iowa. i've been there since first grade until i graduated from college. and i loved the corn fields and i love even sometimes the i know. but that -- that is home. that is where i feel comfortable. and it's been great to see the way the community has changed the years. when i first arrived there, it was me and my cousins that were latinos at the elementary school. as the community has changed and more and more newcomers have become something a lot different and it's i think omething that can be such a benefit to our community as we ee almost one in four students now ool in the local school systems where i live. tortorillas spring up in smalltown, iowa, it's been a

but it's also been a boost in benefits to the local it's just exciting he times that occurring right now. that is something that senator -- representative king needs to be aware of is hat his district is changing and that people are beginning to build relationships with the ocal immigrant community and they're realizing the struggles and hardships they're going through. is drawing people to this issue is relationships people and stories. that is what is powerful. hat's something that's missing from representative king's speech is the human aspect. ecause i doubt he knows any dreamers or any undocumented stories thend their way he talks about them. so i think that's just something he needs to come and -- come to changing and needs to be more

in tune with what is occurring because it's vastly different picture he's portraying i'm just excited for what is appening here and it's very encouraging. i'm very excited for the bill hat the senator has been working on. and i think now is just a very time.ing and it's just -- the excitement is building and i see this as a for this, you y know, bill to come through. o i'm really excited and thankfulful to be here. and thank you so much. >> hector, tell us your story. start, i first want to thank the senators for being ere, the fellow panelists and you, yourself, as well as the iowa dreamers that are present.

noise, iowa dreamers. whew! to -- on behalf of american committee, i want to things over to both senators. ne is our idea of immigration reform as well as a packet of -- 437 postcards from a ferent iowians throughout cupel of past months who are in support of immigration reform happen.t this reform to both of these are in representative latham's district comes from the representative who represents this district. to give this to representative -- senator, senator harkin. and senator dick durbin. >> thank you. one last thing, i'd ask that senators please sign a post card, easy do. sign your name. go as well.

organized.'s hello, my boss told me to do this. it.i had to do all right. so my turn b to tell my story. is similar and different to every other dreamer's due to the fact that when my family came to the united states, we came on a visa.st my earliest recollection was us being on the greyhound bus at 3. age of and i remember my little brother, my now big brother -- throwing up oner the bus, on the greyhound bus. iowa since i up in was 3. i'm originally from puebla, mexico. was a lawyer. y dad was a firefighter, taxi driver. he did any job to bring money to the family. due to the economic situation in had to, you know, come to the united states. my family originally planned to only for a couple of

years but the situation in even worse iorated so we decided to stay. i was not aware of my my cumented situation, undocumented status until i was getting ready to go to college. essentially my end of junior school. catholic high my dad told me -- i was coming back from hanging out with my then girlfriend. said hector, i want to talk to you. come to me to the car. me the story of how we came to the u.s. and how my expired while i was in elementary school. i'm going be fine. i don't need to drive or anything. graduated as i dowling, i realized that i couldn't go to a state university. i couldn't go to continue on my the fact that i wasn't eligible for state scholarships or federal grants eligible to the

things that my classmates were. the initiative along with my fiance, tess, to go and visit the service committee where the legal service director explained to me my particular situation. understanding my situation, it meant, really opened my eyes to what i had to do to overcome this situation falgsed. haveince i graduated i now just completed my associates degree at the community college nd attending drake university and i dedicated myself in my spare time to reach out to other engage them and tell them don't let your prevent you status from achieving your goals. [ applause ]

[ applause ] for myself, thank you for sending me to dowling where they it into you that education is key for the future. educated.to get the entire time i've been in the u.p.s., i heard that message, to ation is key and we need continue to educate ourselves and we need to get involved thisse even though we have undocumented status, i've got deferred action so i'm okay for years, we can't allow ourselves to fall in this where we think everything is going to be fixed or we can lay in the background and have other initiative.the we need to be out there in the forefront. engaging our representatives, our senators, out there telling the iowa people, telling our representatives, especially the representative who represents this district and my representative, representative latham that we are here. we might not get media coverage the dreamers in california or the eastern coast, but we are here, present.

we've been here for several years. thank you to a ick durbin for introducing the dream act in 2001. was in roughly the third grade. i had no idea something that happened happened so long ago have an impact now. dream nts believed the act would have passed and not have to tell me i'm undocumented. the nonpassage of the dream act. for me to be here now, you know, 2 years later looking back, it really shows how with need to come together and advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. we need this. don't want to wait another 12 years and have my now 9-year-old hey,her turn to me and say, hector, what happened to immigration reform. how come you're still undocumented. what happened? i want to say we were the forefront of this battle it this struggle and we held

he passage with other latino leaders. i want this reform to happen and want to tell our representatives directly you hold basically the power to do that. to say we e power want to bring this to a vote. house leader boehner, we want to for a vote. my point of view is what do you have to lose? you afraid of? if the bill doesn't pass, the latino community can look regroup, move on. if it does, we can all rejoice. the end of the struggle. for us, even here in iowa, fechb this bill continues to fail, we need to continue with this iowa.le for right now, those with deferred action, even myself, we can't loans, federal grants. we can't get those scholarships. e need to continue that struggle, the struggle to get that driver's license as well.

emphasis that we need to continue to move on. if we don't stand up front and immigrant may be an from the other country, i'm iowian and i deserve the same if we don't ou do, do that, all of this will be for nothing. forward, fight, telling our representatives, calling them, visiting the want s, telling them we the reform to happen and we are here. show, 400 some iowians want the reform to happen. 7%, 48% of this representative's own district wants the reform to happen. they can't deny those facts. dreamers wantther this to happen for all of us.

[ applause ] >> oh, that was great. hector's goinge, to be a lawyer. the davis r with brown law firm. you better keep an eye on this guy. > thank you for bringing a spotlight to this critical issue to iowa at this time. nd, of course, thank you to eduardo and hector. you're a very hard act to follow. o i'm not worried about competition. we need all of the good immigration lawyers that we can get. dreamers d all of the that we can get. now, i'm here today really not as an immigration lawyer so much representative of the business community. because i spent the last 20 with businesses

that -- that bring immigrants to to work in various capacities. i was asked so oday to represent that -- that perspective. businesses are not partisan. interested in not partisan politics. businesses are sbrelsed in historically and currently today, immigrants have critical role in the u.s. workforce. now, we have ight bout 5% according to most estimates of immigrant workers in our workforce. critical5% is really a percent because immigrants complement the u.s. workforce. and going forward, which is what i think we really have to stay when we're talking about immigration reform is the future as well as the past and have to lookbut we

to the future. will forward, immigrants play a particularly critical role in the workforce in the iowa.but even more so in you know, in iowa, they're doing work between businesses prepare iowa's workforce for the future. majority of jobs in the future will be what they call skill jobs. middle skill jobs are typically u.s. by the native workforce so to speak. ut we still will really need immigrant workers to fill particular segments that being - that aren't fillled by the u.s. workforce because workers are hard to find there are special skills that are needed. so we have to keep in mind that facing as a country and this is where iowa is even -- is

consulting edge, maybe the bleeding edge, we're acing the retirement of the baby-boomers. and as the baby-boomers have started to retire, they'll continue to retire. then they'll age. then unfortunately, some will get sick and we have to think all of those needs going forward. the ed to back fill for jobs that the baby-boomers leave, but we need to have jobs s that will fill created by economic growth and other opportunities that, you hopeful will be in iowa's and america's future. studies have shown that throughout the united iowa, that also in all growth in workforce in the 30 years will be attributable to immigrants. because of this demographic of retiring baby-boomers and the after them.oming and, of course, also, i think, alluded to, we

also need to fill jobs that are currently here. need to create jobs, we need innovation. this is where immigrants have contributed to america as well. immigrants are more likely as a roup to start businesses, immigrants are more likely to have a patent when they're high-tech the industries and that than native foreign counterparts. and then finally, we have to we live in a small world. we can't isolate america from rest of the world. economy.'s true for our and so therefore our economy is sum game. our workforce is not a zero sum game. usinesses and workers adapt to changing policies and circumstances. so we work with the rest of the a sense we're in competition for the rest of the world. or exports, imports, and workforce. so immigration from the business

should be viewed as a precious resource for many reasons, many, many cultural and many other reasons, you know? but also economically. sure that to make hat resource is being managed well, both now a and looking to future. so we look forward to working ith the senators and the representatives as the business community to really form help ation law that will everyone -- help immigrants, help the dreamers and the reamers are such a critical part of our workforce needs going forward. but, of course, of our and i certainly recognize the dignity of people s people but i wanted to bring out the economic aspect as well because it's important for the everyone. of we look forward to working on that and have an immigration really work for iowa and for america. . autz applause

>> thank you. >> i was remiss in not adding a member of the reater december moyn partnership work board. lori is the vice chair of the immigration council, a policy focused national organization. thank you. again, going to go to nick arrington, the new representative from uwsc local 222. i just double checked with durbin. from the business standpoint, the u.s. chamber of commerce supports the immigration bill. businesses get it. they know how important it is vitality of mic america. and it was also endorsed by the afl-cio. labor understands it also. we thank both of our business for abor community supporting the immigration bill.

so, nick -- nick, you've been ufcw where you call it packing house workers and stuff. my experience as i toured them -- i didn't work in did. like durbin he worked his way through college, he worked as a meat houses.n packing but as i come around, i see more communityf our latino working in our packing houses, and places that you represent so please tell us about that. ufcw local 222 out of northwest iowa. packing house in cherokee, iowa and dakota city, nebraska. that's close to roughly 5,000 employees and i would say latino. em are >> 75%? yep.s, o 75% of who we represent is

latino and immigrant workers. again, good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the panel and the audience, senators? today to d to be here talk about an issue that affects us all. these united states, our united the place for n dreams and opportunities for immigrants for hundreds of years. today.ream lives the opportunity to achieve this ream has become tarnished by political rhetoric and partisan politics. comprehensive immigration reform must create a path to citizenship. many as 11 million immigrants aspiring to be americans living and the united in states today. this past must be streamlined dreamers who are brought here as young children with immigrant parents. these people are part of the drive and the will of our economy. shops, restaurants, and stores. they work in fields, factories,

in meat packing. iving the life blood to the middle class like the irish and erman and other immigrants centuries before. congressman king has made omments about immigrants that are wrong and offensive. congressman king also feels that in some way rants are sub standard compared to everyday americans. well, let me tell you as a real collar iowian, i started in working in meat packing at one f the world's largest beef plants at the age of 18. as a young man fresh out of high chool, i had been around -- i had never been around that environment that meat packing involves. with most of jobs the men and women being immigrants. nlike some would have you believe, the immigrants working there paid their taxes. just like me. [ applause ]

they paid their insurance just like me. and most important, they were working for a better life for their families, just like me. [ applause ] in my years of working in the packing industry in the last four years working as a representative, i can tell you immigration reform will mprove the standards for all workers. it will help end the exploitation of any worker. [ applause ] families lp reunite without living in fear or being separated for up to 3 to 10 ears waiting to try to bring their families here legally. and sisters, ers

this current system is broken. deserves rican worker fair pay. deserves rican worker the opportunity to live this dream -- the dream of our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers. now is the time for america to a modern 21st century immigration system. for reform to create an effective mechanism in the employment eligibility and reform must not be piece milled or incremental. and st be comprehensive timely. [ applause ] this is our chance. ur chance to make our mark in history getting today's american equitable air and chance to become an american citizen. from e you with a quote

labor activist cesar chavez. once social change begins, it reversed. you cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. the people ppress who are not afraid anymore. e have seen the future and the future is ours. thank you. >> thank you, wow. [ applause ] powerful.hat was that thank you. guess i just think -- i

thought of this. i thought, you know, i happen to eater.eat so i just got to thinking, every time you pick up one of those or a chicken fingers or you pick up -- you've ribs on the becued grill or you're cooking that chances are 3ink, times out of 4, that was done by packing plant some place that provided that food for you. reverend barb? too, want to thank you. thank you, senators, for together.s thank all of you for being here. panel, i don't need to say anything, they said it all and eloquently. we're really talking about is people and how government people.ffects people who sometimes are not visible.

