assistance program in this year's farm bill. in this together is much better than an america where we're on our own. ms. kelly: for 46 million low-income americans snap is a helping hand and it is our nation's most important anti-hunger program. it's also the most effective defense against the steep rise in extreme poverty in america. between 1996 and 2011, snap kept more households with children out of extreme poverty than any other government program. i have ended my participation in the snap challenge where i

food a $4.50 worth of day. why i merely participated in this as a challenge, i often thought about the many challenges that for many families this is an everyday reality. snap isn't a bailout. snap isn't a handout. snap is an assist. it's a bridge over troubled water and there is still more we can do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> well, madam speaker, i want to recognize the achievements of the dinah high school girl's golf team. mr. paulsen: this talented group of young ladies had intensity in a commanding win in this year's minnesota state high school golf tournament. the dinah girl's team should be proud not only being named winners of this year's tournament but having the lowest overall score in state

tournament history. this brings the hornet's championship total to eight, the most ever in minnesota. these student athletes are great role models, and they're also setting themselves up to have a positive standard for all of their classmates. congratulations to the team and congratulations to the coaches for their hard work and their dedication and for this year's big win and, go hornets. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, today i rise to speak out again the drastic cuts proposed to the snap program, a lifeline that millions of americans rely on. the farm bill being debated today would cut over $20 billion over 10 years from snap, a program that ensures that children, seniors and families struggling to make ends meet don't have to go without food. the center for budget and policy priorities estimates that these cuts would leave two million americans without

essential food assistance and cut 200,000 children from the school lunch program. food pantries in all corners of my district tell me they are already struggling to keep up with the need. mr. foster: the interface food pantry in aurora, illinois, provides food assistance to 750 families each week, 40% of those families also get snap benefits which are unfortunately insufficient to meet their food needs. if these snap cuts are implemented, more families will be forced to turn to volunteer-run pantries which are already stretched dangerously thin, and many people will have nowhere to turn. madam speaker, there's a long list of federal programs for which the benefits are uncertain or for which the benefits are certain to be delivered to narrow groups for which the need is unclear. snap is not one of these, and i urge my colleagues to reconsider these drastic cuts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition?

mr. kingston: request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to recognize the more than 1,600 young men and women who have come to our capitol from across america this week to participate in the 49th annual electric cooperative youth tour. these high school juniors and seniors that you see around the capitol this week are here to get firsthand insight about our nation's government and its political process and gain a greater understanding of our history. they will meet with their representatives and senators and watch congress in action from the galleries, and also visit many memorials and the museums. i look forward to meeting with the 106 students from the state of georgia and i urge my colleagues to do the same. these students coming from the electric cooperative tour are part of a great tradition. in 1957, texas senator lyndon

baynes johnson inspired the youth tour when he addressed the national rural electric cooperative association meeting in chicago. the senator and future president declared, quote, if one thing comes out of this meeting it will be sending youngsters to the nation's capital so they can see what the flag stands for and represents. so every june for the past 49 years, over 50,000 young citizens and future leaders have put those words into action and you can see the results of this tradition right here in the capitol. several of the groups have spawned congressional aides and elected representatives themselves. back home in georgia, the chairman of our state house appropriations committee, terry england, is a prime example of someone who had the desire for public office and ran for elected office when it was fueled as a student when he came up here on the tour some 20 years ago. i congratulate terry and many

and thousands of others just like him who have engaged in this great tour, and i commend the youth tour and thank the georgia e.m.c.'s for all the great work they're doing in develop's america's youth. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? . . mr. waxman: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: today i rise to commemorate the lives lost in the tragic shooting rampage on the streets of santa monica and santa monica college. chris, marcelo, margarita, lost their lives. we take a moment to honor them and make a promise that we will remember them. i want to express my condolences to the victims' families. your losses are lang's -- los

angeles' offices -- losses and we grieve with you. there were many wounded and we wish you wishes for a speedy recovery. i also commend the heroic actions of our first responders. without their fearless response, many more lives could have been lost. we thank these first responders who arrived on the scene and bravely protected us all. our nation expresses its gratitude. we are losing too many of our fellow citizens to gun violence. we must stop this cycle. my colleagues in congress must come together to enact commonsense reforms, including comprehensive background checks. we must address the mental health needs of our community. we cannot allow the tragedy that occurred in santa monica to be repeated. the lives lost in santa monica cannot just be another statistic. they must inspire us to make our

