south carolina. >> the house oversight committee today voted along party lines to pass a resolution saying that irs official lois lerner waived her right to remain silent. ms. lerner was in charge of the irs tax exempt organization office and is now on administrative leave. >> the committee will come to order. the committee meets today to consider a resolution to determine whether lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privilege against self- incrimination when she made a voluntary opening statement during the committee's hearing that began on may 22, 2013. the clerk will designate the resolution. >> the resolution on the committee on oversight and government reform.

>> without objection, the resolution will be considered as read and open for a minute at any point. the text has been distributed. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. we are here today to resolve something the united states has. did lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination during the committee hearing that began may 22, 2013? during the hearing that began on may 22, more than five weeks ago, i tried to be exceedingly cautious. i did not make a quick or uninformed decision on the waiver. because the decision is one that does not often get made, and it is extremely important both to the discovery of congress and

its duties, and quite candidly, toward the real question of whether or not people would come and give one side of a story and not allow themselves be cross examined. as chairman, it is my obligation to be fair and impartial and to lead this committee not on one side or the other, but to the greatest extent possible to make my decisions in concert with the parliamentarian, with house counsel, and consistent with what we would want to have if and when the gavel moves to the other side of the aisle. my job as chairman is to bring the question to a vote so the committee could make a determination. as most know, when the congressman made his assertion during the hearing, i could have ruled just that, that she had waived.

i felt it inappropriate to do it, recessed the committee hearing, and informed ms. lerner that she was subject to recall after a decision was made. we have consulted and gotten advice with house console. their determination is impartial. they have delivered to us both their opinion and the case law. having now considered the facts and arguments, i believe lois lerner waived her fifth amendment privileges. she did so when she chose to make a voluntary opening statement. ms. lerner's opening statement referenced the treasury ig report and the department of justice investigation.

the assertion she previously had provided -- sorry, and the assertions that she previously provided false information to the committee. she made four specific denials appeared those denials are at the core of the committee investigation in this matter. she stated that she had not done anything wrong, not broken any laws, not violated any irs rules or regulations, and not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee regarding areas about which committee members would have liked to ask her questions. indeed, committee members are still interested in hearing from her, her statement covers almost the entire range of questions we wanted to ask when the hearing began on may 22. today marks the 37th day since ms. lerner appeared. since that time, i have considered the matter

deliberately. i have received letters from lerner's lawyers that presented her arguments clearly and completely. her letter will now be entered into the record without objection, so ordered. we considered and sought appropriate counsel to reach our decision. counsel had her attorney's letters and made their determination and recommendation. and now it is time to put it to a vote. with that, i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to date, this investigation has been characterized by a series of unsubstantiated accusations by members of congress with no evidence to support their claims. and today's preceding is the latest unfortunate example.

i often say that i would like our committee to operate more like a courtroom by gathering evidence in a responsible and impartial way. before drawing conclusions or making judgments. if this were a courtroom, the first question to ms. lerner would have been -- how do you plead? ms. lerner would have been able to state her innocence, and she never would have been forced to take the stand, swear an oath, or publicly assert her fifth amendment right. in this case, ms. lerner's attorney wrote to inform the committee before the hearing that his client would exercise her fifth amendment right. unlike in a courtroom, the chairman issued a subpoena forcing her to appear.

made her stand and swear an oath, and challenge her fifth amendment assertion by posing questions to her anyway. so now the chairman wants the committee to conclude as a legal matter that ms. lerner waived her right because she made a statement professing her innocence. if this happened in a courtroom, the judge would likely hold a hearing on this question before making a ruling. counsel would prepare written him and tell so would prepare written briefs with legal and his circle precedent before making a determination based on the facts and based on the law. again, this is not happening. the chairman is going about this in reverse. he is asking the committee to vote on his resolution first without taking basic commonsense measures to help committee members, republicans and democrats, make reasoned and

informed decisions. let's look at the evidence now before the committee. exhibit a is the letter from ms. lerner clearly invoking her fifth amendment right. exhibit b is a letter from her council on may 38 citing the precedent by the supreme court, explaining that, and a witness compelled to appear and answer questions does not waive her fifth amendment privilege by giving testimony proclaim her innocence. the chairman never responded to letter to my knowledge or legal precedents it contains. i ask this the in the record. >> it is already in the record.

>> exhibit c stating i do not believe her introductory profession of innocence constitutes a waiver of her fifth amendment rights. i ask that that document be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> exhibit d is a statement from daniel richmond who served as the chief appellate attorney in the united states attorney's office in new york stating, as a matter of law, she did not waive her privilege and would not be found to have done so by a competent at a record. >> by a competent federal court. >> all inclusions on your list will be included.

>> exhibit e is a letter requesting an additional here he was with experts so members can consider this in a responsible way. i ask that document be in the record and i understand it will be. with all this information, what is on the other side? >> that chairman has a memorandum that he has declined to let other committee members say. the memo is not in the record before us. in my letter on wednesday -- >> would the gentleman please yield before us. the instruction was that it cannot be released publicly since house counsel represents us. you are certainly free to have each individual member as long as they are bound by the same understanding. our counsel is subject to attorney-client privileged, and you received separate advice from house counsel.

that is a decision you make relative to the normal rules. >> i reclaim my time. i try to pay deference to the chairman on two staff memos. this is a memo dated june 26, 2013, 8:07 p.m. i am reading it and will take such time as is necessary. i asked you not distribute it widely, like to all members. the fact is next it says it is reasonably foreseen that a wide

distribution could lead to public disclosure. the staff member that gave you this gave you this without a prohibition on any one of your members reading it. the concept would be that members could predict, could seek independent counsel, every member on both sides and go to house counsel and seek an independent decision on their art. we simply were recognized and we did not public disclosure. as you and i would not want published his closure of any attorney representing us. >> are you saying, because i have not divulged one syllable of this to my members. you are saying my members can have -- >> your members can seek counsel directly and your members can read it, and suzanne is well aware of that.

we are -- you and i may be rusty, but we have both have good counsel. the fact is every single member of the house can seek house counsel, and you did seek and received separate note from house counsel. this only implies not to lead to public disclosure. >> i want to make sure that -- i want it distributed now to our members, since i made a mistake. i was under the impression you were saying that my members could not see it, seeing what they are going to be relied on from counsel. i asked that it be distributed to our members now. and it not be disclosed to the public. >> i would caution members if they want to see any further, they can, but this is attorney-

client from which, this is your attorneys of house counsel, but their citings are available to any member. >> i am trying to stay within the bounds that i thought were set. if members want to ask, once they read it, is that out of bounds? you follow what i am saying? in other words, my members are now going to be reading what you depended upon to hold this hearing. >> this is a markup. the resolution is available for amendment. it is distributed. ms. norton has a stripping amendment. the fact is we have had 37 days, plenty of debate. we have soft counsel. i have chosen a resolution even though i had the right to rule, even if i did not have counsel. this resolution is effectively a ruling of the chair that ms. lois lerner waived in her activity, and we are voting on the ruling of the chair.

it is available format amendment. i caution never to use their five minutes. i will not limit debate. this is a markup. it is like any other markup, and i have chosen to do that so my ruling would be published and open to a vote rather than simply the procedural tapering of the chair that otherwise would happen. >> i am almost finished, thank you. on wednesday i asked every member be even the opportunity to hear directly from house counsel and pose any questions have about the legal standards and historical precedents. the chairman declined to honor my request.

here's what may happen if we continue down this path. the republicans could adopt a resolution on a partisan vote. the chairman could force ms. lerner to return and director to answer questions. heard attorney will disagree with the legal basis for the resolution, and ms. lerner will continue to assert the fifth. after which the chairman could schedule a vote to hold her in content and send the entire matter to a court. after that happens, the record before the court will be the record we established today. the committee has held no hearings on this issue. the committee has taken no testimony from any legal experts. the chairman never responded to legal counsel. the chairman never responded to her counsel. chairman declined my request for a meeting to allow members to hear directly from counsel. the chairman chose not to allow all committee members to review the opinion, and that has just been changed. thank you. the committee adopted no report or other analysis of the

applicable legal provisions in the historical precedents. let me close by making clear that i want to hear ms. lerner's testimony. i think her testimony is very, very important. i agree she has information that is relevant to the committees investigation. for example, i want to ask why did she not inform congress in 2012 of the improper practices she discovered in 2011. but we must respect the constitutional rights of every witness who comes before this committee, and whatever your interpretation of the law is in this instance, we should all agree that this is not a responsible record to put forward because it undermines the credibility of this committee and the legitimacy of the resolution itself. i request stands, i asked the committee first take the preliminary commonsense step of

holding a hearing to listen to legal experts former party members to vote. otherwise as a member of the congress who is sworn to uphold the constitution, i cannot in good conscience support this resolution, and with that i yield act. >> no, i will not hold a hearing. no, i do not agree with your position that you were denied any access to counsel. opinion that was shared with you out of courtesy was an opinion we sought among which means we gave you more than would ordinarily happen. >> when you say we, i want to make sure i understand what you are saying. >> the house counsel information that was shared with you, we requested and we shared what we got back with you. >> who is we? >> the majority. the fact is you can seek counsel, every member can seek counsel.

having said that, i find it odd that you would decide that we need to make a record before the court. if this were going to a federal judge, the judge would only consider ms. lerner's actual activity and would be making a decision de nova. having said that, i cannot nor would any chairman of either party hold hearings every time there is misbehavior, improper conduct of a witness. you can understand the committee cannot be turned into everyone coming and doing that. ms. lerner was here pursuant to a deposition, a subpoena, and was represented by counsel.