people who sometimes intentionally remain hidden out fear. and because of the role i have in he community as a pastor the united methodist church congregation no and inner city congregation, i daily.at impact the fear is real. hadhe old days, in 2006, we the raids in tyson. in 2008, the horrible raid in postville. saw, everybody knew hundreds of people were being up.nded treated unkindly. inappropriately, not given their civil rights. that. hearings on and now i ask people, so, do you know about what's happening to immigrants, the people who don't have working documents? folks don't. but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

what's happening a real people through government policy that we want to make good for the common good, right? the purpose. reform will help people not be fearful and it community and our businesses. it seems to me to be a no-brainer. i don't get it. that's where i continue to stay. but i see people -- i have a live , for example, that in fear. four little girls. they're citizens, mom and dad the little girls here was uncle over arrested and aunt over here was arrested, the little girls say, mommy, mommy, don't let them get you today. they live with that daily. you know, we had a fire in our kitchen but we the fire department because we thought maybe the fire department might turn us in to immigration. that's not going to

happen. but that's the fear that they live with. things that they can because they live in fear. our is change in immigration laws can only be mind.or everybody in my ou know, i do come from the faith perspective. that's who i am. out of the ho come mon thesistic religious, jewish, christian, they have an ancestor called abraham who was aremian.ng you know e people, do anybody in the bible that didn't immigrate, migrate? any, please? stand that way. i had professors say yeah,

one, that's not a good example. sod dom and ga mora. want to go there. i stand. people of faith, people who want to do good for the community, i don't get -- i don't get it. remain that. people want to become citizens. we have a little english program church. it's usually around 100, 150 people. as soon as people heard there to be a possible immigration reform, we had 270 people last year. we can't contain them. inre is not an english class the december moyn area that isn't filled to the max because eople want to do everything they need to do to become a citizen. pay your taxes, learn english, classes, got hip it. what do i have to do? we had a know your rights. need to do to become -- it really went like this.

system is gration changed, if the law changes, what will you need to do to get it?ared for we had 80 people there. people want to know. so i thank you very much for your attempts. up.se don't give we're here behind you. how can we help you. his is good for iowa, this is good for the united states. it's good for the world. let's keep going. [ applause ] >> i think what you've just seen here is really what i hope this iowa.y represents

we've got the business community, the labor community, faith community, our new dreamer community. leaders.l and people of all political stripes. not a partisan thing. this is not, never has been in the past. today.uldn't be it should be something that brings us all together to recognize that we have a broken system. and we need to fix it. and we worked very hard in a bipartisan fashion in the united tates senate to craft a bill that is supported across a wide spectrum. business, labor, faith community. as i said, both political parties. now, now, we had a situation that happened in the house recently. now, i mentioned the docket bill. not a bill -- it was something that president obama did t, a y?

>> last august. >> pardon? last august? >> it's called the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy. takes -- that says to the dreamers, those who fall under that ill, the dreamers, they can get a kind of a -- you kind t me if i'm wrong, a of provisional status, a kind of a work permit, a kind of a work they can show that they came here as a young are going to hey school, they don't have a criminal report, they get a work won't get kicked out of the country. >> that's right. >> they won't face the specter picked out of the you're caught in the back seat of a car for speeding that.ything like that is a great policy. it's been in existence since last year. president for e doing that. i thought we all supported it. was an go, there

amendment in the house of representatives on a funding bill to strip all of the funding end that program. like ourns that people two friends here would have that them. away from hey could then both hector and bear could be kicked out of the country. this time. that amendment, i am sad to say, passed by 224-201. it is just -- so that amendment the congressman from this district. congressman king. now, the only reason i say that s because we have an immigration bill that we pass in supported, asadly said, by labor, business, the faith community. both bipartisan. it's sitting in the united representatives.

to denigrate ant our new immigrants, our had their vote. now call upon the house of representatives to bring up the senate passed immigration bill the et us have our vote in united states house of representatives. [ applause [ applause ] you. i'll yield to i believe the votes are there if they bring it up, i think it will pass. don't you, dick? the senate t it in because it was a bipartisan bill. i worked on it for seven months. democratic senators, four republican senators. democratic senators, chuck schumer of new yor

bob my innocent dez of new ersey, and michael bennett of colorado. across the table, you think what republicans would sit down with you. must have been pushovers. sitting on the republican side, john mccain, former republican of the e for president united states. lindsey graham, republican south carolina. marco rubio, tea party florida, and m jeff flake, the new senator from arizona. seven months.or it was a lot of work. meetings.o-face things we haven't mentioned, h-1-b's. these are training professionals visas. give you an example -- over 50% of the phd.'s that will iowa state t university in stem subjects, science, technology, math, will go to

foreign born student ms. they will get the best -- they get the best education in america. they develop the best skills in merica, and then we point them to the airport. now this bill says we will offer them, if we can find a job, a chance to stay, to use those jobs in america, to build businesses in america. we came together on a bipartisan basis and at the end we passed a bill, hated.rts of it i some parts of it, they hated. you reach a compromise. senators and 14 republican senators to give us 68 votes. my message and tom's message though the speaker is give us a chance. o things, come together, both political parties. give the house of representatives a chance to come up with a bipartisan approach.

we have one, maybe they have one too. but let's get it done. time for america to fix this broken immigration system. >> first of all, i want to ask hector,ither eduardo or you have anything to add? since -- since calling on eduardo, you are docka bill? right? this is one guy right here that under the bill i mentioned. if that thing, if that is done with, as congressman king got that vote in the house, it won't passes the senate. would happen, what to you? idea.ave no again as the shadows we once did. i probably would. a country that i

really don't know. so i'm not quite sure. think it's safe to say it would take away your plans for the future right now? absolutely. sure it would. eduardo?ng to add, >> it would be very, you know, upsetting to me that if that bill did pass the senate and if program and he ended the program for myself, it devastating. a couple of months ago when the was in that position not to grant driver's licenses, forefront, i was saying we need to get this. we need this to happen. and if they were to take back from us from the dreamers, it would be everything that we would be doing so far be for nothing. i even then, for myself, would try to get that program to come back. it would be devestating. doubt about it.

>> we have two mics. sorry, reverend? some of ed to register the kids when they had the opportunity. we had a free clinic. had great fear turning over their name and all of their information to the this exactly t might happen. what would happen if they would do away with this. they have all of the information. where will we go? what will happen? hey'll come after the parents so that fear kept some kids and their families from moving forward. >> thank you. mics, omar has one. if anyone wants to make a or statement or a question for any of our panelists. we'll try to get to -- senator harkin, jim hutter. senator durbin, thank you for being here. thanks for four

decades of service to iowians? hen senator harkin first ran for office in the u.s. congress he lived here in ames, iowa and ames, iowa.from let me change the focus slightly. people in the country who support the dream act. we need to talk to the people oppose it. go back to the notion that we have some people who are anxious the laws and people broke the laws. we ought to build a fence. a fence do they want? 75 feet? whatever? cisse.y how do i know this? north.on't want it up

now, you said both of you you if we pass the dream taxes.ey'll pay as he said, they already pay taxes.s of dollars of sales taxes, property taxes, to let tes doesn't want them go to public schools. i think we ought to talk about we ought to be fair that they're what they are paying for. >> one of the best ways to save illal security -- i thought might add that those of us in our communities working on social security. things we could extend the ve and

is to social security bring people out of the shadows so they're fully paying into ocial security in the working years. >> one other element. this bill is not a powder puff easy bill for those who want to citizens. it isn't. they come forward, register with who they are, where they live, where they work. through a criminal background check. it's tough. crimes have any serious in their background, it's gone. buts., ands, or white.eally black and it will be problematic. tough standard. they pay the initial nine. they're on the books and paying taxes. what does it mean? well, if for many of them, no benefits coming their way for ten years despite the fact they're paying taxes. been working have

here using some other dentification number, they get no credit for the work under social security before this bill none. into law -- 20 years in america, paid into social security on somebody number and you can prove it, it's not worth anything in terms of your social security in future. you start that day when the bill ecomes law having a chance to accumulate eligibility for social security. in terms of school, hector, but there's no pell grants available to these young people. loans n have work study that they have to pay back but it's it. it's a limited tough ten years. people who say it's am else inty, for goodness sakes, these heavy price ing a for having come here illegally or overstaying a visa. not hingings we have mentioned. system.lish an e verify

from this point on after the ill becomes law, whoever job in a america must present a photo ichltd d. the employer puts it in the for the d watches photograph to come up. if the government photograph for one name doesn't match the they have in their hand, he be hired. this is going to make the work place a lot harder. so i think finally it was hector told the story of overstaying a visa. 40% of the undocumented people overstated their visas, visitors, tourists, whatever it may be. a system g to have under this law that's going to track people not only as they as they n visas but leave on visas. this is a tough enforcement bill. nd those who say it isn't haven't taken a look at it. when it comes to the border, i have to tell you something.

i had to grit my teeth as you put 7 miles of fence and on the of dollars border. for those who say we don't have enough border protection, keep it in mind. ten years ago, 10,000 border patrol agentings. border.or the southern today we have almost 20,000. his bill raises it to 40,000f so for those who argue this is weak on border enforcement, went too i think we far. if you want path of citizenship, you want the dream act, we of the the other side table and put more money in border enforcement that's ever been spent in the history of the united states. it's a tough bill. its's a rough bill. imgrants have had enough determination to stick it out through thick and thin for years, think ear going to make it. they're going to make it to the finish line. they're going to be citizens some day. [ applause ]

>> only time for one more. one more. >> i'm jim gaunt. i live in ames. want to touch on something that's been alluded to just a much.e bit but not i have an says sores who came to 1620 to inent from 1895. of those people had to ask permission to land on these shores. none of them. first of them had to ask ermission to get out of england. as far as i know, i'm the first family, my lineal to come west. you came in conastogas. i came in a chevy. i'm the first one in my ancestry to get a four-year college masters at iowa state. none of my people

had to ask permission to get here. going to t, i'm not stand in the way of anyone else who wants to come here for a like my ancestors did and i'm flattered people still want to come to america. thank you. >> a good note to end on. we thank you for coming. a great note to end on. see -- and i n hope, nick, i hope you know his, but i hope others take away from this that we're proud iowa of our history of welcoming new immigrants to this state. my mother to the people, the samalis who are here. hamong people who came here laos, i guess.and

and those who came from south of our border. came from mexico and honduras, el salvador, nicaragua, other places. gentlemanhere as this just said. they didn't come here to be be criminals. they came here because they life to provide a better for themselves and their families. and when you do things like that's not criminal. you don't criminalize people for doing this. say -- if someone broke a law that was they broke the speeding limit three, four, times. you don't call them criminals.

people come here to build a better life for their family. a structure, a structure that dick durbin has worked so hard on to get a agreement. the new structure that would allow people to have come here hard, you to work pointed out all of the hoops they've got to go through. but to bring them out of the shadows. to make them full members of our american family so that together, that we can make this grow and prosper in the future. every wave of immigrants have done that for america. and this wave is no different. we're going to make america the better place. >> good to meet you.