community and nation safer and more secure for everyone. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 271 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1947. will the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, please resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1947, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the reform and continuation of

agricultural and other programs of the department of agriculture through fiscal year 2018, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, june 19, 2013, amendment number 58 printed in part b of house report 113-117 offered by the the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, had been disposed of. it is now in order to consider amendment number 98 printed in part b of house report 113-117. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i rise to offer my amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 98 printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. pitts of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 271, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. pitts, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. those of us in support of my amendment, i will divide five minutes under the control of congressman danny davis, five minutes on my side. i rise in support of my amendment and one that would reform our government's sugar program. for too long we have seen these subsidies and market protections drive up costs on taxpayers, consumers, and businesses. let me highlight some of the costs now. consumers are paying an extra $3.5 billion a year to subsidize this policy. taxpayers are set to put a bill of $239 million over the next several years, according to the c.b.o. the c.b.o. estimated our amendment would save $73 million. american workers are paying the price in job losses. nearly 127,000 jobs were lost by sugar using industries between 1997 and 2011. at risk are an additional

600,000 manufacturing jobs. my amendment would help get the price of sugar closer to the world price. it does so by reforming the sugar program not repealing it. american sugar is still going to have to have its support program, much the same as it did before the 2008 farm bill. we are simply returning to those policies in order to get a more competitive price. one that will help consumers, manufacturers, and even growers. under the 2008 farm bill, refined sugar prices have averaged 68% more than under the 2002 farm bill. our detractors are quick to point out that sugar prices are falling, but then they neglect to tell the taxpayer that they are set to bail out the sugar industry, possibly by amounts of $100 million a year in the coming years. so at the same time this

redskinless policy sticks the cost of subsidies to consumers, we are -- this reckless policy sticks the cost to -- subsidies to consumers, we are set to pay the farmers even though the price was higher than last year. all we seek to do is return the sugar program to what it was under the 2002 farm policy. i'm not sure about you but i don't remember having trouble getting sugar in my coffee in 2008. since the last farm bill companies have been struggling to find affordable sugar. so much so that canada has actively been advertising to our manufacturing base that they have access to cheaper sugar. furthermore, the inflated price of sugar has incentivized mexico to dump sugar into our market. so we are losing jobs to the north. we are getting hit from foreign sugar from the south. due to this reckless policy. let's reform it. let's get back to the free

market into the sugar market. let's get american jobs to stay here. let's save consumers and taxpayers money. let's reform our sugar policy. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. pitts: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> madam chair, i'd like to claim the time in opposition. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: i would like to recognize the chair of the house agriculture committee for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lucas: we hear a lot from the proponents of this amendment about moving american companies to mexico and canada. but that has nothing to do with the price of sugar. it has everything to do with labor cost, health care costs, and trying to get every penny out of the american farmer. have any of you seen the price of sugar, cakes, cookies plummet over the last few years as sugar prices decrease by 55%? no, you haven't. you'll hear a lot from the proponents of this amendment

about the high prices of sugar, so high the restaurants give it away? that you can buy a five pound bag of sugar for almost nothing? the idea that adopting this amendment is going to somehow create a free market for sugar is ludicrous. the sugar market is one of the most distorted in the world. adopting this amendment or repealing sugar policy would do nothing but subject the us to us that distorted market. even more than we are today. it costs a lot of farmers their livelihoods, this country the industry and the jobs that can with it. let's be clear the u.s. is already one of the largest importers of sugar in the world. the second argument that we are all of a sudden -- gentleman yield me one more minute? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . mr. lucas: what bothers me the most about this argument is that it was made when sugar

prices were 55% higher. and it made just the same when prices were in the tank. how cheap is cheap enough? they are claiming consumers are being built by the high price of sugar, but have any of our colleagues noticed the drop in the price of candy bars as manufacturers faithfully pass along the savings from a 55% drop in sugar prices? of course not. sugar policy has operated at zero cost to the taxpayers for 10 years now. our farmers are efficient and competitive. consumers in this country enjoy cheaper sugar than anywhere else in the world and sugar users enjoy a reliable source of safe sugar. a -- candy makers are reporting stronger profits as processors struggle. the climate was caused by conditions in a distorted global market.