>> mr. chairman, one moment. mr. chairman, i am not trying to make this more difficult than it should be. it is just that i think when we are dealing with -- i'm very sensitive to this constitution, because i would not be here if it was not for it. we are dealing with people's rights, i think we need to make sure that at least -- the only thing i was asking and i know you have denied it, and that is all well and good, the only thing i was asking is we make sure that the members when they vote, they have access to the legal assessments of these arguments. the chairman is the chairman, and so i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record opened the end of the day. does any member wish to speak of the bill? the gentleman from florida. >> again, from the perspective

of being here, a senior member of the panel, i have never seen an instance in which a witness would thwart our responsibility in such an offensive manner. i am saddened that the ranking member would not work with us on moving forward. he says some things that are correct. he said some things that are dramatically wrong. or so of all, if you hold up the constitution, just open it up, has three distinct branches of government -- a legislative branch, and executive branch, and a judicial branch. rights are contained at the end in the bill of rights, and we want to comply with those. but in fact, the right of this

committee and the congress to conduct its business as set forth by the constitution is being -- is attempted to be thwarted by a government employee. our job -- we were sent here to review the conduct that is clear. our responsibility is very important to conduct oversight and investigations. we are the chief panel in the house of representatives. lois lerner is a federal employee who failed to appear at our request. under the rules of the house and this committee, she was issued a subpoena. she appeared. she was given the opportunity to exert her fifth amendment. she in fact waived that right by giving her testimony and her position, thumbing her nose at

this rightful committee under constitution and our legislative authority. lois lerner is in fact a poster child for thumbing her nose at congress. i'm telling you, i have absolutely had it with what we have seen, the power of this new at stake. it not in the constitution that there is a fourth branch that can tell us to go to hell. we have a responsibility to investigate what was going on. she has been given her rights. what the ranking member said is correct. we will follow the process. the decision is this committee today, to act on the resolution, and in fact this individual has thwarted the responsibility of this committee to investigate for her to testify.

she will be given the opportunity when she comes back to take the fifth, but in fact we are voting today on the fact that she waved it. that is a committee decision. we have a right to make that. we should back our chairman for the precedents for the future, and it is important that it should be set. today is a showdown in who is in control of the government and whether we honor the constitution. the rules of this committee and our responsibility as members of congress center on behalf of people out there this morning, got up in the middle of the night, work and at hey there taxes and expect us to sit oversee what the bureaucrats are doing. in fact, when you have the financial arm, the irs, of the united states spinning out of control, as we have seen in this instance, with a bureaucrat thumbing her nose at our process, there's something dramatically wrong.

i urge the adoption of this resolution. she will have her say. she will have her right to exercise her fifth amendment right, and the ranking member is correct. she may be held in contempt in the future. again, this is in fact a showdown today between an emerging pure rocker c that has spun out of control, and if you do not see it, folks, you're in trouble, and the system is in trouble. i yield back. >> thank you. or what purpose does the lady request recognition? >> i have an amendment in the nature of the substitute. >> the amendment in the nature of the substitute to the resolution of the committee on oversight and government reform, all offered by ms. norton.

>> the memo is considered read. >> thank you. this committee is fond of citing the constitution. i offer this resolution in order to allow us to show we mean it. i agree with the chairman that a hearing here would be unusual, when there is reported this conduct. we do not have a hearing on it every time someone objects. it is also clear that this is a novel issue and a close question, and all one has to do is to look at the authorities and see how they line up on both sides of when a witness waives her constitutional rights. both sides are anxious to question lois lerner, because she may be the witness in the only position to get to the root of where the origin of the controversy involving the irs was. the justice department has itself opened an investigation. ms. lerner took the fifth

amendment and issued a short statement proclaiming her innocence. i have looked at the authorities. the reason i offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute is that although i have spent most of my professional life, when i was not a public official, either as a practicing lawyer or a professor of law, i have no immediate opinion pro or con and still do not.

i only have a few minutes on my own to scant the authorities. i decided to write this last night only upon learning that there would be a vote on this matter. i would have to vote that an american citizen had waived a constitutional right. that is a very heavy burden. i learned that there had been correspondence from the ranking member, that there had been an expert opinion from house counsel. that counsel was regarded as an attorney-client matter, was not available to us. i learned further of course that is lerner's counsel had written to the committee to offer his authorities to my that she did

not wait for constitutional rights. clearly, wherever you come down on this issue, there are decidedly different precedents on when an american citizen waves her constitutional rights, including her fifth amendment rights. i do not see any basis for the committee to conclude that the question of waiver is clear and settled on the information before us now. my resolution might well yield no different results from what the chairman seeks through his resolution. but it calls for a hearing, but at the very least, would educate members sufficiently to make them feel comfortable in actually voting that an american citizen had waived a precious

constitutional right. the fifth amendment has become perhaps the most unpopular amendment of all the amendments in the bill of rights, but it was one of the favorites of the framers. no court would strictly construe a waiver of any constitutional right without more information than we have before us now. we are not a court. but i had taught the committee took seriously, even revered the constitution. the fifth amendment has a long and storied history in this congress. much of it among the most

discredited in the history of this body. the point of calling lois lerner was to discover what no other witness can tell us. it is still our -- >> will the gentlelady please wrap up. >> it s still our purpose, i would hope that we could find a way to get to the real point of hearing from her, perhaps by offering her immunity through some kind of negotiations with her counsel. that is what we all want. voting to waive her constitutional right is a last resort. >> will the gentlelady yield. i will not be supporting your amendment, but i wanted to make clear, trying to get her testimony, offering immunity, all of that by definition comes after the assertion during the earlier hearing that she had

waived. as i said earlier, we are dealing with a motion that originated that she had waived, a decision that i reserved for 37 days-- >> are you saying since she waived, we do not need to discuss whether perhaps she would testify if given immunity? >> the decision to whether she waived and the decision of whether they would proffer and all those decisions, quite frankly are not going to happen until after we conclude her

testimony, which she began, continued, and then stopped earlier. she is still a witness pending from a recessed hearing, and that is what we are doing today, repairing to go forward with the hearing. >> have you considered offering her immunity so we may discover the evidence received from her? >> i apologies, but there are some things that cannot be said in an open hearing. >> but to waive her constitutional rights? that is very serious. >> we were all here, or eligible to be here. we have noticed this markup pursuant to the rules. the gentlelady had 37 days in which to seek counsel's. >> 37 days you noticed this hearing/ >> as to the question of a statement made -- the gentlelady's time is expired. i will now recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> the prospect of having another hearing seems to resistible accept that that would not disclose one single solitary relevant fact.

all facts necessary are already in the record. ms. lerner is not coming back, and i do not need law professors to home for a second hearing and reading the case law. there were not be one additional fact, uncovered at a second hearing. what facts do we have at our disposal? i have identified nine separate specific assertions made by lois lerner on may 22, and i was after she asserted her right against privilege. nine separate assertions, including i have done nothing wrong. i have broken no laws. i have provided no false information to congress. i had violated no irs rules.

i've violated no irs relations. and then she authenticated a document. all of this after she info to her right to remain silent, nine separate factual assertions in the authenticating of a document after, with advice to counsel, with the advice of counsel sitting right behind her. she testified to nine separate assertions, and then authenticated a document. mr. chairman, the case law to me is clear. that is not the way the fifth amendment works. you do not get to tell your side of the story and then avoid the very process that we have in this system for eliciting the truth, which is cross examination. why do we have a confrontation clause? to my colleagues on the other side? the cross examination is the

best tactic for eliciting the truth. every witness has to sit on the stand, and they have to weigh in balance, what are the benefits of saying nothing, which is my right, or what are the benefits of getting my side of the story out? that is what you have to balance, saying nothing versus telling her side of the story. esther chairman, there's no contemplation in the constitution that you tell your side of the story and you are never cross examined. the supreme court agrees with. mr. chairman, these are two quotes -- a witness may not testify and then vote against self-incrimination when questioned about details. in brown versus united states, a witness waives the privilege by voluntary giving testimony. a denial of activities that might provide a basis for prosecution constitutes a waiver of that privilege.

she has a right to remain silent. she could have said nothing. he had a witness this week you did that. we had a witness who said nothing. she did not. she made nine separate factual assertions. and then she authenticated a document. if that is not waiver, if that is not express waiver, then clearly it is implied waiver, and if not implied waiver, what is? if getting your side of it, nine separate facts, and, mr. chairman, i have to add this. aside from certain factual assertions, this witness volunteered -- and this is important -- she testified that she has done "nothing wrong."

that is an amazingly wrong statement. it is a double negative. what she is really saying is i have done everything right. to say i have done nothing wrong is to really say i have done everything right. so, mr. chairman, what possibly could be a broader assertion of fact than to say i have done everything right? i want to say this in conclusion, because my time is almost up. i have had private conversations with colleagues on the other side, other than to say that i have benefited from their counsel. the way i view this is this is congress asserting its constitutional obligation to

provide oversight. yes, she has a constitutional right to remain silent, and she could have invoked it, but she did not. and we have a constitutional obligation to provide oversight. so we could have another hearing. there is not going to be one more fact that is part of this record, not one. we will bring a law professor to say she waived, you will bring one to say that she did not, and we will be right where we are today. all the facts that we are going to have our here right now. nine separate factual assertions. if that is invoking your right to remain silent, then there is no such thing as waiver, no such thing. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i wish to speak to the resolution. with the gentleman be speaking to the amendment or the resolution?