>> well, thank you. stories that we heard here today are echoed by countless others from across our state and the entire united states. they echo the stories of so many they'rewho have told me tired of the status quo. they want congress to come ogether to fix this dysfunctional and inhumane immigration system. we are here today to represent he views of the great majority of iowians. who want to us to get our job work out practical solutions, stop playing demonizing and denigrating our fell 4r0e humans help ose who just want to

us build a better and more prosperous iowa in america. while some mills guided folks want to fight culture wars and passions, most iowians and americans are concerned jobs and the economy. get the to work to bill that we pass in the senate pass in the house. common sense approach that improves border employers to ires verify work authorization, unites families, practical, solution to bring undocumented families out of the shadows and into the communities. and our social and economic life. i will say as a proud senator represented the state, as a 40 years, almost iowians are a caring people.

we believe people ought to have a chance to succeed and work and their families. this is our history in this state. e welcome to boat people, we from e people here to and ethiopia and for salvador. and el nicaragua and other places south of our border. ecause we know that immigrants help build our state and build our society. and i speak as the son of an immigrant. my mother came to this country as an immigrant. means to be t it raised in the family. of first generations. the people we're talking about deserve to be dehumanized or denigrated in any way. we need to know we in congress

going to do our job to fix this system, bring people out of a shadows, and put them on path to legal status, put them on a pathway where they can work be fully xes and contributing members of our society. and then to get in line between those -- behind those that have green cards so that, yes, in the future, they can become full citizens of the united states. the person who has led the the dream act now for 12 years. to make sure that we get to this actually passed a bipartisan bill and he was the leader in that effort on our us that bill pass in the senate. i'm proud to introduce my good fellow citizen from my neighboring state of illinois, senator dick durbin. >> thank you, appreciate it very much. comments made by congressman ing ten, twelve days ago, have been condemned by members of his own party. the republican speaker of the

boehner, said they were hateful words, that's a quote. the number two republicans in the house said ablinexcusable.inexcus that really sums it up. i came to tom harkin after those words and said to him, i cannot let these words go without challenge. relates to as it the dream act. what he said about the dreamers, characterized them as drug smugglers and people who could trusted doesn't reflect the reality of those who would e eligible under the dream act and those who want to be part of america's future. i said to tom, can we come talk to this in the congressman's district? he said, i want to be there as i want to tell the true story about what iowians feel about the issue of immigration. said, congressman king does not speak for the people of iowa. he doesn't even speak for the district.his so we came together today in introduce two real life

dreamers to the press and to the public. nd also to introduce the real feelings of the people of iowa about immigration. have confidence we'll pass immigration reform with independents, and democrats coming together. issue.ot a partisan it's not something that divides us, it unites us. it's our common heritage. we he testimony today that eard heartwarming stories from our witnesses, i hope congressman king will have a chance to read these or hear maybe even meet some. i had a lot of my friends who are dreamers and they have now active ome of the most lobbyists on capitol hill. they are everywhere. kids are visiting every

republican congress. they're fearless. it's time for him to listen. understand these in the future. >> thank you very much. if you said st add out there, the poll was taken last wednesday by the group that is a public polling group. and they found in this district, congressman king's district, that 70% of republican voters, 70% of republican voters back a path to legal status. neither of you have used the thes racist although one of

gentlemen who were asking a question did. you consider congressman king's comments racist? >> i don't know if i do. they're hurtful. hey're den grading comments about good people. as dick said, they're not reflective of the dreamers at all. -- well, just really what did the speaker say? hateful words. we shouldn't have a place for political r discourse, especially around an issue like this. >> david young, a candidate for u.s. senate here has said that if it weren't mexico on the outhern border but, instead, scandinavia, that many republicans would feel the same way. that this is an issue of rule of law and and that the race of the people or the color of the skin of the

country on our southern border is irrelevant. do you think republicans would animated in the way they are if norway and denmark were on boardern instead? >> that is -- that's a very speculative question. let me just say this. immigrants.ion of we always have been, we will be. immigrants bring something country. to this beyond their hard work and determination for a better life. have a pe that we can positive relationship with all of our neighbors, canada, mexico, wherever. and i hope that i don't know the here, i n you refer to hope he'll reflect on his own community, own family, maybe, in this of how they came to country and what they have brought to this country. i think when people stop and rep it, and are honest about they get a better view about immigration and what it means to our future.

-- yes, as look i've said, we have 11 million this country that are here illegally. senator durbin pointed out, did not come across a border. a visa in ere with hand from a lot of different countries. visa was up, they just stayed. i mean many of them have been here 40, 50 years. all of these -- do i think every those is a f criminal? no. are they here illegally, yes. why the bill that we crafted is a tough bill that lot of hoops that they have to jump through. they can't have a -- they have to have a criminal background check. they have to pay a fine. they have -- >> english. learn english. there's a lot of things they have to go through before the 10 years when they

can get in line. not amnesty whatsoever. so i separate out people who from people egally who are criminals. now obviously they broke laws things and they could -- they broke criminal laws, they could be criminals. i'm saying simply because they came here to work, to family.for their they've broken no laws other than coming here illegally, here illegally, that's true. we need to go through the hoops put in the bill but i don't classify them as criminals. seems like this debate is sort of at a stand still. people have marked out their territory. what do you think -- if you would predict where -- is this to be something you're going to start again at a new legislative session. one?here life in this what do you think the future of this legislation is. >> there is life in this issue.

is timely and it's necessary for america. now, the house of epresentatives have seen this coming for a long time. this for a month in the senate. it shouldn't be surprise we sent a bill a month ago for them to consider. tom and inserve in the house, we had pride we could do things better than the senate. always did. senators feel the same way with house. let them come up with a bill. if they have a proposal, bring it up. vote for it and bring it together in a conference committee. that's how it's supposed to work. really sense there's a growing sentiment on the rep pub side that they cannot ignore this issue. deal with it. means passing legislation. let's do it this year. this year before the campaign year. it's a lot easier to get it done

year. it's complicated because the house is not really putting in a lot of hours. session nine to be day unless the month of september. o we're going to try to catch them when they get off of the plane and bring up the agenda. > either of you received any assurances or any conversations with speaker boehner that it will come up for a vote before end of the year? >> i don't have -- no. >> no but -- >> as dick said, they both serve in the house. e know the power of the speaker. and the speaker controls the rules committee. boehner could, on september 9 or 10, whatever day take that senate bill, put the rules committee, have it on the floor in about -- in one day. he could do that. pushed off to next year, what effect do you think it will have on the elections. just l, let me tell you,

take a look at what happen in the last election and president obama's vottotals. naturally, overwhelming support or the president from african-americans. ver 70% of hispanic voters voted for president obama. that's not the second strongest group. the second strongest group, americans. they view this issue seriously too. hey're immigrants to this country. they voted for the president in hispanicrcentages than americans. john mccain is an honest man and says there are parts of america the rep pub party doesn't have a chance if we don't identify themselves on the right immigration reform. he's been very open about it. he said those words. has the credentials to speak. if the republicans in the house o not respond honestly in a comprehensive way, it's going continue to overshadow any other political issue among certain groups in america.

>> okay. all right. thanks. >> let me thank -- i wanted to -- again, point out that here community, business the greater des moines partnership, organized labor, we hadreflective of what in our bill with the u.s. chamber in the afl-cio. faith community. i don't know how many different faith groups we have in our bill. hundreds. and our two dreamers who are proud and we want to make sure we get the bill through for them and their families. thank you very much. up next on c-span. congressman stenn yi hoyer talks about budget negotiations in the house. the acting commissioner of the rs addressed accusations that the agency targeted conservative groups. a house debate on blocking the of the affordable

care act. >> on the next washington journal, a look at what congressmen will be doing on ginger xt recess with gibson. the nga with governor gary rep cent d a accountability office report found in over 3400 cases of tsa in 2012.n the we'll discuss the report for the issue, of aviation steve lord. washington journal begins live 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> this weekend on c-span --

>> i'll answer that if you tell us about your glasses. glasses. e google >> i see that. what are we doing? filming all of this. being filmed but it's being filmed by those cameras as well. good. it's >> telling mom -- your family what you're going to eat for down as soon as you look at your lunch. >> my mom made me lunch. congress began the five-week summer recess, spoke about the

stalemate over the budget and debt ceiling. remarks from the house floor are half an hour. >> as the speaker knows, i'm whip.he minority as the minority whip, at the we normally week, have a colloquy between the and myself.der that colloquy is to discuss the week to come.he so discuss the priorities each side believes ought to be considered by the house. we will now adjourn for a period of five weeks.

have adjourned without doing the people's business. we have adjourned without of the most vexing challenges that confront this ongress and confront our country. without djourn ed addressing some of the priorities that the senate has to this n and sent house. or if they haven't sent them to house, have passed them and to respond to our initiatives. unfortunate. that's i will be talking about in this hour, and i probably won't take will be hour, but i

talking about some of the things we have not done that we ought to be doing. i'm one of ly add, the democratic leaders. i do not criticize the five-week s for this break. because we normally take a break office that members in their families could take some time, members can seek their council. rip group of americans who see their board of directors congress of the united states not working very well. attendant to the significant issues that confront us.

the house passed a budget. they passed a budget 125 days ago. budget 123 assed a days ago. the way the process is supposed to work is the way it works in families, mr. speaker, and family. we have a dispute, we sit down, to comeabout it and try to a resolution. some call it a compromise. you have a perspective, i have a perspective. if we're going move forward, withe need to harmonize those perspectives. that's what democracy is all about.

bringing together views with various interests at heart and resolve those differences and move our country forward. notwithstanding that, mr. notwithstanding the act that the speaker has said that -- that during the campaign e wanted to make sure that any of the house worked its will, b, order. pursued regular and, c, that he wanted the senate to pass a budget. they did so. refused to go has to conference. that's unfortunate. but it is not unique in this house. the senate also passed an immigration bill. that immigration bill tries to

of the most vexing hallenges that confronts our country. country. it's ap b issue that has a large of agreement outside of this institution. the united states chamber of commerce representing much of the business in america. agriculture community from california, florida, maine, essentially agreed. this is a bill which will move us forward. this is a bill that

jobs, grow our there's a general agreement that we need to keep borders secure. people who should not be allowed in the country. we're working to make sure that our borders are more secure. there's unanimity on that issue. and, in fact, the senate of opriated a large number dollars to accomplish that objective. not taken up an appropriations bill in this house. certainly because we haven't gone to congress.

mr. speaker, we took up a farm bill on the floor of house, after the senate bipartisan bill dealing with agriculture and dealing with assistance to those in merica, the richest country on the face of the earth, where -- hungry,hung rip a large number of whom are children going hungry in america. the committee bipartisan passed the congress and never brought to the floor by my republican friends. also ear, the committee passed out a bipartisan bill to this floor.t have ld have and should

been passed with a bipartisan vote. not because i agreed with it all it, but because it was ouropriate to have the bill republican friends added three amendments that we thought were needly harmful to those in in america. they voted against every republican in committee for it. what did the chairman of the observe? it apparent lip wasn't good republicans.e 62

compromise seems different for some people in this house. i remind us all it is absolutely essential. e said we would drop food assistance to the needy in america. my faith tells me to try to feed hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked. attend to the least of these. the bill that we passed for the a half a century the neediest in america. in the course of passing that bill, the chairman of the rules

committee, mr. speaker, said we're passing this bill so that go to conference. with the clear implication at the point in time because senate bill does take care of hungry, iest who are adults and children. along with the needs of our farmers who produce our food and all of us rely. the implication clearly was that we could go to conference. mr. speaker, you and i both now, we haven't gone to conference. of e leave here with much the business of america undone, unattended, without an effort to compromise. mr. speaker, additionally, as 30, the on september

authorization for the operations of government and the funding will come to an end on september 30. necessary for us agreement. an none, that know of there are being plans made to weeks tohese next five try to reach a compromise and an way forward to assure the funding of our operations so the critical to so many millions, not only here but around the world. begin the july work period with a measure of optimism. four full weeks of sessions few days d the first we have not met that

optimism. there was much reason to hope this house could make serious appropriations bills and reach a compromise on student loans. we pass that student loan compromise this wednesday. that was a good thing to do. that the ng the lines president proposed, some months ago. my republican colleagues would the fully say it was along lines that they had proposed and passed this house. and, of course, our senate it's the will say, compromise that the senate we passed.that but in this time, the majority trategy for moving appropriations bill through this house has utterly and completely failed. the ryan udget or