all sugar policy does is provide -- i urge my colleagues to reject the minnesota. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. who seeks time? the gentleman from illinois is recognized. -- the gentleman seek to without objection, you're recognized. are you seeking the five minutes in -- mr. davis: no, i'm going to yield myself two minutes and reserve the rest. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. let's be clear unequivocally and without a doubt we know that the sugar subsidy raises price of sugar on the domestic market in this country. i know that i have lost out of my congressional district major candy makers and food processors who left town not because of labor costs, not

because of any riffs, but because they were paying so much for the price of sugar that they knew that if they went to mexico, if they went to canada that they could get sugar at a much lower price. don't know why we help 4,000 sugar growers at the expense of 600,000 workers in america. i say vote yes for the pitts-davis-blumenauer-goodlatt e amendment, that when you do that you are helping the guy who gets a cup of coffee and needs to use sugar for the sweetener. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: madam chair, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from michigan for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute.

>> madam chair, i rise in opposition to this amendment. this is nothing but an attack on the thousands of family farms in my district and across the country. the district i represent is home to michigan sugar, a --op owned by 900 american family farmers. to compare a co--op, a grower's c-op, to michigan's sugar is -- co-op, to michigan's sugar is wrong. mr. kildee: all the farmers ask for is a fair and even playing field. these farmers play hard, they are playing by the rules and shouldn't be punished as this amendment would do. that's why i stand with the american family farm and not foreign government subsidized sugar. big corporate food processors are not moving overseas because of sugar costs. they are moving overseas to

avoid providing health care and living wages to their workers. furthermore, if big business is able to target one crop at a time, the entire farm bill loses -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kildee: if you support family farms, you'll oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished chair of the vice committee, congressman goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: madam speaker, this farm bill reforms many commodity programs. it makes major policy changes that leave no commodity untouched except for, one, this bill makes no change to the sugar program. in fact, in the sugar program wasn't even given the scrutiny of an audit hearing. under this bill we're being asked to demand sacrifices from farmers in our districts. wheat, corn, soybeans, cotton,

peanuts, rice. these commodities are undergoing major changes and contributing to the deficit reduction in this bill with you we're asked to believe that the sugar program and the sugar program alone is so perfect, it cannot be reformed or discussed. i respectfully disagree. the sugar program needs to be reformed for many reasons. first, all serious studies show that the sugar program increases food costs. economists at iowa state university put this consumer cost at up to $3.5 billion a year for the first four years of the 2008 farm bill. second, because it harms the competitiveness of u.s. food manufacturing, the sugar program costs jobs. the iowa state study estimated that as many as 20,000 new jobs a year could be created if sugar policy were fully reformed. and the u.s. department of commerce found that for every sugar industry jobs saved by the program, three good manufacturing jobs were lost. third, current sugar policy may not have cost taxpayers at the

moment, but the congressional budget office projects that it will in the future. the feed stock flexibility program, which was added to the sugar policy in 2008, is forecast to cost $193 million. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: madam chair, i'm pleased now to recognize the chairman of the subcommittee that deals with this, the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. conaway: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. sugar manufacturers are not going broke. sugar users and folks who buy it by the ton are not going broke. 2007, look at hershey's, million. $217

their own annual report says the sugar cost went from 54 cents a pound to 37 cents a pound and would not be reflected in their prices because of the way they manage the rest of their business. if the sugar buyers were going broke they would be reflected as one of the largest sugar user which is hershey's. this is about protecting american users, folks who get up every morning who grow sugar, process sugar so you and i can pick it off the table for free. broke, licy isn't don't fix it. sugar is down because of the decrease in the price of sugar. let's don't kick them while they're down. this current policy works. let's don't fix it because it is not broken. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. conaway: oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from illinois is recognized.

mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i now yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: thank you, madam chair woman. dam chairwoman, i don't have any sugar manufacturers in my district as well as sugar cane. but all of my constituents and every constituent of every member of this body pay a share annual food illion tax on consumers. so it seems to me that's what this is about, and to go from the personal to the national, according to the u.s. department of commerce, for each sugar production job saved this sugar program has eliminated three jobs in food manufacturing. three jobs lost for every job saved. so if we're really about creating jobs and not losing

them, we ought to reform this sugar program. current policy keeps sugar prices higher than the world market price, and that encourages food manufacturing jobs to move offshore. as a result, between 1997 and 2011, 127,000 jobs were lost in segments of the food and beverage industries that use sugar to make their products. i reject, madam chairwoman of ving $239 million from sugar to ethanol mandate. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: madam chair, i'd be pleased to recognize the gentleman from new york, a good friend of the american familiarer and agriculture, mr. engel for one minute. the chair: mr. engel is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank my friend for yielding to me. madam chair, i rise in opposition to the pitts amendment. the proponents of the amendment claim that sugar prices are too high, but u.s. raw sugar prices have dropped more than half just since the fall of 2011.