>> the gentleman is recognized to speak to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia in regular order. >> could i ask that my time has been restored? >> no, he took it. >> thank you. i wish to support the amendment offered by the gentlelady from the district because i think actually there are more facts to be heard and there are other points of view to be heard. what we are about today is not to prosecute lois lerner, ably though our colleague from south carolina seems to be doing. it seems to ensure the constitutional rights of a citizen. mr mica referred to her as a bureaucrat thumbing her nose at

congress, and that is what this is about. that is not what this is about. this is first and foremost it was lerner, a citizen, invoking one of the most sacred privileges and tried in the bill of rights, her fifth amendment right to protect herself. the record will show which he was summoned she resisted him and she invoked her fifth amendment right. she came here under subpoena, a partisan issued subpoena, not supported by our side. against her will. and she made a statement and then refuse to answer any questions, and was dismissed by the chairman come up properly so. mr. gowdy would have you believe

the fact that she made any statement constitutes a waiver of her constitutional right, not just self-incriminating. i beg to differ. a slot is very clear, that the fact that she made a statement does not somehow constitute a waiver. there's a famous case during a different era, united states vs. hogue in which mr. hogue made a statement. i am not so engaged. i will not so engage in the future. i am not a spy or saboteurs. and then invoke the fifth amendment. the court found that did not constitute a waiver, just like this case, lois. another case, the supreme court was crystal clear that it is a very high standard you have to meet before you can determine that someone in fact has waived their fifth amendment. i think the record is quite clear ms. lois intended from the beginning to invoke her fact amendment and protect herself as an american citizen as she is

entitled to do. i would, too. if we do this today, every american citizen is at risk who is ever summoned before this committee, and it could be construed, as though i am sure that is not the intent, that by insisting she appear under subpoena and having her at the witness table, one observer could claim she could claim a constituted entrapment. i'm sure not that is what our intent was, but i would put out that the d.c. bar ethics code says when someone has invoked the fifth amendment, it is wrong to haul them before a committee, and the word they use is, if the only purpose to be served by doing that is to pillory them, that is the verb, which invokes images of different eras in american history that the fifth amendment was designed to prevent from recurring. like the salem witch trials.

where people were pilloried and worse. i believe that if we pass this resolution, we are trampling on the rights of an american citizen him and that trumps everything. that trumps the need for her testimony to my that trumps her status as a federal employee, that trumps her status as an official at the irs. if we are not about protecting the rights of american citizens, what are we about as members of congress? i urge colleages to put aside politics here. i urge my colleagues to go carefully about what we are about to do. you may make a small political gain by passing this resolution, with long-term costs, and you will erode the confidence in the

people in what we are about, and there is an institutional commitment all of us need to be concerned about. and i plead with my colleagues to think carefully, why not take some time and have a hearing so we can air this out? i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i thank the actions of the chairman in bringing up this resolution, which are entirely appropriate, and i understand they are bringing done under the advice of house counsel and i wish to second their marks by my colleague mr. gowdy. i spent many years as a law year and a judge coming to congress and spent the last7 1/2 years trying felony criminal cases. every case i have read about the

fifth amendment would not have allowed and in fact as a lawyer i never would have advised a client that they could give a statement under oath and then plead the fifth. as a judge, i would never allow a defendant in my court to testify and make a statement and emphatically declare their innocence and then plead the fifth at that point. that would make a mockery out of the fifth amendment. and i think it is accurate to say the record will show that i was a judge who leaned very much in favor of defendants. i was never a prosecutor, and i did everything possible as a judge to bend over backwards to make sure that all defendants appearing in my court got every right that they were entitled to.

but lois lerner came in here and on nine separate occasions declared her innocence or strongly asserted that she had done nothing wrong, repeatedly. i cannot allow witnesses to testify under oath and then plead the fifth to keep from being questioned or cross- examine. it is not fair, it is not consistent with the history of our country and judicial history. the key here is that committee is operating under rules different from other committees. most other committees in the congress do not swear witnesses and place them under oath before they testify. lois lerner came here under oath and he essentially told her side of the case and then pled the fifth, denying them i self, mr. gowdy, and other members any

opportunity to question her or cross-examine her. so i rise in opposition or speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and i believe the actions of the chairman in bringing forth this underlying resolution are entirely appropriate and consistent with all the legal precedents and history in this country. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman. i take a short moment to respond to my friend from virginia, who spoke so eloquently about the sanctity of the fifth amendment. i think it is important that somebody be represented by counsel, and ms. lerner was. it is more important through realize that most important that she made voluntary decisions, not just a decision to make an opening statement that made claims and assertions on point, but then to answer additional

questions after she invoked her fifth-amendment privilege to answer additional questions. i am not an attorney, even though i serve on judiciary and have this obligation here today. is why we sought counsel and took the time. it is the result of recognizing there is both a legal precedent for this, and many people here have not taken the time for it over the last 37 days, but the important thing is the respect for the constitution is also respect for the fact that if somebody comes and gives testimony, they become subject to cross-examination. and the decision here today is to my did she have testimony, and did she choose to take offense,, and is she subject to that cross-examination? i know everybody here in this

room, if accused of a crime or even just being sued a month they would want a right to cross-examination. we the people would like to cross--examine her. i thank the gentleman for yielding back. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> i think this is an incredibly serious question put to this committee. all of us want to hear what she has to say and what information she may bring. we want to do our job and get on with the investigation that underlies this. where hopefully just as concerned about aching sure this committee upholds the constitution, particularly, the fifth amendment rights on any citizen matter what we think of the citizen's earlier activities

or statements. i am concerned that this unusual for sitting, that she was subpoenaed her attorney made it clear that she was going to plead the fifth, and yet he continued to force her to come in before the committee. as mr. connolly said, what for? to pillory her? in the judicial process, and i think mr. connolly made it clear, that is not the usual way to proceed. in this bar it would be considered a questionable practice to put somebody in that kind of an untenable situation. i'm concerned from the outside of what that was about, about spectacle or about trying to move this matter forward on that. i am also concerned that we are dealing with an issue of law here. you're asking this group of non- lawyers to make a decision based on a consultative legal

question, and it is not as cut as dried as some wish it were. we have had some days where we relight the chairman was going to move in this direction to seek out some advice and we got advice on both sides. some experts, on either side of the issue, and it deserves a full exposition here as the amendment would do of having experts come in and breathe us and testify as to what underlies their opinions. the formal counsel stated that that introduction to the committee was a profession of her innocence, offered prior to the commencement of questioning. it contained no fax relating to the subject matter and denied wrongdoing. he would not recommend that she be brought in for contempt or found that she had waived her rights.

another expert from columbia makes it clear his opinion that her willingness and response to the requests that she authenticate her prior statements deprive her to the fifth amendment privilege, which did not happen. her willingness to authenticate them to admit the prior statements are made without concessions of veracity is not testimony of substance to the prior state and straight he gave a siding for that. there's conflicting information on that. although the chairman indicates members were allowed to see his requests for house counsel opinion, i am looking at the e- mail that went back-and-forth that says i says i would also ask that you not distribute it widely, " like to all of your members."

my question is, which of your members here, would you like not to see this, would you like not to be fully briefed before they made this decision? which members have different status than members on your side, whom you were willing to share this in advance? that is entirely unreasonable and unfair and should not happen, and i find that his offenses to people who might be included in that category. we have not had ample time that an exposition of facts. how is mr. cummings likely to determine -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> in a second. the ramifications are bad for the house. i would ask that you not distribute it widely like to all of your members. i would yield only of the gentleman wants tell us which one of all these members in the

majority would not want to see the report? >> the chairman yields? >> for that purpose. >> the gentleman should not have to answer that question. >> i am sorry that you are offended -- >> if you are not going to answer, i claim my time-- >> this was an opinion given to the majority on my request. this was the chairman's request. >> it was an opinion to the members of the house -- >> no, that was not correct. >> who did you not want to see that report? >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> legitimate excuses -- the gentleman's excuses have waned, too. >> losing the focus of our purpose. i have great regard for the gentlelady from washington who

has looked from the perspective of both sides of the equation. we are doing a great deal of talk about the characterization of lois lerner and the idea that somehow we are here attempting to embarrass the witness. i go back to the point, we are not here with regard to lois lerner. we are here because there are american citizens who were affected by the agency that she oversaw who used her authority in the irs to what we believe to be an impressive fashion against what could be their constitutional rights, and, potentially, any criminal fashion. and so, what we really have, we are engaged in a civil proceeding. and to the extent to which lois lerner has rights that she can invoke using her fifth amendment, they were to any

ultimate question that she may be accountable to any criminal for, not here. what she says here may be relevant, and there's plenty of history with regard to that issue. but let's go to the facts of what happened here. we are here on a civil proceeding, and we do have a responsibility, and oversight responsibility, to address that which we just articulated, it is the responsibility to assure that the rights of citizens have not been oppressed by the irs. lois lerner does not have any right to refuse to answer questions before this committee unless they would in fact incriminate her. she may in fact -even-and it is not uncommon in the civil process of law, for a person to come in and be deposed and under normal course of questions go through, she has competent counsel, and there are questions that will be answered, and counsel will take a particular

question and say that goes to the potential, that it might be a meaningful basis that it could incriminate her criminally, and there is a broad reading of that. i suspect that lois order comes back here, she will invoke the fifth amendment to quite a few. in fact, everything. the fact of the matters, we have changed the dynamic here. with competent counsel, some of the best attorneys available, and lois learner is an attorney herself. she voluntarily changed the dynamic. when she chose to use the foreman, where she was aware there was going to be a national forum for her to declare whatever it is that she wanted to do, and she used this occasion very specifically, and the gentleman from south carolina but through an eloquent

way the number of ways she opened the door. i have in my hands here the letter from counsel. we knew what she was doing why invoking the fifth grade all she had to do was sit there and say " i invoke the fifth." and in case, we would not be here today. she was the one who put into the record, the subject matter. she opened the door to the subject matter. she is the one that included the reference to the i.g. report. she is the one that brought the i.g.'s report into this. she is the one who made these statements, i did not break any laws, i did not violate any irs

rules or regulations, i did not i did not give any false testimony to this or any other congressional committee. with respect to all of the things that had just previously been identified, that is the subject matter in which she put it into play. that is a voluntary waiver. and in determination with counsel sitting right behind her, we are here today because lois lerner made a choice. she made a choice to use this forum for her purposes. and i -- and i ask this committee to remember why we were here, not for lois lerner, but to make sure that we stand up for the rights of those who have been oppressed by the i.r.s. i conclude my comments by saying lois lerner is not surrendering any fifth amendment rights. because we can foresee what's going to happen down the line. to the extent that she will invoke fifth amendment privilege, and we would hold her in contempt, it will go before ultimately a qualified

court of law. and there it will be briefed and there they will have the best of attorneys if in fact it gets to that matter. and prior to that, there may be a decision for other kinds of activities this committee would make that would make that issue not relevant. but as to today, as to this moment, lois lerner opened the door and she can't have it both ways. and i believe at this point in time, this is a simple resolution which is simply saying that we have the ability to ask her to come back to answer questions with regard to the issues that she opened the door to. and we may, she may ultimately then invoke her fifth amendment and we will be back at a further proceeding. but this is not something that violates her rights. and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. thank you. >> the question is, on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentlelady -- on all those in

favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the knows have it. -- the noes have it. the agreement is not agreed to. >> mr. chairman. >> are you asking for a roll call vote? >> i ask to be representsed. for five minutes. >> i did not recognize the gentleman. >> you taked right over me, sir. >> are you requesting a roll call vote? >> i'm asking you for five minutes to speak. >> you'll have five minutes on the amendment. ok. on the resolution. >> i am asking for a roll call vote. >> you're very welcome. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. issa. >> no. >> mr. issa votes no. mr. mica. mr. micah votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. mr. duncan.