, as i call it, has failed. consecutive weeks in which to get things done, we single enacted a appropriations bill that was consistent with the budget act of 2011 or this ryan's budget. in fact, we have not enacted a single appropriation bill period. now, we passed bills through house, but we haven't been able to get to compromise. that's not unusual. appropriations process difficult over the past few years. but it is still an indication of failure to attempt to reach goneomise that we have not

to a budget conference to determine what numbers we will use. because if you can't agree on a it is or numbers, impossible to greet on legislation. it's sadlyr. speaker, note that my majority friends in the majority have not even had the courage or in my intellectual honesty to go to conference on the budget to resolve these differences. why? because i believe that mr. ryan any compromise he made would not be supported by his party. because they don't want a compromise. an enigma to many of republican colleagues.

seems, meansr -- it simply their order. now as i said, we're leaving for he august recess with nine legislative days remaining until the end of the fiscal year. nine days. that's what is scheduled for business between now and september 30. nine days. a single not appropriations bill has been sent to the president's desk. a bill that we were considering this week supposed to be the item of business this week was taken from the floor did not have the party. of the majority a recipe for

responsible governance by the party. t's a recipe for another manufactured crisis and threat of a government shutdown. economy, our ur businesses, our middle-class families cannot and ought not further uncertainty as a result of this congress' failure to do its job. the most egregious manifestation to he majority's failure govern has been the irrational sequester policy that they now refuse to prevent, but have embraced -- why do i say they've fully embraced it? gets to their number, including the ryan budget, make one em having to single choice of cutting a single item. it's simply says, this is the number, meet it. prior toization.

no choice. no decision. the ryan budget passed this ouse in march without a single democratic vote. an endorsement and theory by republican congress of cuts even deeper than the sequester imposes. now, let me say parenthetically, lot of my republican olleagues will stand at that podium or one of these podiums and say, this is the president's sequester. speaker, america needs to know that is not true. too many who make that statement know it not to be true. we pass legislation in this

the middle of july of 2011 which said we're going to and if we in numbers don't, we're going have a sequester. you may recall that was the republican cut, cap, and balance bill. whose policy was to have a the numbers set forth were not reached. that was before it was included n the bill which was a compromise to reach resolution did not default on its bills. sequester.or the the president was not for the sequester. democrats voted overwhelmingly almost

unanimously, perhaps unanimously against that cut, cap, and sequester.l and its why? boarde cutting across the the highest priority and lowest riority by exactly the same percentage is an irrational policy. no family in america would do it. mr. speaker, the example i use is that somebody in the family their job. the family income goes down. they have a budget. food.have a budget for they have a budget for movies. 10% from says take food and 10% from movies. there's no rational family in america that would do that. they would say this month or or this year, we're not going to go to the movies but we're going keep food on the table. that's the rational judgment that we would make. but that's not what sequester says.

having said that, we have amendments seven times months.last six to set aside the sequester while the e same time reducing deficit by the same amount. seven times. refused by the majority party the opportunity to even offer that amendment. as the speaker says he wants, to have the house work its will. and if they didn't agree with the amendment, they could have it.ed against they didn't want to deal with our amendment. because they liked the sequester. because the sequester gets them o their number without them

having to make a decision on cutting a single thing. then, when here rip turns to practice in the republicans even themselves cannot live with the policies of their own chairman the appropriations -- and their own chairman of the appropriations committee characterized just the other day -- this was chairman rogers conservative republican, my friend, with whom i've worked for many, many years of the ber appropriations committee. characterized the cuts budget as the ryan an, i quote, unrealistic and ill that's the republican chairman of the of thes committee saying republican budget known as the unrealistic and ill

conceived. policy of sequester remains. mr. speaker, an albatross around the american people and of our economy. a single eren't democrat in this house or in the a single democrat, mr. speaker, it is my belief ryan budget could not congress. sequestered n spending cuts only approach simply does not work. this week's transportation appropriation debacle proves it. -- i want to quote, again, the chairman of the committee. action, the house has

declined to proceed on the implementation of the very it adopted just three months ago. now, let me make it clear, no the opportunity to vote on this. no democrat voted against this. we weren't for it. make no mistake. ut the decision was made completely on the majority side of the aisle. that they didn't have the votes for their bill. they could not implement the very budget that was adopted months ago. thus, mr. speaker, i believe the has made its choice. rogers.irman sequestration and the conceived and ill discretionary cuts, must be brought to an end. so said hal rogers, republican, kentucky chairman

of the appropriations committee. not my words, his words. i know chairman rogers is not only member of his party who is fed up at the tea party faction and their extreme agenda. home, topared to go our districts, and hear their concerns about jobs and our economy and the pain of cuts, ir's senseless have spoken to hundreds of employees who work in our defense establishment who will not only be forced to take off andday a week for no pay -- they cannot even volunteer to work -- who are lamenting the fact that those at the point of the spear in afghanistan,

another troubled parts of the world, they cannot take off friday. they need the support that we give them from here in this country and indeed around the world from the civilian all the time,dod not just four days a week. as we prepare to go home to our districts over the month of august and hear their concerns and the pain of the sequester senseless cuts, i hope we can turn the page of the july work period and return in a different spirit. september need not be july's second act. left, short time we have nine legislative days before the fiscal year ends, i would urge

the speaker to take a different path. instead of taking the familiar road of partisanship, posturing, and spin, it's embrace a path of compromise and shared accomplishment. might in this congress call, as the poet robert frost said, a road less traveled by. ofonderful poem by one america's greatest poets. he said, i shall be telling this ages and ages hence, to road -- wood, anddiverge in a i, i took the road less traveled by, and that -- he said -- has made all the difference. we have difficult and pressing challenges to address in a short time. , replacing thet sequester with the balanced alternative, and averting a

default on our debt. a default which would be catastrophic for america, for its people, for its economy, and would have ramifications throughout the world. we can begin by going to conference on the budget. allowing both sides to sit down and start working on an agreement. that seems to be, mr. speaker, the road last traveled by -- forwardveled by, a road , a road that leads to positive, constructive, supportable results. to constructive compromise, not destructive confrontation, and to results that benefit our people and our economy. makea road would surely all the difference, for this

congress and for this country. mr. speaker, we need to work together. gingrich, a former speaker, , reached a served compromise with president clinton. there were a lot of people on his side of the aisle that did not want to see an agreement between president clinton and speaker gingrich. it was on the funding of government. the basic responsibility this congress has or any board of directors of any enterprise has. stood at that podium, mr. speaker, and talked to what he referred to as his perfectionist caucus, the people who wanted it their way, and

were not prepared to compromise. a road other than their way. he said to that perfectionist caucus, look, i know this is not exactly what you want, but the american people have elected a president of another party, bill clinton, and they have elected a senate with a lot of democrats in there who do not agree with us, and yes, some republicans who do not agree with us, and they also elected a lot of democrats to the house of representatives. said, obviously, that a majority of the members of the house were republicans, but if the country was going to move forward, if there was going to be a positive resolution to the conflict that existed between differing points of view, that

there would need to be compromise, and he admonished that perfectionist caucus to understand that this was a democracy, not a dictatorship. agreement and compromise were the essence of what democracy meant. that overr, i hope the five weeks that are to come that members will reflect, communicate with our citizens, and come to an understanding of the necessity to act not just , not just to way reflect what i want, but to reflect but -- what we as a country working together can accomplish. that,eaker, if we do icwill continue to be the

greatest country on the face of the earth, providing opportunity for our children and our families, our workers and our seniors, and continuing to be , of shining city on a hill which ronald reagan spoke so glowingly. hope inker, let us these five weeks we learn how to work together. that is what our people want. that is what our people need. mr. speaker, i yield back. up, the acting commissioner of the irs talks about accusations that his agency targeted political groups. in house debate on blocking implementation of the affordable care act. hunters tom harkin and dick durbin holding a town hall

meeting on immigration in iowa. this weekend on c-span, live coverage of the national governors association's annual summer -- summer meeting in milwaukee. the year, they will discuss nation's infrastructure and the global economy. sunday live at noon on c-span 2, "in-depth," your questions for head of pediatric surgery at john hopkins ben carson. fromlectures in history 1968, sunday at 1:00. ♪ >> if we turn away from the needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces which are bringing about the

suffering. >> the white house is a bully pulpit. country isin this nothing short of a public health crisis. i think i had little antenna. inthere is so much influence that office. it would be a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on within -- with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidante. she is the only one in the world he can trust. >> many of the women who were first ladies, a lot of them were writers. they wrote books. many cases, more interesting as human beings than their husbands. if only because they are not first and foremost defined and limited by political ambition. >> edith roosevelt is one of the unsung heroes.

when you go to the white house today, it is really edith roosevelt's white house. breathless, too much looking down, and i think it was a little too fast. not enough change of pace. >> yes, ma'am. >> i think in every case, the first lady has really done whatever has been her personality and her interest. >> she later wrote in her memoir -- she said, i never myself made any decisions. i only decided what was important and when to present it to my husband. when you stop and think about how much power that is, it is a lot of power. >> part of the battle against fear thatto fight the accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we look at these bugaboos and made

it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. i don't know how many presidents realistically had that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded about all of the people who had lived there before and particularly all of the women. >> "first ladies: influence and original c-span series, produced in cooperation with the white house historical association rid season 2 premieres september 9 as we explore the modern era and first ladies from edith roosevelt to michelle obama. acting irs commissioner testified at a congressional hearing about identity theft that quickly

changed topics to accusations of lyrical targeting of conservative groups. here is part of that hearing beginning with house oversight chair darrell issa. >> however, i have some frustrations today. as you know, a number of months ago, the president made it clear that the behavior that occurred that isolated bases in cincinnati was unacceptable. he charged that we would get to the bottom of it. we have gotten to the fact that it is not isolated to cincinnati as was said. it is not isolated to washington. it goes to your chief consul's office. as we go to do our discovery, that is where the rub is. you promised us full cooperation and yet the office of chief consul apparently has 70 attorneys delivering for documents a day per attorney, and they look like this. there is in minute print, 6103.

the lawyers working on documents, four pages a day or lawyer -- her lawyer. -- per lawyer. is this minimal redaction is required by law? >> i have a couple statements. --wyers take lisi -- take -- lawyers take very seriously their duty to redact information specific to taxpayers, and all line,nformation, bottom all such information, whether redacted or unredacted, is delivered to this congress. you have delivered less than ---- excuse me for standing you have delivered less than 1% of the documents to the ways and

means committee. you're not delivering -- >> i disagree to that conclusion -- with that conclusion. if i am allowed to explain, i can provide -- >> here is what -- here's my question to you. we produced i believe 63 search terms. you added some search terms. i'm not disagreeing with your adding progressive and looking for progressive grid that is fine. i want more, not less. it added up to about 80 search terms and unilaterally, your people, the office of chief consul, reduced that down to a dozen. they are not searching on the terms we have asked for. our request is for all information related to this. when you eliminate search terms, you are obstructing us i limiting the scope of discovery. do you understand that? >> i do, but i disagree with the premise of your question. >> did your people that the

search terms below the search terms that were delivered? >> we are prioritizing searches in order to get you more documents more quickly. this week alone, the amount of document production that we have been able to produce has increased traumatically. that doesn't mean we have eliminated search terms permanently. we are making modifications -- >> that is not your call. let's go into detail. what is interesting is, i understand why you have removed taxpayer specifics. this information is being delivered without headers. if the names were there, i was still wouldn't know what those numbers are. somebody deliberately printed out information in which they stripped out the meaningful data. even mr. connolly would say this doesn't look like a spreadsheet he has normally had. spreadsheets say what is on top of them.