in 2004, more than 200 people lost their jobs when the domino sugar plant in brooklyn, new york, closed. it outlasted the brooklyn dodgers and they're gone and so are the paychecks that the employees used to collect. i have a sugar refinery in my district in yonkers, new york, and i don't want the same thing to happen to them. the sugar industry supports 240,000 jobs in 22 states, including 300 at this plant in my district. our current policies supports this industry at no cost to the taxpayers. in fact, the usda has predicted zero cost increase over the next 10 years. so i come from the school that if it ain't broke don't fix it. until we have a level playing field on the world market, we must continue our current sugar policy. i ask my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. the chair: mr. connolly -- the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from minnesota has five minutes remaining.

the gentleman from pennsylvania has 30 seconds remaining. and the gentleman from illinois has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, for -- you say 30 seconds i have left? the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. hensarling: madam chairwoman, we have heard american as apple pie but it's shameful that they have no sugar. we have an array of government production, quote, as mandatory target prices, and what does it do? it destroys three jobs every one it creates and transfers millions of dollars from working americans to 6,000 sugar growers. is time for us to put

america back into american as apple pie. let's support the amendment from the gentleman of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: madam chair, i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. food and candy opponents of u.s. sugar policy would like to expos american sugar farmers to -- expose american sugar farmers to the dump for sugar. but america's sugar growers are exposed. mexico has unlimited access to the united states market. and one thing that hasn't been said, 20% of the mexican sugar industry is owned by the mexican government. mexico owns and operates its sugar industry, which is five times larger than the texas sugar producing industry. and as this chart shows, since 2008, mexico has gotten

unlimited access to the united states sugar market. and in fact, the prices of sugar are the same prices as they were in the 1980's. friends on both sides -- propose this amendment say we need a more free market. well, the united states cannot unilaterally disarm that jeopardizes 242,000 jobs and leaves us dependent on the resilient and mexican food industry that is run by the mexican government. this amendment does not promote free trade or free market. it promotes a government-run industry from mexico and brazil. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. poe: thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i keep hearing if it's not broken don't fix it. well, i can tell you for the 600,000 people whose jobs are at risk when their companies

move out of the country, that seems like broken to me. i'd now like to yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a minute and a half back to mr. pitts. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: madam speaker, there's been assertions that somehow the american sugar industry is down. well, there are -- because of the changes that were made in the last farm bill, prices soared up to 92%, and so there was a temporary increase in american sugar which created some downward pressure which in fact is going to require the american taxpayer to bail out, to put -- in the next several years because of the sugar programs, feed stock flexibility. we're talking about returning to the 2002 law. every independent economist

agrees that the american consumer is paying from $2 billion to $3.5 billion excess. the reason jobs are going to canada is not because they pay less, it's because the sugar price is less. there are more jobs in the industry that use sugar than produce it. we are merely asking to return to the 2002 provisions which were general russ enough. someday -- generous enough. someday we will truly reform, but in the short term, this is a reasonable accommodation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from louisiana, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. >> i oppose this amendment. we advocates for america's farmers know we need free world markets. but the proponents of this amendment ignore that other countries such as brazil

subsidize their sugar industry as much as $3 billion per year. this amendment unilaterally disarms our economy. by doing so it threatens 142,000 farmer jobs. mr. cassidy: places the u.s. consumer at the mercy of market manipulation by foreign governments. at stake is our food security, 142,000 jobs, and the american consumer. by eliminating this program which object prates at zero cost to the american taxpayer, we -- operates at zero cost to the american taxpayer, we hamstring the ability of our farmers to provide food security for our people. i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. there's not -- nothing in the amendment that will bring an additional ounce of sugar on our shores without the secretary of agriculture. i yield one minute to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, madam