mr. duncan votes no. mr. mchenry. mr. jordan. mr. chafits votes no. mr. wahlberg votes no. mr. langford. mr. amash. mr. amash votes no. dr. gosar votes no. mr. meehan. votes no. dr. dejardlay votes no. mr. gaudy. mr. gaudy votes no. d.. farentho so no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall votes no. mr. massey. mr. massey votes no. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes no. mr. bentavolio. votes no. mr. desanties. votes no. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes aye. mrs. maloney.

mrs. norton. ms. norton votes aye. mr. tyranny. -- tierney. votes aye. mr. clay votes aye. mr. lynch votes aye. mr. cooper. aye. mr. conley. mr. conley votes aye. ms. spear votes aye. mr. cartwright. mr. cartwright votes aye and mr. pokan. votes aye. mrs. duckworth. mrs. duckworth votes aye. ms. kelly. ms. kelly votes aye. mr. davis. mr. davis votes aye. mr. welch. mr. welch votes aye. mr. cardenas votes aye. r. horsford votes aye. ms. grisham. mr. jordan. you're not recorded. >> mr. hastings. how do you vote? >> no. >> mr. hastings votes no. >> does anyone else seek ecognition for the vote?

the clerk will report. >> on that vote, mr. chairman, 20 noes and 16 ayes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. since we have a vote on the floor and wanting to leave ample time on the underlying resolution, we will stand in recess after -- we'll do one more on the underlying -- yeah, we'll stand in recess until five minutes after the last vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> pursuant to the previous announcement, the committee will come to order. is there anyone here who wishes o speak on the resolution? i'll be patient. i'll recognize myself. lest we lose the time. today we have had ample debate on the question of a straightforward resolution, did ms. lois lerner on may 30, 2013, in all or part, proceed after asserting her fifth

amendment privilege and if so, did she waive? that will be the question to be decided in the vote that will come momentarily. it is my assertion that she did. having heard the debate, i have not changed my position. and i will reserve pending -- for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> well, mr. chairman, as you know -- >> would you like to move to strike the last word on the resolution before us? >> i would, please. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. i do want to note for the record i originally requested time on the amendment. that time has been denied me. but -- and nothing i can do about that now. i do agree this is a serious question before the committee. we have -- we have balancing interests here. one is we certainly need to be able to call witnesses before this committee and expect the

truth. i think that's at the very core of our ability to conduct meaningful oversight and reasonable oversight. nd that certainly is -- is essential, especially this committee and the role that it plays. on the other hand, there is a constitutional right in the fifth amendment to have a witness avoid self-incrimination. and that's -- that's extremely important as well. and i for one believe i know the gentleman from florida spoke earlier today. he was seemingly offended that american citizens might come before this committee and thumb their nose at their government. i think that is a constitutional right to thumb your nose at the government. and i think considering the fact that congress'

favorability ratings at 6% there are other americans that would use a different finger with respect to congress today. >> is the gentleman referring to the upcoming parades? >> i'm not sure what you mean. >> don't you get waved at in your parade? >> oh, yeah, obviously. reclaminge my time. but i think in light of the scandals not only with the i.r.s. but with the n.s.a., i ink a lot of americans seriously doubt the integrity of some of their governmental institutions including our own. but this -- this hearing does not set the precedent that the gentleman from florida spoke of earlier. we have not had a hearing on this. we have not -- we have not done the meaningful investigation that would -- would explain to the court and look. we assume that there will be a contempt citation issued by this congress. it will be appealed to the court. and at some point, the court

will look, and they will say how did congress arrive, how did the committee first of all on government reform arrive at this decision that ms. lerner was in contempt? and they will look at the underlying record. that's what they'll look at. what -- what is the reasonableness and what is the thoroughness of congress' inquiry? i disagree with the gentleman's earlier statement, the chairman's statement that we have had a lot of public debate about this. we have not had debate in this committee over this. we have not had one word. we've had debate over this motion. but we have not had witnesses. we have not had constitutional scholars come in and inform the decisions of the members. you have a lot of nonlawyers here, np constitutional lawyers. and -- nonconstitutional lawyers. and they will find the decision was based on political considerations and not on meaningful inquiry and thorough

oversight. so i think what we're doing here today will -- will doom our efforts to hold ms. lerner accountable. because we haven't done the oversight. we haven't provided the under pinnings for our decision to be upheld at the court level. we're playing into their hands by not having the hearings. because i think we could -- look, i think you got some votes on this side if this was handled correctly. that you would have -- you would have people who justifiably agree with the way -- at least in our -- artful way that ms. lerner came forward and asserted her fifth amendment rights. but i think that's all being wiped out by a political process. this is supposed to be a legislative process. and an investigative process. and it has been none of that. we have not had the meaningful, deliberative process that i think would give weight to our decision. that's -- that's a failing of

this process today. this will not be presidential. -- precedential. how a witness must act before this committee. we're not going to get that from this process because there has been no underlying credibility lent to this process. this has just been a political process. and i regret that. so i -- i will vote against this. but not because on the merits. but because of the lack of process that we have had here. and that we really haven't done an investigation on this issue. thank you. and i yield back. >> thank you. i now move the committee on oversight and government reform approve the resolution -- >> mr. chairman. >> point of order. >> yes. >> you indicated at the earlier portion of this hearing that all members would have time -- >> anniversary said all members. does -- i never said all members. does the gentleman seek recognition? >> yes. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

>> mr. chairman, this political back and forth bickering is an embarrassment. the gentleman from florida, mr. micah, said earlier that this is a showdown. it's more like showing off. it's the same grandstanding we've seen repeatedly in this committee. the chairman continues to focus this committee on divisive hearings and witch hunts rather than identifying solutions to make reforms to government programs and agencies. mr. chairman, instead of bringing up a resolution to challenge a person's right to plead the fifth, why aren't we bringing forward a resolution to require the i.r.s. to bring their 501-c-4 regulations in compliance with federal law says exclusively, this is no longer just about lois lerner. there are clearly problems at the i.r.s. that much is clear. but mr. chairman, instead of this resolution, why aren't we

following up to the nine recommendations that the inspector general has already made to guarantee that the targeting that happened to both conservative and liberal groups never happens again? mr. chairman, these are the issues the american people want us to focus on. not more partisan bickering and gridlock. until we focus on solutions, congress will continue to be held in the lowest of regards among the american people -- public. and i for one don't want to be part of tearing this institution down. but building it up. but the american people are rightfully upset with us. >> excuse me. will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. the american people are rightfully upset with us. and it's because of what we're doing here today. if this resolution were to pass, what type of precedent are we setting? who are we in this committee to take away anyone's

constitutional right? what happened to those who were targeted was wrong. and this resolution does nothing to fix it. this process is completely improper. and nothing more than an opportunity to grandstand. so i will oppose the motion. >> will the gentleman yield? >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. >> i was curious as to what targeting, what is the witch hunt? >> i have not yielded, mr. chairman. >> then we'll have regular order. it's the gentleman's time. >> thank you. >> the gentleman -- >> there are nine -- >> it's the gentleman's time. >> there are nine recommendations within the inspector general report that we have not taken any time to follow up on or implement. we have heard from the new acting commissioner from the i.r.s. that their regulation is in fact out of compliance with federal law. we have taken no action to

bring forward a resolution directing the i.r.s. to do its job to update that regulation so that it's in compliance with federal law. we have taken no action to reform the other aspects of the i.r.s. agency which there is agreement on both sides needs to be fixed. all i'm asking for, mr. chairman, is for us as the members of this body to do our job. i'm not a lawyer. and i'm not here to decide whether or not this resolution taking away someone's constitutional rights is proper. but what i am here is as a representative of my constituents. and they didn't send me here to take away the rights of people. they sent me here to represent them and to make sure their government does a better job in serving them. and today, mr. chairman, this resolution does them no service. >> would the gentleman yield to the chair, please? >> yes. >> i take no exception to your right to your opinion.

i might suggest that this resolution is on whether or not the jl -- the gentlelady she appeared gave away her rights, that's what waiving would be. we have no intention of taking away rights. and i would mention that a later consideration of contempt and other proceedings would be a point at which any action against her would be taken. today we're simply considering on advice of counsel whether she waived. and i appreciate the gentleman yielding. >> thank you. may i reclaim my time? >> of course. >> the issue with the opinion which the committee members on our side just were able to review is it is not even conclusive. there is nothing conclusive in the legal opinion that -- tions the witnesses, the the witness' fifth amendment. had they continued in their testimony and responded to questions from members, that's not what the witness did. they gave an opening statement.

they refused to answer any further and they were excused by the chair. so that alone should be why this resolution is not passed and why we should get back to the work of what this committee should really be focused on. >> i thank the gentleman. we go to the gentlelady from wyoming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in light of the fact that mr. gowdy put this entire committee on notice of his concern that ms. lerner had waived her constitutional right against self-incrimination on the day that she appeared before this committee, and gave testimony, i move the previous question. >> the previous question is ordered. all those in favor say aye. anyone, no. >> may i be heard? in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the question now is -- >> the gentleman is asking to be recognized. >> the question is now on

approval of resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. any opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is -- the resolution is agreed to. this committee stands adjourned. >> roll call. >> a roll call being ordered, the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. issa. >> yes. >> mr. issa votes aye. mr. micah. mr. micah votes aye. mr. turner. mr. turner votes aye. mr. duncan. mr. duncan votes aye. mr. mchenry. mr. mchenry votes aye. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes aye. mr. chaff its. mr. chaff its votes aye. mr. wahlberg. mr. wahlberg votes aye. mr. langford. mr. langford votes aye. mr. mash. mr. mash votes aye. dr. gosar votes aye. mr. meehan. mr. meehan votes aye. dr. dajerlay votes aye.

mr. gouty. mr. gowdy votes aye. mr. faronthold. mr. hastings. mr. hastings votes aye. mrs. lumus. votes aye. mr. woodall. mr. massey. mr. massey votes aye. mr. collins. mr. collins votes aye. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes aye. mr. bentvolio votes aye. mr. desanties. mr. desanties votes aye. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes no. mrs. maloney. ms. maloney votes no. ms. norton. ms. norton votes no. mr. tierney. mr. tierney votes no. mr. clay. mr. clay votes no. mr. lynch. mr. lynch votes no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. conley. mr. conley votes no. ms. spear. ms. spear votes no. r. cartwright.