additionally, we asked you for information. we set the priority if you're going to slow roll us. you are. >> that is not true. >> mr. werfel, you frustrated this committee. you promised to do things and you are not. the office of chief consul as far as we know has made the decision to limit search terms. is that correct, or did you? >> i am working together with the office. we are not limiting search terms in a permanent way. we are prioritizing. if i can make a point. >> i asked for consent for additional four minutes to explore this. >> i will grant that provided the democratic side will he allowed to respond given that we off-topic.topic. -- i respect the wish and prerogative of the chairman to use this opportunity to query mr. werfel on a different matter and i respect that but i would like you will -- equal

opportunity to respond. >> i will grant the full committee chair that time. we grant additional time to the minority. >> i think the chair for his graciousness. >> mr. werfel, let's go through the numbers. the democrats seem to be carrying your water. >> important facts might -- for me to get out. >> you are obstructing them. >> that is not true. apparently you were put in by the administration to run cover. it is now my time and i am going to explain to you what this committee has found. mr. werfel, in two months, out of 64 million pages, you have delivered 12,100. this is over 2500 of them, completely useless.

your interpretation of 6103 is so broad that you deliver no meaningful information. we have prioritized a number of discoveries. lois lerner who took the fifth before our community, we have asked for all correspondence. it has not been forthcoming. we asked for correspondence with the white house. correspondence with the white house by definition had darn well better not include 6103. redaction is not appropriate. we are not covered by the privacy act. even if it includes names of individuals, quite frankly, it would not be 6103. it would be communication with the outside. your people have unilaterally chosen to redact private information. mr. werfel, you don't have the right to have private communications. on government time and government equipment.

if lois lerner or others had private communications, they are not subject to 6103 because we expect them to be referred for from a prosecution. you can have private press -- conversations and released 6103. that would be wrong. as we go through this discovery and find excess redacting, slow rolling discovery, limiting search terms -- you may call it prioritizing but you are not prioritizing as we need them, is my expectation that we should have received communications to and from the white house. communication between anyone who is conducting on 6103 business. we should have received lois lerner's entire packet. these are not my expectations. these are the american people's expectations. your speed of delivery is such that you will be long gone. the president will be long gone. lois lerner will have retired before we receive a sufficient amount of information to be

meaningful. you are leaving me no choice. i asked you for information. you are not forthcoming. your own chief consul's office appears to be clearly compromised. lawyers there are included in this investigation. communications to and from those lawyers clearly mean the office of chief consul, a politically appointed office, has been compromised. you leave me no choice. i will be preparing and sending a subpoena for these documents to the secretary of the treasury who will remain on. our expectation is that the treasury department will take over the delivery of documents in a timely fashion, use attorneys such as they see fit that they believe are not compromised, and i would ask you to immediately instruct chief consul that they may not any longer be part of the decision- making. only attorneys who are not part of our investigation.

i am deeply disappointed. it was my expectation with our past relationship that you would come in not just wanting to be a caretaker, but to get to the bottom of this. as cincinnati turned to washington, washington turned to political appointee offices, and the president began calling this scandal phony. what i can't understand is how you can think the american people would accept this as phony. this is a real investigation. we need real discovery. if these documents need to be redacted, then by definition you have no reason to deliver them. if you can only deliver me blank pages, deliver them to the other committee. i will tell you one thing. as these pages, which are almost impossible to figure out where they came from, you'd better hope. you'd better really hope that we don't find something there that

should not have been redacted, which we expect we will. moreover, i am sad to see you go because i thought you could do something. i am said to issue a subpoena because that is not what i thought we were going to have. we did not enter this investigation thinking that this was some grand conspiracy. we entered this thinking this was something fundamentally wrong. my democratic friends are convinced that progressives were targeted even though your own inspector general said he found no evidence. he did find evidence of other groups generally called tea party groups having been targeted. we don't want to find only one side. we want to find anyone that is targeted. we want to hold people responsible. today, lois lerner is being given full pay and not held accountable. our job is to find out everyone that should be held accountable and make sure the american people can trust this will not happen again. i believe if we move forward in this investigation, this will

become a pattern of behavior. whether by the chief executive of the united states or by individuals who have power within bureaucracies such as the irs, epa, osha and the like. mr. chairman, i now owe 6 minutes to the democrats. >> duly noted. i recognize at this point the ranking member of the full committee -- >> i counted seven. >> i will make that determination. we started at 4:00. you weren't here, sir. >> thank you for recognizing me, mr. chairman. >> you are recognized for five minutes. i will consult with the ranking member to see how we distribute the balance of the time. >> mr. werfel, thank you for your service. i have listened to what was said

to you and i again thank you for your service. earlier this week, chairman issa accused you of obstructing the committee's investigation because you were not producing documents fast enough in his opinion. you have produced to congress tens of thousands of documents. we have interviewed 18 irs witnesses. today is the third time you have testified before our committee in the last two months. there is a law, section 6103 of the internal revenue code that prohibits you from revealing information to our committee that identifies specific taxpayer information. is that right? >> that is correct. >> you need to review all the documents you are producing to our committee to first make sure they comply with the law. is that correct? >> yes.

>> i am not concerned with your compliance. i have seen it. my concern is the actions of the ig blocking you from providing information about regressive groups to this committee. -- progressive groups to this committee. two weeks ago, you testified that some non-tea party groups received treatment similar to tea party applicants and the irs denied at least one category of applicants after a three-year review. is that right? >> that is correct. in this instance, your career experts reviewedthese documents and told you this information was ok to share with the committee. that it did not reveal specific taxpayer information, did not violate section 6103, but just as you are about to produce the

documents, this -- the ig intervened and claimed that it might reveal specific taxpayer information. is that right? >> that is correct. the ig reached out to me and expressed concerns about our pending delivery of the information. >> so you were about to hand us documents. the same kind of documents mr. issa just asked about, but the ig says, no. is that right? >> the ig raised serious concerns. >> when we asked the ig, he confirmed that his effort to block your disclosure was unprecedented. we don't hear complaints from the other side. when we press them on this, he said he was still in ongoing discussions with your office, and that he would resolve this issue with you "sooner, rather than later." the problem is we have not heard

a single word from the ig since then. can you give us an update? has he withdrawn his objection? are your discussions still ongoing? >> they are. he reasserted his concern and indicated that he was still not convinced the information was not -- >> the information about the progressive groups? >> in this case, yes. >> do your career experts still believe it would be appropriate to provide this information to the committee? >> yes they do. >> i am disappointed that the ig continues to block information about aggressive groups to the-- progressive groups to the committee. representative connolly and i sent a letter to the ig yesterday asking for an explanation.

mr. chairman, i ask that our letter be included in the record. as i have said throughout this investigation, our job is to ensure that all applications for tax-exempt status are treated fairly whether they are conservative, progressive or in between. if we do not receive a satisfactory response from the ig by next week, i ask that you go ahead, mr. werfel, and produce these documents. the chairman just said, he wants the documents. let's get him the documents, even over the objection of the ig. we will follow up and let you know if we hear from him. look forward to hearing from us. >> thank you. if i can just make a point, i am not exactly familiar with the procedures of the committee. i would like an opportunity to respond to each of chairman issa's allegations and questions. a lot of them weren't corrections of fact and clarification. i wish he was here for me to respond directly. at some point during the course of events, i would appreciate

the opportunity to respond. >> may i use -- >> if you would like. you have six minutes. >> thank you. mr. werfel, one of the things that i remind my committee members is that when people come in here, it is public service, they give their best. family, everybody is watching them on c-span. accusations are made and they never have an opportunity to respond. it really bothers me. i want you to respond if you may and try to leave me a few more minutes because i want to ask you a few more questions. >> first of all, the notion that we are obstructing is completely false. the opposite is true. we are involved in a thorough comrades of effort to fully -- comprehensive effort to cooperate with the committees

that are asking questions, asking for witnesses, asking for documents. there is substantial evidence that demonstrates our full cooperation. keep in mind, i have been in seat for nine weeks. this process is moving forward and we are getting better at producing this discovery on a day-to-day basis. i have more than 100 employees working on the document requests that chairman issa raised concerns about. this includes 70 attorneys working full time to review documents. we are producing documents on a weekly basis. this committee has over -- as of today will have over 16,000 pages of documents delivered. congress as a whole, as of today, there will be 70,000 pages delivered. what is important about the redaction process -- and that is what is very important to make sure the public understands -- is that these documents are

being produced to congress. we operate within legal constraints in terms of what we can deliver to who and when. we have to protect taxpayer information. there are rules and acted by this congress that certain documents can only go to tax committees. >> if you violate 6103, what happens? >> it is criminal. >> jail time. >> exactly. >> with the gentleman yield? mr. cummings, the very same chairman who just railed against mr. werfel in his tenure, did he not say on june 18, in defense of the inspector general, that in erring on the side of caution, that was the right policy? therefore, withholding of documents was justified. is it also true, mr. cummings, that the list of search terms

submitted to mr. werfel by the majority on this committee includes 81 items? is one of the terms "audit?" might that generate a lot of paper? >> i'm going to get to that point. let me get through some of the statistics to make sure there is an understanding about the amount of discovery. >> you are losing i think you said 8000 employees. >> we take this very seriously. out of chief counsel's office, we have 100 lawyers working on this. there are now 70,000 pages of documents as of today that will be delivered to congress. these have relevant information that was requested by the committee. you asked for the spreadsheets, we got to them.

you asked for the e-mails, we got to them. you asked for training materials, e-mails of self- selected by witnesses appearing for interviews. all of those were delivered. we are responded to 41 matters from the committee including today's hearing. irs officials including myself have appeared in 15 hearings since the ig report was issued. we made 19 employees available for a total of 99 interviews. supporting -- 29 interviews. supporting all of this is hours of work. the trend is that document production is increasing. this week alone, we have increases. the reason is because the last few weeks we made important changes to that process. i added more people. we are making technology enhancements. perhaps most important, to get to one of chairman issa's most critical concerns, what happens

is when we get 82 search terms, it produces a large amount of documents, a majority of which are nonresponsive. you have to look through every document. if you produce an enormous amount of documents to look through, it takes longer and longer to find those responsive documents and give them to you. roughly 75% of documents being pulled based on 80 search terms were not responsive. staff time was being eaten up going through each document. what we did is try to help the process along, not by permanently saying we will not search them, but i saying if we can take the search terms and ensure that we have a higher response rate in this information, then we are going to get the information that this committee wants quicker. no unilateral decision has been made to alter the search terms in perpetuity.