speaker. i must take exception to some of the remarks i have heard here today. this amendment is absolutely necessary for this country, for the consumer. we are talking about saving consumers $3.5 billion a year, saving 20,000 manufacturing jobs. i most strenuously object that say the price of sugar is so low. when the price of sugar drops below a certain level, the federal government will buy that excess sugar, and sell it to ethanol producers at a loss. the taxpayer and the consumer is royally abused twice. this is protectionism at its worst. we all know it. it's time to reform this program. this is not a zero-zero policy as the proponents claim. this is going to cost taxpayers $239 million over the next several years. that's according to c.b.o. $80 million of taxpayer funded bailout could come as soon as later this year. this issue is about protecting manufacturing jobs. making sure that we have something closer to a market-based price. i represent hershey pennsylvania. i heard a statement saying no sugar packets handed out to restaurants are free. that cost is built into the meal

that you eat. it's absurd. it is absolutely absurd. we are losing jobs to countries that have more market-based sugar policies. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dent: i urge strong support for the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, for one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you. thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i represent a state that was literally built on sugar. and we are now down to one sugar producing company in the whole state. we do not have the sugar canes blowing in the wind as we have in the past. what this amendment is going to do is really, really, when you think about it, do away with a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. it is an agreement between the

usda and the sugar producers to ensure, to ensure that the agriculture industry remains stable. think about it. why do you want to do away with something that doesn't cost us anything at this point in time, produces jobs, and is essential? instead give way to world markets that are subsidized. what will happen when those subsidies deemed to be no longer necessary because of the fact that there is nothing in the united states any more? think about it. we need to keep agriculture strong. that is what this is all about. it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. this is a program that clearly works. keeps the industry alive and well. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from -- who seeks recognition?

the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, madam chair, i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fleischmann. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. fleischmann: thank you, madam chairman. i represent the third district of tennessee. we have heard a great debate today. let's be clear the numbers are self-evident. when the world price of sugar compared to the united states price of sugar is so out of kilter, since reform, 72, 91, 77, 3% since 2008. we cannot compete in america based on the world price. it's a commodity. it's an agreement. i urge strong support of this amendment. we've got american jobs at stake. we cannot compete if this program continues. jobs will leave america. let's support this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: could inquire how much time i have?

the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. peterson: i'm pleased to recognize my good friend across the border in north dakota, mr. cramer, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for two minutes. one minute. mr. cramer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the idea that somehow this amendment creates free and fair trade is a fallacy. and the idea that somehow sugar has not been reformed in recent years and decades is also a fallacy. the greatest reformation of the sugar program is the north american free trade agreement that gave access to the u.s. markets, completely, not only to the sugar farmers south of us but the governments of mexico and brazil. the idea that a no-net cost program like the american sugar program is somehow a great advantage over countries like brazil that subsidize with tax dollars, $2.5 to $3 billion per year is the most distorting fact in this entire debate. i rise to oppose this amendment and enurge my colleagues to do the same.

-- encourage my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: madam chair, am i the only one left with time? the chair: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman is recognized. mr. peterson: i want to thank my colleagues for their statements. i represent an area that's the biggest sugar producing area in the country. and i agree with what's been said by my colleagues. people need to understand that every country that produces sugar in the world has some intervention in the sugar market. so for us to unilaterally disarm, all we are going to do is give away our jobs and industry to other countries. we import sugar from 41 countries. sugar we could make in the united states. 15% of our market we have given to other people. we have opened up the market to mexico. and yet we have a net cost program -- no net cost program

until this year when sugar prices collapsed. it's not fault. it's what's going on in brazil and other places. this is just -- for people to be complaining that sugar prices are too high when right now they are about as low as they have ever been is crazy. i ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and continue a policy that works. good for america. good for the farmers. good for the workers. good for the economy. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. pitts: request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will e postponed.

pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 113-117 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 18 by mr. brooks of alabama. amendment number 25 by mr. butterfield of north carolina. amendment number 26 by mr. marino of pennsylvania. amendment number 30 by mr. schweikert of arizona. amendment number 31 by mr. tierney of massachusetts. amendment number 37 by mr. polis of colorado. amendment number 38 by mr. garamendi of california. amendment number 41 by mr. marino of pennsylvania. amendment number 43 by mr. mcclintock of california. amendment number 44 by mr. gibson of new york. amendment number 45 by mrs. walorski of indiana. amendment number 46 by mr. courtney of connecticut. amendment number 47 by mr. kind

of wisconsin. amendment number 48 by mr. carney of delaware. the chair will reduce to two minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 18 printed in part b of house report 113-117 by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: part b, amendment number 18, printed in house report number 113-117, offered by mr. brooks of alabama. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the

united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]