>> no. >> mr. cartwright votes no. mr. pokan. >> no to mccarthy. >> mr. pokan votes no. >> pardon me. are you voting no to what? >> voting no to the mccarthy tactics that we're having today that our side isn't allowed to talk about so i'm voting no. >> continue. >> ms. duckworth. >> no. >> ms. duckworth votes no. ms. kelly. ms. kelly votes no. mr. davis. mr. davis votes no. mr. davis votes no. mr. welch. mr. welch votes no. mr. cardenas. mr. horse ford. mr. horse ford votes no. ms. grish amount votes no. -- grisham votes no. >> how is mr. mchenry recorded? >> as voting aye.

>> and mr. woodall, how is he recorded? >> mr. woodall has not been recorded. >> is there anyone else that seeks recognition to vote? > you are recorded voting aye. >> the clerk will report. >> on that vote, 22 ayes, 17 oes. > the resolution is agreed to. the resolution finding lois

lerner waived her fifth amendment privileges on may 22, 2013, is approved. and we stand adjourned. >> tonight on c-span represent zoe lofgren and mario diaz-balart talk about immigration policy in the house. then kentucky senator rand paul campaigns in south carolina. followed by former florida

governor jeb bush and the undraiser in new york. tomorrow, on washington journal, we'll host a roundtable discussion on president obama's plan for addressing climate change. with guests joshua zive, a lawyer and lobbyist with the electric reliability coordinating council. and bob deans, the federal communications director with the natural resources defense council. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this sunday, american history tv on c-span3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. >> the 73rd and four other regiments were recruited by general sickles earlier in the war to form the excelsor brigade principally out of new york city. this particular regiment, the 7 3rd, was recruited in the fear halls of new york city. so the fire men of new york city answered the call to come to duty into the army as union

soldiers. and they will be about 350 of them out here on july 2. they will suffer 46% casualties. at the dedication ceremony, the honorable robert b. nooney said this. he said there are times in the lives of nations when the energetic actions of even a small number of men will arouse in others the highest and noblest sentiments. and spur them on to a sense of their duty and a greater degree than the chivalrous eloquence f even the most gifted orator. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage sunday begins at 9:30 eastern with his torns throughout the day including harold holliser, howard cofin and he had edward gelzo and at tweets and ake your

questions. nd keynote speaker doris kearns-goodwin and end the day at 9:15 with peter carmichael taking your calls and tweets. you can submit questions and comments to our sunday guests at facebook come/cspanhistory. >> a day after the senate passes their version of an immigration bill, members in the house's gang of seven active zoe lofgren and deladelaz bart hosted by bloomberg government, this is about 55 minutes. >> i'm peter cook. bloomberg television. thank you all for being here and thank you to the media representatives who are here. c-span is here. bloomberg television covering this event. a whole host of other folks so again, appreciate your interest and gives you a sense of how important this is and how

crowded this room is. this is an issue of incredible importance to the country. to the business community. and important to bloomberg. to the nation as a whole. and we are very lucky to have two people right at the heart of the debate in congress and in the house of representatives in particular. two members of the gang of seven who have been negotiating a bipartisan immigration compromise for not the last few months but the last few years up on clill. behind closed doors most of the time. and at a time when reporters after the vote yesterday in the senate are racing all over the hill trying to find members of the gang of seven we're lucky enough to have them here up on stage. so for me as a reporter, this is a great opportunity to find out your sense about where things go from here. congresswoman zoe lofgren of california. a democrat and on the immigration -- on the judiciary committee and she's the ranking member on the immigration subcommittee. again a member of the gang of seven. represents silicon valley which has a big stake in the outcome of this debate. and congressman delazblart, a republican from florida.

the leadership has looked to particularly on immigration and we're so thankful to have both of you here and to give us some insights. i want to begin by letting you know and those of in you the audience at 9:10 we will turn it over to the audience for questions. so we hope you're thinking of questions and step to the microphones here in the aisles and identify yourself and we'll turn it over to you for some good questions for our panelists. but let me begin here and congresswoman i'll begin with you. your immediate reaction to what happened in the u.s. senate yesterday and how that changes the debate about to play out in the house of representatives. >> well, first, let me thank you for that introduction and point out that we do not consider ourselves a gang. we are -- >> a group? >> we are a working group. and we have in fact -- as mario knows been working for the past several years to try to reach consensus in the house on a bipartisan bill. i was happy for the senate that they were able to have such a

large vote for reform measure. i know that it took a tremendous effort and compromise to reach that point. and i think it really cheered up the country in a way. to see that the senate could get something done. pass a bill out. there's many good things in that bill. i certainly, if it were put up for a vote, in the house, i could vote for that bill. but mario i'm sure will talk in greater depth. i don't get to go into the republican conference meetings. but i have heard for some time, from my colleagues across the aisles, the intent to have a different approach in the house. not merely to take up the senate bill. and that is given us added incentive in our working group to try and come up with a product from the house. that conservatives in the house could embrace and that would let us move forward.

so i'm cautiously optimistic. but obviously there are many challenges that we continue to face. and luckily we have the strength to meet those >> i think it's a very important step in the right direction. it's no secret that for many, many years both republican and democratic leaderships have use combdgration as a political tool. there have been ample opportunities where republicans could have solved the issue, didn't, democrats could have solved the issue, didn't. so it's great to see a real serious effort and a bipartisan effort. because the only way we're going to solve something that's so controversial and so difficult if it's done in a bipartisan way. so i think it's a very important step in the right direction. i think if anything, we're now more encouraged than ever. realizing in the house we're going to have some serious challenges. it's a more complicated place,

it's bigger, more individuals. but i ultimately think the american people demand to fix what everybody recognizes is a system that's broken. it's broken for our national security interests, our economic interests. we have millions of people here who we don't know who they are, they're in the shadows. everybody recognizes that. now, inaction is always easier. but the good news is that there's a group of people we have seen in the senate and also in the house and we know that, we've been working with them, that want to finally come up with real solutions that will fix the problem and to do so it has to be done in a bipartisan way. >> put you right on the spot. when do you roll out your plan in response to what came out in the senate and does this vote put pressure on you to produce a bipartisan package that can be considered on the floor? >> we are -- the bill is back from ledge counsel. it's not as long as the

senate's bill but it's long. and the members are in the process of going through word by word line by line to assure ourselves that it matches up with the agreement that is we made. that's a tedious pross -- process but it's a necessary process. we're meeting again today and that's not to say we will be finished with it today. but it will be done when it is done. it's more important to get it right than to get it done by a particular deadline. >> absolutely. >> i think i speak for both of us. i think that because it's back lej council it's at the end of the process. we've never set a deadline for ourselves but it's clear that we're not going to have a vote in the house next week we're in recess the week after. i mean, there is time for this product to be part of the process. i'm on the judiciary committee as you mentioned. we have taken up a series of

mall bipartisan bills that are in some cases bizarre. we have not touched the whole issue of how you get 11 million people right with the law. how are you going to get those people to comply and move forward? and that is something that we hope we'll be able to add value on in our working group. >> you can't deal with what is evidently a broken immigration system without dealing with the reality. again, whether you like it or not, whether you care to admit it or not there are millions of people in this country who are here, who in many cases have been here for many, many years. we have to deal with that reality. ignoring that reality does not make it go away. so i agree with what zoe said. that's one of the things that we have to deal with. the other thing is -- >> let me jump in. does that mean that republicans in the house are going to have to consider some piece of legislation that includes a

pathway to citizenship for those 11 million? or is there something short of that that you think can clear the house and also satisfy the senate? >> here's what i think we need to do. first recognize that the folks are here. i think if we don't get into general policy areas of discussion. i think it would be very counter productive for our future as a country to have a group of people who are here who are here forever in essence permanently, and potentially even legally, who those who might want to really put their hearts on -- their hands on their heart, pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states and everything that symbolizes to have a group of people here permanently legally who could never do that i think is counter productive to our future. now, having said that, you have to balance that with making sure that we do not violate something which is frankly

sacred the rule of law. can you reach that balance? you know, i think we have in our discussions. so it's doable. if you wonder if i'm not specifically answering your question, i'm not. but i think it's very important to understand what the policy ramifications are and can we ach a good medium point that satisfies the rule of law, making sure we don't violates the rights of folks who have been doing everything legally or will be doing things legally in the future, with making sure that we don't have a group of people who are always in the shadows and who can never aspire -- those who really want to aspire to be part of this great country. >> speaker boehner was asked about your efforts. was he encouraging of those efforts and he basically said yes. you should continue your work. it will be part of the discussion going forward. should we take speaker boehner

at his word? will your plan when it emerges get that kind of conversation from the republican leadership? >> speaker boehner has been very clear that he thinks this is an issue that has to be fixed, it has to be fixed now, this year hopefully. and i think, frankly, when all -- when push comes to shove, i hate to sound -- look, when push comes to shove, i think something very similar to what we have been working on is the only thing that has a shot of passing the house, of getting bipartisan support, and having a shot to get to go to the president's desk. and the speaker clearly wants to solve the issue. i think we hopefully will have a viable option. >> i would just add -- obviously i didn't vote for john boehner to be speaker. he's -- >> there's still time though. there will be ample opportunity. >> he's a conservative republican. i'm not. but he is also the speaker of

the whole house and he met with me and encouraged me, which i thought was very gracious. he met with the hispanic caucus, all democrats, last week, to encourage their efforts. so i think he's doing obviously his best to reach out to both sides of the aisle. his is not an enveeble position. this is -- i mean, there are very strong opinions, pro and con in the house. but i think that we as a country need a path forward on this. we know -- no one is satisfied with the status quo. we're all going to go home next week and -- probably this evening, and meet with our constituents. and i don't think anybody is going to say just keep it the way it is, it's so darned great. we need to fix this. >> senator chuck schumer yesterday after the conclusion of the senate vote of course not afraid to offer some advice to the house of representatives.