we have made an adjustment to the search terms in order to increase the number of documents you get sooner. the fact that i am able to deliver thousands of pages today is because we have made these improvements. it doesn't mean that we are not fully committed to getting all these documents. >> you are trying to obey the law. is that what you're telling us? >> i am trying to obey the law. >> finally, the letter to chairman issa from mr. werfel. i would like to have entered into the record. >> without objection so ordered. that concludes the time of the gentleman and i will recognize mr. jordan. you have 25 seconds in addition to the five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. werfel, 81 search terms, 12 search terms, 2500 pages of

redacted -- whatever. it has been almost three months since lois lerner had a question asked where she told the world that this was going on. we have been asking ever since that happened for lois lerner's e-mails. you guys won't give them to us. that is not redacted. we just want the correspondence from the person at the center of the storm and you guys don't give it to us. it seems to me that is -- 1600 lawyers, why can you give us that? >> i don't know that that is the case. >> our staff told me we have not got me most from lois lerner. >> i received a letter recently which attached a e-mail from lois lerner which we produce. we are producing these e-mails. >> we want the e-mails from anyone at the irs, why can't we

get that? >> we look at those two. -- we look at those too. in some cases, there were no e- mails. this is the point. we have a particular request, give it to us. >> william wilkins, we are not getting his e-mails. >> that is also not true. two things, if i could. we are producing because you made a specific request. if you want to put something at the front of the line, please put that at the front of the line. the other thing about wilkins is we have offered to interview wilkins before this committee. your staff has not taken us up on this offer. i hope you do because this is not about obstruction. this is a -- this is about offering as much information as we can. i know you have questions about their wilkins. we want to get you those answers.

you haven't taken us up on our offer. >> i want to be clear. every single e-mail of lois lerner's that we have asked for, you sent to us? >> no. but we provided hundreds of her e-mails. again, this is a process. >> no, no. it is simple. you go to her and cuter and get her e-mails. >> it is not that simple. >> it shouldn't take three months. you said you did send us all the information and i asked you did you send us every single e-mail, and you said no. which is it? did you send them all or not? >> we sent many lois lerner e- mails. >> that is different from what you first told me. you have to be square with us. we want every single e-mail. we would like any correspondence between the irs and the white house. you haven't given them all to us. >> here is my answer.

this is a process. we are providing information on a rolling basis. we are getting it as quickly as we can. you had a specific request. we will do our best to put that at the top of the priority. >> we want every bit of correspondence from lois lerner and you won't give it to us. here is the lady who broke the story. the lady who took the fifth. the lady who is at the center of the storm, we want every bit of e-mail from her. you won't give it to us. for the past three months. >> i will tell you what we are committed to. reviewing every one of lois lerner's e-mails. some of it has to be redacted. some has to be reviewed. >> why would lois lerner at 6103 e-mails -- six at -- 6103 information in her e-mails? >> it might be very normal for lois lerner to you know someone inside the irs.

>> you go back to the office today. can you tell those 70 lawyers among the 6100 you have -- 1600 you have, can you tell them to focus on every single bit of correspondence lois lerner has sent to anyone on the planet? we want that information given to this committee. >> i will go back and ask the team to prioritize that over other document requests that we have received. that is part of the partnership. >> if you guys want to get to the bottom of this story, why wasn't that done back in may when this story broke? here is the lady who broke the story and try to blame it on rogue agents. why wasn't that done the very first day you came on the job? you say, here is the lady at the center of the whole thing, but get every bit of correspondence to the committee.

if the president wants to work with congress to get to the truth, i would expect that be the first action you take. here we are, three months later. you're telling us, we have only sent you some of lois lerner's e-mails. why wasn't that done day one? don't you think the american people would like to have that information? >> a couple responses. lois lerner's e-mails are on the top of our list. >> we want them and we wanted them in may. >> we ve produced a lot of information that is high reliable and -- highly relevant to your information. >> mr. chairman. may i have 10 seconds? the gentleman just said that we haven't received documents with regard to william wilkins. we have received them. not all of them, but i have them right here. if the gentleman would like to have them, i will give them to him.

>> gentleman yields back. i think we have even time now. the gentleman from ohio can be recognized now. >> first off, let me join my colleagues in being outraged at the fact that the irs at the beginning it not tell the truth. we are not dealing with the irs coming forth and saying this is what happened to the american public or the committee. the irs came first with a fiction that this was done by rogue agents. now we are learning that it is not. they are not being forthcoming. it is astounding to have both members of this investigative responsibility to this committee and yourself, mr. werfel, to spend -- defend not giving us information. the chairman has said, luckily, we are not dependent on your good graces. the chairman is issuing subpoenas. we have the full ability to use

the federal government authority to compel your answers since you have not chosen to. i look forward to the fact that that is coming. it is hysterical that you say we are doing this on a rolling basis. your rolling the american people and this committee and it is going to stop. back on topic, the issue of identity theft is very important. it is one that the irs can have an affect upon. commissioner, i appreciate your testimony. i appreciate you working with them. it is important for us to look to industry and the ways in which some of the data processing and mining efforts can be used to detect issues of identity theft. mr. werfel, the financial industry has made recommendations to improve the

irs also protection from identity theft. the irs has started to bang tax forces.- two task one positive step is the irs is an insurance of algorithms. the american coalition for taxpayer rights has also worked with the irs to ensure members can send real-time reports of fraud to the irs. mr. werfel, the financial industry has important expertise and has taken steps to combat identity up. -- identity theft. how is the irs working on this problem? the state of georgia has utilized the private sector to identify potential fraud. could you describe this? how have you worked with companies to help them identify consumer fraud and identity theft?

>> we have a very critical partnership with private industry. they are often developing at the cutting edge of sophisticated solutions to deal with fraud. there are companies we have working at the irs right now that help inform on our filters, help inform on schemes that we can help capture. we also benchmark and see what other companies are doing that face similar challenges, whether it is credit card companies or other types of entities in the financial service industry. i think that we have a robust partnership with private companies and experts. i think if we are going to tackle this issue effectively, we have to stay very close with our corporate partners because

they are the correct -- >> one thing is the interface 20 private sector and the irs. not just looking to how industry can be applied to your internal bureaucratic operations, but how also to get through the collaboration, identity theft might be i easily identified. >> i agree. there are a lot of dimensions to this problem. technology is going to be a solution that helps us stay ahead of it. what we have been describing is a problem that is emerging quicker than a solution is to tackle it. technology is the key. >> turning back to the irs scandal, when you first came on and stood in front of these committees and gave everybody your statement, you don't get to just decide that. you have to prove it. the fact that you're not standing in front of the committees and readily disclosing information that would establish what happened

and that you are stopping it and correcting it is a tremendous amount of arrogance. i hope that you will become forthcoming. >> it is not true. we are providing the information. >> i yield back. >> we are doing it in a robust and legally appropriate way. and he indication that we are standing in the way of discovery is not true. >> the gentleman recognized now from north carolina, mr. meadows. >> i thank you mr. chairman. mr. werfel and mr. mckenney, if i can direct your attention. as we look at tax preparation in the industry and addressing the issue of tax fraud, what are the recommendations that have been made that have not been addressed or that were failing to address with regards to the ig? we are seeing that it is growing.

what have we not addressed? >> from our perspective, the main concerns are three areas. one, as the tax return comes in the door, make sure it comes from the right taxpayer. when they validate the income and withholding, they need to run that against income withholdings to verify that. and, what where they deposit into a bank account that needs to be authenticated. those are the three areas we believe need improvement. >> mr. werfel, why do you think we have not been more successful in addressing that question mark is this a lack of -- in addressing that? is this a lack of working with preparers?rs? -- tax >> we want to achieve what we can given time and resources. the problem grows quicker than we want.

one of the things that the ig has pointed out is that we can do more to use the standard authentication procedures that they use on credit cards. if you are authenticating yourself, they might ask for your mother's maiden name. we have developed this program called the out of love that trogram.-- out of walle program. we are implementing those types of procedures. we are finding that it takes resources. >> so it all gets down to money? >> no, just an example. it is a combination of knowing about the solution and having the resources to effectively at lamented -- implement it. >> so let me go with this. you have said that this is increasing. and yet, what we have -- and i have talked to some of the groups that are actually working to solve this in the private sector -- if it is increasing,

and they are making recommendations on how to fix it, where is the problem? are they making ineffective recommendations? are we are just not implementing it at the irs? who is at fault? >> i don't want to say it is a fault. it is an inherent reality that the problem grows quicker than our solutions can track it. >> if it is growing bigger and they are identifying it -- i have talked to some of the stakeholders and they have recommendations. they would indicate that y'all are not acting on their recommendations. and you agree with that? or are they just -- >> i would want to take some time before i concur. >> are you aware of any times where they have made good recommendations that you have not implemented? in preparation for this hearing,

did you say, we should have done that? >> i didn't see any. let me talk to the team. >> let me go on a little bit further. in recent years, we have seen instances of hundreds of direct deposits going to banks. going to the same bank account. what steps are we taking? that seems like that would be a very easy programming issue to deal with in working with financial institutions. yet, i heard of one that had 400, another had 1000 going to the same account. how can you not address this? we are absolutely addressing it. effective with filing season 13, we have put in place new filters to identify redundant bank accounts. as mr. mckenney testified, he gave some of the facts of what

an impact that is having, i would have liked to have caught that before. this is one of those things where a scheme emerges and we can hit it as soon as it emerges or we can be up front -- >> i would encourage you to work closer with those stakeholders to do this. i have a few other questions but i am running out of time. do you not see a problem with obamacare coming in and with the subsidies that are about to be asked for -- in terms of saying, i qualify. do you not see schemes that could come out of that that would make this pale in comparison? >> we are certainly focusing on potential risks of fraud. >> yes or no? >> i see but there is one point to make about the affordable care act. when people get tax credits on

the affordable care act, they don't get the money. the money goes to the insurance company. if i am an identity thief, i am going to prioritize -- >> so you're saying we should get rid of what we pay people when they haven't paid any taxes? that would get rid of all of this? >> what i am suggesting is that because the affordable care act is structured so that you get the economic benefit, that is a disincentive for identity thieves to defraud that program. there is no point where they get taxing hand -- cash in hand. that doesn't mean that in the entire lifecycle of the affordable care act there aren't certain vulnerabilities to work on. i just am suggesting that that is a critical part of irs's role. you have something in place to

disincentive eyes tax fraud. >> i thank the chairman. >> in agreement with ranking member, we divide the remaining time aside. mr. connolly, you can divide your six minutes. i recognize you at this time. >> i thank you mr. chairman. let me just say, speaking for myself, mr. werfel, i apologize. one can stand up and that could be construed and that could be construed as an intimidating act. one can use those history of comics to hide the fact -- histrionomics and block to sayts. -- histrionics

documentslocked the is the inspector general who is not here today. mr. george testified under oath in response to questioning to me. he could not ascertain whether progressive groups could be included in the number. yet, subsequently, on the 18th under oath again, in response to questioning from esther cartwright, he said -- from mr. cartwright, he said that he had been apprised that there were bolos for progressive titles as well before the hearing. in my view, that is at best, most charitably, and elusive answer. we now have the inspector general blocking documents being made available to this committee

in an abundance of caution with respect to 6103 according to your testimony. it has been described as unprecedented by the ig on the eve of producing documents. i don't hear outrage about that. the general counsel is the problem. i say it is the inspector general that is the problem. i say the inspector general has not provided objective analysis. i say he is compromising his integrity and credibility as a witness in this trumped up so- called scandal. the fact of the matter is, based on everything we know, the irs messed up in cincinnati. they created "be on the lookout" to screen an avalanche of tax- exempt application. some of them were clearly lingered -- triggered by the

united states court. they tried to create a filter. they did it badly. they were cautioned not to do it. wrong, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are right to criticize the irs. you came in in the midst of that to try to clean that up and get to the bottom of it and i congratulate you in trying to do so. i have no evidence that you have done anything to obstruct or block. i will say, it is unfortunate that we could not go forward on a bipartisan basis. understand that both groups were targeted.t.-- were that is wrong. the idea that there is some underlying scandal here that is political and goes all the way to the top while indeed, the--

was indeed the narrative before any of the facts were known. it was wrong. i am not surprised at the drive- by shooting nature of some of what has taken place here. i regret it because i do not think it is worthy of this committee. i think we could have and should have had a bipartisan analysis is of what went wrong. mr. cummings, i would be glad to yield to you the balance of my time. >> thank you to the gentleman for yielding. let's go back to the letter that i introduced a few minutes ago. i need this -- to hear this. more than 16,000 pages of documents to the committee, within 70,000 pages of documents to committees authorized to receive information, is that correct? given the importance of protecting confidentiality, can