he said at the end of the day that is going to have to adopt what the senate has passed. what do you make of that? why not just bring -- have the house consider the legislation that passed? negotiated over six months time with a bipartisan group in the senate. why isn't that the solution? >> as i said, i could vote for the senate bill. but that doesn't mean that every other member of the house could vote for the senate bill. i think the republican members have been clear for some time that they want some variations on that. we're trying our best to work in a bipartisan way to come up with an alternative plan that's also very sound. and i think we will succeed in that. and this is the dance of legislation. the senate in the end likely will not get everything that they want and the house will not get everything that they want. that's the way things work in

the legislative process but if we do our job diligently, we will be able to come up with a measure that secures the border, that provides for enforcement of a workable law, that meets the needs of the american economy, that meets the needs of the american families. and also does something about the 11 million people who need to get right with the law and move on with their lives. and i think we can do that. >> if that senate bill came to the house floor would you be able to support it? >> you know, one of the things that i have not done and won't do -- because understanding that this is a very sensitive issue -- is draw lines in the sand of whether i will support something or i will not support something. i think there are parts of the senate bill that i really like, there are parts of the senate bill that make me take a step

back. but here's -- i am extremely grateful for those in the senate knowing how difficult it is -- and by the way, knowing how much criticism you get when you take on an issue that's this controversial. so i'm very grateful that they've done that. there are in our efforts and we have seen that in the senate efforts, there are genuine policy disagreements. and they're genuine. and they're not evil people. there are serious policy implications. so i think the way that we're going to pass legislation in the house is by what we're doing, which is talking to everybody. making sure that we try to deal with those legitimate policy concerns. there are some people in the extremes that are always going to be more satisfied -- they're going to want to stir things up and not want to pass anything. that's not who we have to deal with. we have to deal with the genuine policy concerns. i think the senate bill is a very good first effort. sit perfect?

no. we think our bill is a lot better. sit perfect? no. but i think ultimately we hopefully will reach a conclusion. hopefully we can go to conference, hopefully we can deal with the differences and come up with a bill and zoe stated what i think i said as well, what are some of the key issues that have to be solved. and i think there are a lot of good people of good will of either party, both parties, that wanted to find a genuine solution that's enforcible, helps our economy, protects the rule of law, protects our border and deals with the folks that are here. >> you all have been very careful throughout this process not to share too many details along the way so i'm going to try to press you on that. can you at least give us a sense if you compare what's cleared the senate with what you are working on where are the areas of biggest disagreement. detailed as you can be, broad brush strokes. but where are the areas of tension between what you all are working on and what the senate has passed? >> you're right.

we haven't shared a lot of details. >> there's always an opportunity. >> i think it's best to reveal the details when the bill is introduced. and we have been -- it's an interesting process that we've been through and it's the only process like this in my many years in the house where we have had members themselves sitting around a table hour after hour -- we have hundreds of member hours into this process going over several years discreetly. we met for three years and nobody in the press even knew we were meeting. we would have 25 people going in two or three times a week. and we did that -- >> we all want to find that room. >> sam johnson would bring the food one week and i would bring food the next week. and we did it because we wanted to make sure we understood the policy details. and you needed to be able to do that in a discreet way.

one of the things we pledged to each other was that we would be confidential until it was time to reveal it. and we've all been faithful to that pledge to each other. and i think that's helped by the trust that we built up with each other. we don't agree on every single thing but we're trying to sort through the differences so that we can have a solid plan that we can defend. and if you overlaid my voting record with that of judge carter you wouldn't find a lot of overlay. he as very conservative guy from texas who i have learned is a very solid person who i don't agree with on everything but that doesn't mean that we couldn't craft something together. so he disagreed on nine things, you should work on the tenth if you can and that's what we're trying to do. >> and we've purposely, one of the reasons that we've been so careful is we purposefully wanted to keep the politics out of it. we don't want folks out there

to start using an issue that may or may not be in the bill to start stirring things up. so we said let's try to see if we can agree among ourselves. and if we can then we have something to talk about. we didn't know if we were going to be able to agree on everything because it's a very diverse group. and low and behold frankly it's been a very honorable process. the fact that you have people who disagree who have campaigned against each other and yet nothing has come out, nothing has been used against anybody involved in this for political reasons. so it's been an interesting process. >> let's talk about a couple specifics, at least get your personal views on some of these issues that were hot button issues in the senate and again to the extent you can tell us what you think about -- let's talk about border security. do we need 40,000 more border patrol agents to make sure the southern border of the united states is in fact as solid as it can be?

>> we need what we need. we need to enforce the borders. we need to secure the borders. we need to do it in a way that's real, that is enforcible, and we have to have mechanisms to make sure that it's done. so is that the ideal way to do that? are there other ways to do that? you know, that's up for debate. however, i think there's a consensus -- around the country not only mooge the members -- that the united states can't be the only country in the planet who can't determine who comes in and who leaves. and that there are ways to do that and ways that people will understand that are real, that are enforcible. and the specifics of what that is, i don't think we need to get into right now. but i think there's a consensus that whatever we have to do to make sure that the united states is secure, that our borders are as secure as possible -- and that includes, by the way, interior security,

and that also a big part of that is having a visa system that works. because without those aspects, you can do all you want on the border but if you don't have a visa system that works or if you don't have an interior security system that works it's all for naught. so there's got to be a security system that's enforcible and enforced. >> this bipartisan group, we t louis gutierrez and have yer basra, myself, not conservatives dealing with conservative republicans but there is agreement that if you craft an immigration system that actually works for the country, you need to enforce it. and there's no disagreement between the parties on that point. >> $46 billion for border enforcement. >> we're not going to get into the specifics on that. but certainly, 40% of the people who are here without proper documents didn't sneak

across the border. they came in with a visa and overstayed. so i think you need to take a look at the whole picture. we're not going to get into details of the amount of money or criticize our senate colleagues because they worked so hard to get a bipartisan bill. but you need to have robust enforcement if you're going to have an enforcible situation. >> if i may add something. pretty soon you understand that in order to secure the borders you have to have a visa system that works. you have to have an interior system that call it an employee verification system that works. you have to deal with border security. all of a sudden you realize, these things are all interlinked and that's why it is such a complex difficult issue. because again, it's not that we like or don't like it. a lot of these issues are clearly interlinked. and if you don't fix one you're not fixing any of them. and again that just adds tot complexity. >> i remember when i was chairing the immigration

subcommittee we had dr. richard lands and the southern baptist was one of the witnesses. i quote him because i thought it was such a great line. i don't want to steal his line. but his testimony was that for many years the united states had two signs one said no trespassing and the other said help wanted. and people said you should do this the right way and we all agree with that but we have about 1.7 million undocumented migrant farm workers in the country. and we have 5,000 visa as year for unskilled. so obviously we didn't set this up so it could work. we need to make it work and then we need to enforce it. >> i want to ask about the visas. but one quick question on the price tag. how surprised with you on the cbo score and is it the goal of the group that you also have an end product that reduces the deficit? >> obviously -- i wasn't actually surprised that it was

a positive score. in fact, in the prior efforts for immigration reform we had positive scores as well. it is our hope that we will have a great score. we -- you can't send your bill to cbo until it's done. so that will be happening as soon as we finalize the final portions of it. but i expect that we will have a good score. because immigration is great for america. it builds the economy. i'll show you, silicon valley, in my home, half the startups in silicon valley were started by somebody born in another country. that's a job generator and it helps create wealth in america. it's a great thing for us. >> it's also one of the things that we have to remember is that it wasn't a surprise for me eetsdzor, by the way. >> a good selling point to members of your caucus? >> zoe and i have said here and we say it everywhere. without having a bill that we're sure that will help the economy, there's nothing to

talk about. so that is always a big part of it. now, the negative aspect. ok? what people always harp about are the fact that is we have these people that are here and say whatever you want to say about them, unskilled. they're already here. those folks are here. so in other words, we're not talking about bringing in 10 or 11 million people. we're talking about those people are already here. and if you can then bring them out of the shadows, make sure that they're doing everything legally, have an earned process. if you can make sure that they're paying all their taxes, if you can make sure that they're going to have to pay fines, et cetera, they're already here. and part of the thing that escapes in all the rhetoric out there when you hear people -- and again i'm not being critical because there are important policy decision. but one of the things that it kind of is forgotten in a lot of this debate is that the

status quo, when you hear people saying we have to enforce laws because we have illegal people. we have to enforce laws because we have porous borders. that's already the current laws. the negatives that you hear about, they already have whatever may may be. what we don't have is a system that works for our economy, for our national security, and so i don't think any of us were surprised with the scoring because the so-called negative we already have. the positives that you have is having an organized system that works, borders that are secure, you know who comes in and who leaves. those are the positive things. the fact that people are going to be paying taxes, we know how much

about bringing in 10 or 11 million people. we're talking about those people are already here. and if you can then bring them out of the shadows, make sure that they're doing everything legally, have an earned process. if you can make sure that they're paying all their taxes, if you can make sure that they're going to have to pay fines, et cetera, they're already here. and part of the thing that escapes in all the rhetoric out there when you hear people -- and again i'm not being critical because there are important policy decision. but one of the things that it kind of is forgotten in a lot of this debate is that the status quo, when you hear people saying we have to enforce laws because we have illegal people. we have to enforce laws because we have porous borders. that's already the current laws. the negatives that you hear about, they already have whatever may may be. what we don't have is a system that works for our economy, for our national security, and so i don't think any of us were surprised with the scoring because the so-called negative we already have. the positives that you have is having an organized system that works, borders that are secure, you know who comes in and who leaves. those are the positive things. the fact that people are going to be paying taxes, we know how much they're going to be paying, all those things are positives. the negatives, we have under the current system. the current system is in shambles. and again the easy thing is to do nothing. but we're not content with that. what should be my obligation to make sure the workers are indeed legal and how satisfied are you that technology can keep pace by trying to impose this nationwide? right now it's voluntary system. big leap to go across the country.