you explain what additional steps are required for the irs can produce responsive documents to our committee and what you have done to assure this process is expedited? >> under the law, we are required to make sure that no information specific to a taxpayer can be disclosed to anyone that is not authorized to receive it. chairman camp, chairman bunk this -- chairman bunkis, and-- chairman baucus and their designess are the only ones that can receive that information. one example i want to give. it is easy to pick up a document and say you have redacted everything. some of the documents requested by the committees are taxpayer case files. they say, i picked taxpayer x. i

want everything associated with it. we grab the file and give it to them. because it is a taxpayer file, the entire file is protected under 6103. it would be a crime to disclose that. it would be a crime to disclose that. we have someone indicating to look at these pages that are completely blacked out. i want to get the facts out. it is coming to congress. we are working seriously to get them. the fact that they are blacked out is not an obstruction. it is a legal responsibility we had. if there is a concern, we can talk to chairman camp and chairman baucus. they have the authority to provide that information. these are checks and balances to make sure the right discovery is received in the right hands. wa to make sure we are

leveraging the checks and balances. >> thank you. >> the national governors association is holding its meeting in milwaukee. with anthonycuss foxx and republican bill shuster. >> from capitol hill is a political reporter. jennifer, this particular build deals with the irs tax penalties and the prevention of the irs from imposing those under the health care law. what sort of penalties would citizens face under the 2010 law? individual mandate -- the supreme court looked at the

mandate. if you do not have insurance, there will be a fee. be $95. >> this is summer from the 40th attempt to block the health care law. seenany of the bills traction in the senate? if not, why do republican leaders continue to put them before the house? >> there is a small handful regarding minor things. there is a small tax division. business forms, if you remember that. that was largely bipartisan. that was something that was recognized as not a great vision of the law. for the large part am a major those are not getting into the senate.

they would never get past the president's veto. it is their 40th attempt to repeal all or part of the law. i will not be happening any time soon. they do not like this law. they will continue to send that message. >> here is debate prior to the houseboat to block the irs from implement in parts of the healthcare law. it begins with michigan congressman ways and means committee chairman mr. camp. >> i come to the floor and support of legislation that would prevent the irs from getting involved in american healthcare. the irs is already out of control. it is abusing its power to tax hard-working americans. the irs has betrayed the trust of the american people. yet, obama care granted i arrest

47 new powers. including giving confidential taxpayer information to other departments. getting involved in your health care, getting in your information and forcing people to pay more tax, let's look at the job that the i.r.s. is already doing. back in 2011, i investigated claims that the i.r.s. was threatening donors to conservative causes with higher taxes. it turned out to be true. the i.r.s. whereas abusing its authority and it was harassing conservatives. but that was just the tip of the iceberg. we soon learned of more accusations about how the i.r.s. was targeting americans for nair political beliefs. -- their political beliefs. what we have found so far, and we just have 3% from the documents of the i.r.s. that we requested, and what we found is that the i.r.s. did leak confidentialayer information delay applications

groups supporting conservative causes, and they did threaten conservatives with higher taxes. and democrats want to give this agency more power and authority? they want this agency involved in americans' health care? no way. even the agency's own watchdog says the i.r.s. cannot handle the job. less than two weeks ago, the independent treasury inspector general stated that they're not confident about the i.r.s.'s ability to protect confidential taxpayer information or to prevent fraud. well, neither am i, and by every indication, neither are the american people. it's been three years since the health care law was passed, and less than two months, the administration claims it will be fully ready to implement the law. in the face of all these failures, all these breaches of the public trust, more americans than ever want this

law to be repealed. why? it's simple. obamacare has brought increased health care costs to individuals and families, has stifled businesses from expanding and forced american job creators to cut jobs, wages and hours. just yesterday at a hearing in the ways and means committee, a key official from health and human services could not confirm that the health care law would lower the health care costs for hardworking families in my home state of michigan. but wasn't this the signature promise of this administration that premiums be $2,500 lower? and now the administration cannot make good on that promise. with so little time before the exchanges are set to open and families plan their health care spending for the next year, it's extremely concerning that the administration cannot tell the american people what their health insurance will look like

or what it will cost. simply put, this law is a failure and ought to be repealed, but it didn't have to be this way. the house republican alternative to the democrats' health care law, which i authored, was the only legislation. scored by the nonpartisan congressional budget office as meeting the top health priority of american families because it was the only bill that actually lowered the cost of health insurance premiums and it didn't give the i.r.s. a single new power. it kept the i.r.s. out of your health care, which is exactly what this bill will do, keep the i.r.s. off and out of your health care. we should be cutting the i.r.s., not expanding it. we should reduce its power and authority and its ability to harass and abuse americans. that's exactly what this bill does. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: we're now seven months into this house republican session. it has been nothing more than a bridge to nowhere. nowhere on jobs, nowhere on immigration reform, nowhere on a budget agreement and nowhere on most appropriation bills. instead, house republicans today continue their obsession so vividly embraced by the chairman of our committee in his words. with trying to destroy the bridge, built by the president and the democratic congress to somewhere vital, putting all americans in charge of their own health care, this bill before us is nothing more than a continuation of republicans' blind obsession with repealing

the affordable care act. this is how republicans have chosen to spend the last day ere before recess for five weeks. well, it's so clear. the republican mission is to destroy. to destroy, not implement, health care reform. and rather than help leading on the issue, house republicans have spent the last two-plus years trying to mislead americans about health care rights under a.c.a. and now we can expect more misinformation and the statement of our chairman is loaded with it. 13 states, for example, have published preliminary premiums for marketplace coverage. within those states, americans will be able to purchase insurance at a price that is on average 20% below what the

c.b.o. estimated. and in michigan there will be insurance carriers in the marketplace, and someone comes up here and says health care reform is failing. so to the american people, be prepared for more scare tactics and other misguided efforts from republicans to convince constituents that applying for health care coverage will be cumbersome, and and be prepared for all kinds of misstatements about the powers and the role of the i.r.s. this should be said categorically. neither the i.r.s. nor the department of health and human services will have access to medical records or other personal history. no

the goal is to make sure we have the highest healthcare in the world. andelieve that patients families and doctors ought to be making medical decisions and not washington, d.c. irs bill grows out of the

activities that have come to light over the past number of months. we have been to a lot of oversight hearings. the american people are drawing a collusion about the i arrest at this point. that conclusion is that it cannot be trusted now. the chairman mentioned the idea rest has targeted groups that came to the irs asking for tax exempt status, targeting groups for political ideology. the irs has leaked donor information to those groups, and many of us believe, and i think it will come out that the irs has, in fact, targeted donors to those groups for audits to those individual americans. mr. speaker, this is chilling activity from the internal revenue service and the american people have lost their faith and trust. that is why this bill is so important. it is a simple piece of legislation -- two pages, and all it says is what the american people believe, the irs should not be charged have the authority to either implement or

enforce the affordable care act. over 140 co-sponsors from this house of representatives. i want to commend them for being sponsors. we have hundreds of citizen cosponsors from across the country. some say this is not necessary, that it will not publish anything, there is no reason why the irs would want that information anyway. the fact of the matter, esther speaker, is that is exactly what they said about what they did for the tax-exempt groups. they said it was not necessary for them to get the information about political ideology, believe or prayers that prayer groups were offering -- that was not necessary either. if that was not necessary, mr. speaker, how could you make in people have confidence the irs will not also do something that is also unnecessary, and that is to engage in implement in themselves in the trusted relationship between patients and physicians.

another piece of evidence is the individual who is running the irs division that is charged with the enforcement of the affordable care act. that individual, sarah hall ingram -- you do not have to look back far in her biography to realize she was the individual in charge of the tax- exempt group in the irs at the time when the challenges to the irs have been focused. so, mr. speaker, the overwhelming percent of the american people understand and appreciate that the irs should not be involved -- not be involved in the healthcare of this nation. we believe that patients, doctors and families ought to be making medical decisions, not washington, d.c., and certainly not internal revenue service. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time is reserved. >> i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington. >> the gentleman is recognized

for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, i would remind my distinguished colleague from georgia of a story in the bible about a king who was very famous and one day he noticed on the wall some writing and he had someone come in and interpret for him and the writing said, your days are numbered upon the earth. now, your days are numbered on this issue. you have 59 more days. i'm sure you can bring up a bill every single day to try and repeal it. the speaker announced there will be two more. but it will not work. this is going to be the law on 1 october and it's going to go into effect. the supreme court has spoken. the speaker has already said it's the law of the land. yet we see that hopeless strategy. and it's worse than hopeless.

it's mean because you are saying you want to take away from people what they already have. guaranteed issue, coverage for their kids until age 26 and lifetime limits are gone -- all that you want to take away. well, have a great break because you're going to go back to your districts and explain for 38 days why you will not provide health care coverage for the people of america. i hear there's a mythical bill with 141 signatures. the republicans have been running the ways and means committee for 16 out of the last 18 years and we have never had a bill put in front of us for a vote. it's never been through the rules committee. it's never been out to the floor. you have no plan! you have a piece of paper that you wave around but you won't go out and defend it. the president came and put a bill out here and we passed it, and we're defending it and it's

going to go into effect and provide what all americans want, security if they get sick. they want to know they'll be covered. they want to know they won't be bankrupt. vote no again today and we'll be back after the break for a few more no votes. >> the gentleman's time has expired. members are also advised to direct their comments to the chair respectfully. the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the senior coalition be inserted into the record. >> without objection. >> i am pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman, mr. carter. >> i thank you for yielding and for bringing forward this bill. i'd be willing to bet if you took a poll in any household in america and said, who do you

trust, the irs or your doctor, doctors would overwhelmingly be trusted. irs would be overwhelmingly distrusted. i don't understand when we actually pass laws in this congress, restricting the access to health care information and severe penalties on our health care providers for releasing the information and the hippa laws, they've been around for a while, i'd say, but then we write a bill that turns this entire health care administration over to the one agency that the american people hate more than any other agency. now, some of t d it because they like to get other people's money and spend it. but the reality is the irs is not trusted. it wasn't trusted before the events described. today they're totally distrusted and feared because of what they can do to the private lives of american citizens.