>> we're not going to talk again about the bill but i'll tell you what i think. have resisted the deployment of e-verify for many years. i would say successfully. worked to keep the e-verify bill off the house floor. my position was that if you e-verify for example thing a workforce, you'll find out something we already know. which is two thirds of them don't have their documents. and if you find that out and they all leave, american agriculture collapses so you really haven't solved a good problem there. however, if we come up with a workable system to meet the economic needs of america, i think e-verify will be part of the enforcement system. the e-verify needs to be contingent on a workable system. we made some strides in the technology you can now do e-verify with a cell phone. it needs to be something that is doable for american businesses. the bigger problem is in the data base. there is an error rate of about -- for every -- about 94% of the people who are -- come in are authorized, 6% who are

dinged are actually americans or legal residents able to work. well, that's an error rate that if you transpose it across the entire workforce, it's a lot of americans. so there has to be not only do we need to work to get the data base better, but we need to make sure that if an american is dinged they have some rights. they don't lose their job. in some kind of process. so we're working through that. and i think that we can work through that and i sort of reached the conclusion personally that if we come up with this workable system, we've got to accept that it's going to be enforced. and e-verify will likely be part of it. >> any different thoughts on that? >> no. we have absolute agreement that we have to have a workable system and that workable system has to be enforcible and enforced. which is why you understand how difficult this is.

the easy thing is to just talk in criticize or whatever. the difficult thing is coming up with solutions that work for business, that work for our economy, that secure our border, and that protect our rule of law. that's why it's been a very lengthy difficult process. but i think we're going to get there. >> how about h-1 b? high skilled born workers? technology companies, others say they are missing some of these people and can't find these people here in the u.s. would be helpful to find those workers do those job jobs and allow those folks to create those jobs. i'll let you go first flt there's some tensions here. there's worries that americans won't be getting those jobs. brur i think people recognize that again the fact that we are now -- look, go through our finest universities, tech universities, high tech engineering schools and a lot of foreign nationals that are coming here we're educating them and then sending them

abroad to compete the united states. that's not a workable system. it's in our best interest to have a lot of those folks stay here, create jobs here, create businesses here. and it's pretty elvet that's also another aspect that's broken. on that one, we've pretty much reached a consensus as to how to fix it, what the right policy is and how to fix it. i think most americans understand that unfortunately we're not a lot of americans are going into engineering, not a lot of americans are going into those very high tech professions. and here's the issue. in some cases i'm oversimplifying. but we either have folks to fill those jobs in the united states, or we're going to export those jobs to other countries. to compete against the united states. so we have to have a workable system. i think we've pretty much reesmed a consensus on how to get there technically. >> i would just add that the

technology factor is not just one answer. d you've got people stanford university had their graduation two weekend ago. half of the people getting their phd in computer science were foreign students. they're going to go out and create companies and create tremendous -- you look at those and say how much wealth is going to be created by that group. we want that wealth to be created here. so we -- for that group and others like them, you want to give them startup visas, make sure that they have an easy way path forward to become americans if they want to do that. we also have i think the answer is more to legal permanent residents than these temporary visas, which is what the h 1 b program is. but it needs reform. and i'll give you an example. sometimes we hear from engineers that the h 1 b program allows for engineers to

undercut the wages of american workers. it's important to listen and look because it's easy to say how could that be true? it could be true. computer scientists in silicon valley, the median income at the last bureau of labor stats sticks survey was about $ 133,000 a year. for level one wages in that same survey, it was $86,000 because it's 17% of the median. so you can see that when we -- we need to reform that program and actually we've worked hard to do that. so that you've got good people not undercutting the american workforce. we've had buy-in from the technology companies. i mean, there are some bad actors in the field. but they're not the companies that we're talking to. the other thing that we've --

we are pursuing is a proposal that microsoft made in a white paper last year which is to add some fees to the applications and use the proceeds to help american students go into stem fields. to help with scholarships. i mean, college is expensive. and if we help students go into engineering, in colleges, that would be a good thing for america. again, that's not a fight with the industry. it's a reform package that we've worked on very hard and i think it's really a very good work product that we've put together. >> i want to encourage everyone if you have questions to please step to the microphones ile at nate each side. if you say your name and say where you're from. you mentioned the tech industry. to what extent do you think the business communities lobbying in support for comprehensive immigration reform will make a difference? real quick answer before we turn to this gentleman?

>> look, i think it's important for everyone including the high tech industry to come forward and the restaurant industry. everyone. to come forward and to make sure that everybody understands what the problems are and what the needs are and i think this group has been meeting quietly for a long time. out to peerhed groups and members of congress. what we have not been able to do is keep the confidential to avoid premature to the system. we know that is coming. it has not been done in a vacuum. we have been listening. that has been one of the most important things. we have done a lot of listening and learning. >> we will do a little bit more of listening. the gentleman over here. >> many thanks for doing this.

now that theto ask committee is moving full steam , would it be too late for the bipartisan group to show their version? is there concern that what --pened with the farm bill any scenario with immigration reform in the house customer -- in the house? >> the chairman is correct. several partisan bills reported out of the judiciary committee and partyline votes. i think it has been very unfortunate. some of the bills are absurd. i will give you an example. all of the farmers in the

farmworkers union got together. they came up with an agreement to deal with america's needs. we have accepted that. ares probably the best we going to get. in contrast, the judiciary .ommittee reported the plan require them to step forward and identify themselves and leave the country and maybe they will be eligible to maybe come back. if anybody thinks that will work, it is absurd. none of the farmers are for it. have thek that we capacity to greatly impact the path forward. we're not -- you of how how to get 11 million people with the law.

we hope to be able to answer that question again in the near future. mario is part of the republican majority. rush.t deserving a i do think that we have time to come up with an approach. >> i agree. i do think we have time. it shows that it is difficult to get something done in the house. it is a very diverse group. i am convinced that when which comes to shove, it is not pretty. will get something done, it will be a bipartisan effort.

>> over here. what about a compromise for the 11 million undocumented? i love people to sue the american -- allowing people to pursue the american dream. >> in order to fix the issue, we have to deal with all of that. it is not working for low skilled or high skilled. ,e need to reach a solution commonsense solution that is essential. we talked about enforcing the orders -- borders. >> i remember when i chaired the subcommittee. a witness was the head of the

border patrol. his testimony was that if we get a legalization program that would allow the nannies and the busboys to come over it legally, it would help them a great deal to identify the human traffickers and drug smugglers on the border. that is still our challenge. >> huffington post. this is for congresswoman lofgren. the judiciary has been taking up absurd he smeal. what is the relationship there? you say that weiner has been working with you -- taking up absurd piecemeals. what is the relationship there? you say that john boehner has been working with you. verye speaker was courteous and met with me.

i wouldn't say that he is working with me on an ongoing basis. goodlatte, we mr. have a professional relationship . there are immigrations -- situations where we have worked together on bills. i think -- >> he held a hearing on your bill. >> i think the path forward is a decision that of the republican leadership needs to make. i cannot make it for them. i can't express my hope on what they would decide. decides what bills are heard i am hopeful we will have a better approach than we have had so far.

i will say this -- although we had, i think there was obviously an effort to have poison pills or matters that democrats could never support the cause, i mean, to make every undocumented person a federal criminal, i mean, that is unwarranted. we were not screaming at each other. we disagreed in a professional way, and we have an opportunity if the republican party decides to move forward to do so in a professional manner. >> i think you have seen a very dramatic change in just attitudes and rhetoric and everybody calming down. i think there is always going to be some who have a moment of -- an emotional moment. i think you are seeing a focus on the issue. if we can focus on the issue and solutions to those issues, i think ultimately we will get to a bill that we can -- that will become law. >> mike nelson, i write about technology and technology policy for bloomberg government.

it is nice to see bipartisan moving forward. my question is about technology and immigration, particularly about online politics. a lot of groups are out there to overcome inertia. what is most interesting is the virtual march for innovation. bipartisan groups, condoleezza rice, arnold schwarzenegger, mayor bloomberg. is there more about how to get a message that is not just about technology, it is about every person? >> every discussion i've had with opponents of the stop online piracy act, at the end of the last congress, i remember doing a conference call in november to forge the markup, and telling all of these young, technologically-savvy people, don't do these online petitions

because take a look at the demographics of the house of representatives. i don't even know what is going on. what you need to do is flood phone calls in to the capital. not the district office. that gets noticed. i am sorry to report that, but we have some younger members who tweet, but it is basically invisible to way too many members. the way to get attention is for individuals to either e-mail or call their own representative in the house. we work for the whole country, but we are employed by the voters of our district. and we go back to a hiring decision to our voters every other year. so that is the most powerful message, is when people call their own representative. >> that is so true. the other thing is that even then, it is not helpful if you

just call and say hey, you know, if you don't do this, i hate you. again, focus on specific issues. focus on -- you have a restaurant, talk about what your issues are with that restaurant. what sort of things would help you, what sort of things are hurting you. specifics like that are very constructive. but it is important that a -- that it comes from the member's district. >> another question here. >> i am jerry hagstrom from the "hagstrom report." i cover agriculture. you spoke positively about agreement and the senate bill. would i be in the building you are working on, and i'm wondering what mr. diaz-balart thinks about the agricultural several -- section of the bill in the guestworker proposal. >> we are not going to reveal what is in our bill, but let me just say that when you can have 70 farm organizations, i mean,

it is everything from the sheepherders to the tobacco growers and the vegetable people i mean, everybody. come to an agreement with united farm workers union, that is a pretty amazing thing. i think it is worthy of great deference. in fact, the senate did give it great deference. when you try to do a better job, and then it is easy to say this could be different or that could be different, but it is all put together in a way that is hard to undo. i think it is far superior to what was reported out of the judiciary committee that is basically not even a plan, it is completely dysfunctional. >> one of the things that you know but i did not until we started getting involved is how complex and how diverse the needs are of our cultural. regional, by industry, by product, by whatever.

we have met with all of those different players. i think because of the complexity -- clearly having the industry and labor getting together is great. if not that we like every -- it does not mean that we like every aspect or agree with every aspect, but we have to have the opportunity to meet, to talk, to see if it is workable, so i think it is a great for what they put together. >> one less question over here, and i will work -- i will wrap it up. >> erica warner with ap. there is public pressure on congress to ask, is something that mccain said after the vote last night. i'm wondering if you could address given that many

conservatives in our district with minimal numbers of latino voters come a how would that pressure really be felt by them? that being the case, given that speaker boehner would not act without a majority of the majority, why is there any realistic excitation or hope that the house -- expectation or hope that the house will do anything? >> the assumption that because there is a senate bill the house will feel threatened, pressured to support a bill, frankly is not accurate. i think the real pressure is the pressure to fix an immigration system that is broken. zero pressure is dealing with the fact that estimates are we have 10 or 11 million undocumented folks that are here today. tomorrow it could be 30 million. we do not control it. the pressure to deal with a broken border security system, pressure with fixing a system that is not helping our economy but hurting our economy. that is the pressure that needs to come to bear. if anybody thinks that because

there is a senate bill that the house members will feel pressured, that is just not true. i think, however, in the house, there are people who understand, that got elected to fix what is broken. i think it is very evident that very few things are as broken and are as detrimental to our national security, to our economic, stability, security, to our future, than with this broken immigration situation. i hope they feel pressure because women broken system that i think we can show there are fixes that are enforceable, that make sense, that protect the rule of law, and help our economy. that is the pressure i think will hopefully come to bear. >> can i just add -- one of the questions was not directed to me, but this is not just a latino issue.

it is, not just that. if you take a look at the asian- american community, take a look at the southern baptists, who have really stepped up to the bat in a big-time way to support comprehensive immigration reform, the evangelicals who are calling into offices, the conservative branch of evangelicals, who have become very active in supporting reform of the system, the business community that has stepped up to the back, and odyssey chamber of comments -- to bat, and not just the chamber of commerce. we do not know where this is going to end up, that there is a broad group across america saying we have got a problem here, and we need to fix it. i know because i have heard members, very conservative members, that are paying

attention. they have not reach a conclusion yet, but they have not ruled out being part of the reform effort. >> if you're concerned about amnesty, we have to pass legislation. if you're concerned about a broken border system because people are here unlawfully and we do not control that, we have got to pass legislation that deals with that. if you are concerned about the fact that we are exploiting high-tech people that compete against us, we have to pass legislation to fix that. that is where i think the pressure points are. if we can focus on the problem and solutions as opposed to rhetoric, i think we're halfway there. >> just to wrap up, speaker boehner said july 10, house members will vote, they will hear from their constituents, they will meet on july 10 two -- to decide on the path forward. when he looks over to you, congressman diaz-balart, and he says i need to step up and tell us what is going on with this bipartisan proposal, what is your message going to be to your fellow members of your conference and speaker boehner about whether you all can deliver something by the august date?

>> again, i am not speaking for her, but we have not been fixated on deadlines. we have been fixated on getting a bill that we think can get bipartisan support, that is real, that a healthy economy, all of the things that we have already talked about, that is what we have focus on. what i keep hearing is total get total discontent with a broken -- total discontent with a broken immigration system. there are disagreements as to how to fix it. it is our challenge, i think, and it is our challenge to be able to present to our colleagues an approach that is reasonable, that faces what is broken, that helps our economy,, that protect the rule of law, that forces -- that enforces the border, that is our challenge, and i think we can get there. the important thing is to make sure that people recognize. clearly is not going to be

perfect, but it deals with them, fixes a way that is enforceable, that is our challenge and our concern, to get it right. >> the final question to both of you -- it is alternately going to come down to a decision for speaker boehner with his speaker's gavel that could alternately help the republican party, help the country, in the future? >> i don't know, mario may have a greater insight, but i have always believed it would be necessary to have a good chunk of republican support to pass a bill. that is why we work so long to try and grow a solid bill that not only democrats but republicans can support. that is still my hope and goal. i have to do for the rest of the question to mario. -- have to defer the rest of the question to mario. >> i do not see it that way. our challenge is to build to come up with legislation that

the majority of our colleagues will support. that the majority of our colleagues will understand is -- does what we claim it do. that is our challenge. i've said it multiple times. i think to get this done, we need it to be bipartisan, not bipartisan like week and a nod it is bipartisan, it cannot pretend to be bipartisan. it has to be bipartisan. the country has to understand that it is real, serious, permanent, enforceable. i think there are less -- it are a lot of people in the house that want to fix this. i know that speaker boehner once a solution. -- wants a solution. our challenge is to give a proposal that meets that criteria. >> thank you both very much for sharing your thoughts on this controversial and important topic. you have given me a lot of an initiative. i'm going to go on the hill and

interview congressman goodlatte for my show, "capitol gains," thank you very much. thank you for coming. [applause] next on c-span, kentucky senator rand paul speaks in south carolina. that is followed by a for former governor jeb bush in new york. we'll have another event here a liverrow we bring you discussion as chief justice john roberts talks about the court and the constitution.

join us live at 9 a.m. eastern on "washington journal" on c- span. this sunday, american history tv on c-span 3 commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. senator angus king speaks on the senate floor about the battle. tuesday isthat next our nations most important anniversary, july 4. it is the birthday of the country. 2 is also oneuly of the most important anniversaries. that is the day the battles of gettysburg occurred. probably the defining event in the history of this country. itisn't orton this year --

is important this year because it is the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. few momentsare a about one particular aspect of that battle that in view's -- that involves alabama. joshua who in 1862 is a professor of modern languages. he was not a soldier. had no history in the military. he decided he had a vision of america and he wanted to serve his country. he joined a volunteer regiment organized in maine call that 20th maine regiment. they came down the east coast and were immediately deployed. it was the bloodiest day in american history. , they were held in reserve that day.

they did see action over the course of the fallen early winter. -- of the fall and early winter. the armies headed north into the state of pennsylvania. bear with myo skills. i think it is helpful to see what happened. it is easy to drop virginia. it is a big triangle. this is virginia. here is a pennsylvania and maryland border. in the early summer, two great armies snaked north out of virginia. the army came up the west side and into pennsylvania. shadowed by the army at potomac. 90,000 men. lee was heading their way into pennsylvania without any particular destination, but the

desire to have a climactic battle. it could have ended the civil war. on julynows exactly why 4 of 1863 those two armies collided in the little town of gettysburg. there was rumor that a shoe factory and that the southern army was going to get those shoes. forever -- for whatever reason, those two armies met. one of the interesting things about the battle was that they had almost gotten to harrisburg and came down into gettysburg. the union army was coming up the same town road from washington. they came in in this direction. , theattle of gettysburg southern army can from the north and the northern army came in from the south. on the first day of the battle, it was a standoff. they met almost by accident in this town.

there was fierce fighting in the streets of gettysburg and south of the town. it was essentially a draw. 1,the end of the day on july they both thought this was it. this was a confrontation. reinforcements came in from both lines to meet at this little town. what happened on the second day was on the morning of the second day, the union troops -- this is the town right here -- the union troops ended up on a hill. southong line to the along an area where they buried is a seminary ridge. on the other side, the , red markers and

blue markers -- over here was a place where they train people to be preachers. that is the cemetery ridge. generations of sixth-graders have been confused by this. uniona cemetery for the and the seminary where the confederate troops were. on the second day of the battle, a union general noticed there was a small hill at the bottom of the entire line of the union troops that was unoccupied i either side. he belies to that this could be the most important piece of property in the entire battlefield. that lookedevation up the entire federal line and anchored the federal line. the union general grab the nearest officer and said, we had to occupy that he'll

immediately. immediately. he grabbed two other regiments, new york and pennsylvania. and maine, the 20th maine regiment. timberlane had been the kernel for about a month -- chamberlain had been the kernel c --ol -- colonel for about a month. this is called little round top. pennsylvania, new york, and maine. they went to this point. here were his orders -- this is extreme left flank of the entire union army. you are to hold this ground at all hazards. at all hazards.

that means to death. almost immediately upon getting , athe top of the hill lodge --detected dish dislodge the 20th. steepttle round top is and rocky with lots of places to be behind. they took maximum advantage of that is the charge came. they were able to repel them. half an hour later, the alabamans came again. they were pushed back. they came again and were pushed back. each time they got closer and closer to the top of the hill. because of the nature of guns in the civil war, a good shooter could get off four shots a

minute. i want you to think of yourself at the top of that hill with the 15th alabama coming up and you take him with a rifle and shoot. bang! you are now prepared to shoot a second time. that might seem like an entire it kennedy. it took 15 seconds to reload and get another shot. that is why the charge came closer and torso are bashing goals are -- that might seem like an entire intern did he -- eternity. it took 15 seconds to reload and get another shot. that is why the charge was able to come closer and closer. vision forep america.

had a deep concern about the issue of slavery. thehe was a student in early 1850s, a young professor's wife was writing a book. he sat in the living room of this professor and listening to excerpts from the book. the book turned out to be the most influential it was called "uncle tom's cabin." and described for people in america the evils of slavery. it had lit the fuse that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. in any case, four, five charges, each time the 15th repulsed.s the they were gathering at bottom of the hill for the final assault. late in the day, hot