this bill speaks for the american people and they say don't let the i.r.s. get their hands on our health care, they will destroy us. remember, they're the one agency that doesn't have to meet a burden of proof. they require the public to meet the burden of proof. don't let the i.r.s. get their hands on our health care. yield back. >> the gentleman from mitch? >> i yield myself 15 seconds. saying that the entire administration of health care is turned to the irs is a big lie. it's a big lie. the irs will not have access to the medical records or personal history of a single american. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished colleague of mine from oregon, mr. bloom. >> thank you, mr. speaker, this is a fitting conclusion to a

week that has shown the collapse of the republican legislative agenda. remember, this is the time we were supposed to be voting on budgets. but the republicans cannot even bring themselves to allow a vote on the budget that they themselves have mandated. so we're not voting on the transportation and hud, not voting on interior. they refuse to allow a conference committee to be appointed so that we can reconcile differences on the budget. setting up a showdown over a shutdown of the government next month. and now we're dealing with health care for arguably the 40th time that they are going to, quote, repeal it. the bill's not going anywhere. they have repeatedly demonstrated at our hearing yesterday in ways and means that

my republican colleagues don't even understand how the bill that they are so adamantly opposed to, they don't even understand how it works. we have not seen any attempt to improve, to refine, what we have seen is an unprecedented effort to sabotage legislation, to make it not work for the american people, to confuse, to undercut, something that is unprecedented to the best of my knowledge in what we've had in the congress in the past. but what more fitting illustration of a group that is bankrupt of ideas and bent on simply attempting to force their way for an agenda that is so extreme that they cannot agree

to bring it to the floor to vote on it. i urge rejection of this charade. >> the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that a letter from the group let freedom ring endorsing hr 2009 be inserted in the record. >> without objection. >> i am pleased to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from the great state of michigan. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 90 seconds. >> i rise today in support of hr 2009 and urge colleagues to support this necessary legislation. the bill will keep the internal revenue service from implementing any aspect of the president's health care law. with the recent revelations that the irs targeted u.s. citizens on the basis of their political views it's imperative that we

keep the irs from being further involved than it already is in the lives of the american people. this legislation would reweal both the individual and employer mandate while at the same time, helping to shrink the irs as a doctor i've been talking care of patients for 35 years and i know that putting the irs between patients and doctors would be daft rus. -- would be -- this legislation is a good step toward rolling back this massive expansion of federal government power. i am proud to be a co-response of this legislation and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of it. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from michigan? >> it's now a special pleasure to yield to the gentleman who

presided over the passage of medicare 48 years ago and has worked on health care issues his entire historic career, mr. dingell from the state of michigan. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> for a minute and a half. >> the gentleman is recognized for one and one half minutes. >> i thank my beloved moved friend for yielding me this time and i rise to ask aren't you embarrassed to go a 40th time in a fruitless, hopeless act? it's the 40th time we've tried to kill the legislation. cost us $1.5 million every time, none of which has been successful. my republican colleagues have never come forward with a proposal they have presented to that house but they sit over there railing and complaining about what is going on. they would take the rights of the american people nor protection against preexisting conditions bans in their insurance. they're going to take away from the american people all kinds of protection is which we have in the affordable care act. the president or the speaker the other day said the republicans

are the party of repeal. he's right. i think we ought not to call them the republicans anymore, but the repealicans or the repealicats. they can't enact anything. 12 bills i think this congress has sent to the white house and there is small prospect of anything more coming from here. it's interesting to note they can't move a budget, they can't do legislation on jobs, they're incapable of saying we do the other things that are necessary to help the middle class and yet we keep coming over here with nonsense like this. the republican party is like the bourbons of france. they forget nothing because they never learned anything. >> gentleman from georgia.

>> i ask unanimous consent that the letter from the americans for prosperity endorsing hr 2009 be inserted in the record. >> without objection. >> i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate very much the gentleman from georgia filing this important legislation and i feel my day is not complete. unless we get a chance to cut spending and cut obamacare. obamacare contains more than 20 tax increases and gives the irs unprecedented authority to collect personal health information from more than 300 million americans. obamacare requires all insurance companies to report to the irs the name, address, identification number and type of insurance policy purchased by every customer, along with the determination whether or not the insurance was, quote, government approved. i'm very proud to be a co-author

of dr. price's legislation that will prohibit the irs from collecting our personal health care information. the irs has admitted this i've heard from so many stints who are members of patriotic organizations. they stepped up for the first time in their lives to get involved in organizations like the texas tea party, the king street patriots, and for standing up as patriots and trying to do the right things for the right reasons they were targeted by the irs and harassed. today the irs is spending 80% of its budget trying to implement obamacare. and jack plouffe testified the administration has approximately 700 full-time staff working on implement and now wants to hire another 2,000 to continue the plemtation be obama care. i timeyield

michigan.an from >> i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey who's been a leader on this issue, mr. andrews. >> gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. >> without objection. >> thank you. colleagues, somewhere in america today a family is going to get the devastating news they dread about their children. they're going to hear that that lump in their daughter's stomach is cancer and they're going to go home and have all the agony and suffering and unthinkable thoughts parents have in that situation but they're going to be faced with another problem because they have no health insurance. both the mom and dad work, they make about $40,000 a year between the two of them. they don't get coverage at work and they can't afford health insurance. so their agony is not just worried about the health of their child.

they're worried about the fact that they give the child the care that she needs to -- they'll lose everything they have and wind up in bankruptcy court. the affordable care act says to that couple that starting january 1 for $40 a week they can have health care insurance as good as members of congress do. that's what the affordable care act says. this bill repeals that for that family. those who are prepared to vote for this bill should also be prepared to answer the following question. if you want to say to that family that their concern isn't important enough, what's your plan? what's your answer to them? we hear that people have introduced bills and sent around letters. here's the facts the it's been almost 1,000 days that the republic party has been back in control of the house of representatives.

the number of bills they have voted on to replace this law is zero! zero. 40 times to repeal it, zero times to replace it. this debate is not about republicans and democrats. it's about that family with that daughter that has no health insurance if you repeal this law and pass this bill. this is no plan. this is no responsibility. and this is no way to deal with the concerns of middle class americans. vote no. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter of support from the group restore america's voice. >> without objection. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. kantor. >> he is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman from georgia.

i rise today to support the keep the irs off your health care act and i want to congratulate the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor, not only a timely bill but essential to the health and well-being of all americans. in response to the assertions of the prior gentleman that spoke from new jersey i would simply say those scare tactics do not have a place in legitimate debate on this floor. scare tactics to say that somehow republicans on our side of the aisle don't care about people's health care are just not true. you know, we don't believe in omnibus washington-engineered health care. that's what's going on here. washington bureaucrats deciding what kind of health care you can have, which doctors you can see, how much those doctors and hospitals are going to get paid, how the insurance companies have to act. all of that is in the hands of washington bureaucrats under obama care, which is why this bill and this law is suffering

so much in terms of the minds of the public. this is not the right way to go. we believe in patient-centered care. republicans believe that it ought to be about the doctor- patient relationship, not between the bureaucrats and the doctors. it ought not be about the bureaucrats and the insurance companies. it ought to start with the patients and their families. so these scare tactics, really, mr. speaker, are not relevant to this discussion and they are just that, scare tactics. we care about the health and well being of the american people, which is why this bill is coming to the floor. recently, mr. speaker, we've learned that the i.r.s. has been abusing its power, targeting and punishing american citizens for their political beliefs. and then recklessly spending taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences and bonuses for its employees. this kind of government abuse

must stop. the last thing we should do now is to allow the i.r.s. to play such a central role in our health care. the irs has a role in nearly 50 different aspects of obama care. the agency's involvement is so extensive that there is a designated office within the irs just to implement obamacare. the irs will have access to the american people's protected health care information. given that this same agency has illegally disclosed protected taxpayer information, the privacy concerns raised by many are legitimate. this is nothing short of an unwelcome big government overreach into the most personal aspects of our lives.

obamacare is bad for the economy and for working middle class families. it increases costs, impedes innovation, and we know is now turning full time jobs into rt time jobs. which is why so many on both sides of the political spectrum are now beginning to realize in the words of three democratic union leaders, that this law is creating nightmare scenarios in the health and well-being of millions of hard-working americans. the legislation before us today would at least prevent the unnecessary intrusion of the irs into our health care. members of both parties should be focused on removing the federal bureaucracy from the everyday lives of the american people, and this act will do just that. again, i'd like to thank the

gentleman from georgia, dr. price, for his hard work on this issue and i strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan? >> i now yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. doggett of texas. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> the majority leader is absolutely right about scare tactics. if you are an uninsured american and you get a diagnosis of cancer this morning, or you are hit in a head off on collision this afternoon or you are a child born with a disability, you ought to be very scared. he's also absolutely scared about the need for patient- centered health care. we're concerned about that. we're concerned that patients without insurance today are centered right in the bankruptcy court. more and more americans faced with a health care crisis.

this bill has nothing to do with the internal revenue service or the treasury department or restricting their rights. it's about restricting your rights. now that we finally have a chance to protect americans from insurance monopoly price gouging, from fine print in the contract for those who do have the insurance that denies rights at the very time that you need them the most, that kind of protection about to go into effect along with right of so many americans who are uninsured to go to a competitive private insurance marketplace and pick the policy that is best for their family. and for many americans, to have a premium tax credit, a tax credit that they want to deny to you, and what alternative do they offer? well, the best source is the official republican web site. i urge you though you will find plenty of misinformation there to go to gop.gov because you will find one very revealing fact.

when you look at what the republicans have to offer as an alternative to obama care you will see two words. "in progress." it's been in progress two and a half years since they first voted to repeal the bill the first time up to today and the 40th time. they have one alternative to obamacare and it's called nothing care. do nothing. monopolies toe continue. [gavel] >> the time of the gentleman has expired -- >> may he have another 15 seconds? >> the folks i represent, the working families from san

antonio to austin, they deserve to have some assistance. we have provided it to them with guaranteed rights. some are in effect now. some about to go into effect. don't let these republicans deny those rights to our families and replace it with nothing care. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia? >> i ask unanimous consent that a letter endorsing the bill from the group freedom works be inserted into the record. >> without objection. >> the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulsen? >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. medical decisions should be made between patients and their doctors. the internal revenue service should not be part of that equation and all americans know now that the irs has used its tort to improperly target and intimidate certain individuals based on their personal beliefs. 2,000 more irs agents, more washington bureaucrats will open the door now to more abuse under obamacare.

more targeting, more harassment of american citizens. physicians know the best care for their patients, not unelected bureaucrats in washington. we should be encouraging patients to take control of their own health care through consumer directed health care plans, not ceding control to the government. i would encourage my colleagues to protect the doctor-patient relationship and do what they can to make sure that government overreach is not involved in health care. i yield back the balance. >> the gentleman from michigan? >> it's now my pleasure to yield three minutes to our whip, mr. hoyer of maryland, who has devoted so much time in health care in his career. >> the gentleman from maryland, the whip, is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. what a perfect bill this is. our republican friends don't like taxes, they don't like the

collection of taxes, and of course none of us do. and they don't like affordable care for our citizens. quality care for our citizens. accessible care for our citizens. so with this stroke they can attack both. the gentleman that just spoke asserts that the american people know -- the republicans have made an assertion about the oversight of taxpayers to see whether or not they're committing fraud, i.e., claiming to be social we will organizations when everybody in america knows they are solely political organizations. and the republicans never mentioned it was across the board, not targeted. and the affordable care act, they don't like that either. they would, as my friend from texas say, still like to have the insurance companies in charge, not the patient, not the

doctor, but the insurance companies. mr. speaker, less than two weeks ago republicans were on this floor for the 38th and 39th time to repeal the affordable care act. the accessible care act. the quality care act. now we have the 40th time we've been at this. the american people of course want to see us working on jobs. they want to see us working on investment in education. they want to see us being able to compete with the world. what do we do? we continue to beat this horse, contrary to my republicans' friends assertions, men's say -- americans say overwhelmingly when asked do you want repeal or do you want a fix, make it better, do things better, make it more efficient,

they opt for the latter overwhelmingly. but as the gentleman from texas just said, you go to the web site and not two and a half years. not two and a half years, i tell my friend from texas. it's been seven years since 2006 when we started working on this. but there's no fix. no fix on the web site, no fix on this floor. today their newfound populism is nowhere to be seen as they vote to repeal tax credits and subsidies designed to make health care more affordable for those same people, working families and small business people who haven't been able to get insurance and are left at risk without it. suddenly -- they who never met a tax increase they don't like are pursuing this. one more minute?

>> how about an additional 30 seconds? >> the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> mr. speaker, this bill makes all those folks pawns in republicans' single focus quest to undo health care reform at the expense of every other pressing challenge we face as a nation. it's shameful, mr. speaker, that this house continues to waste the american people's time on health care repeal votes that won't go anywhere and they know it. the senate will not pass this bill. the president will not sign it. we have pressing business that needs immediate attention, finishing appropriation bills, finishing our work on the budget, ensuring that america can pay its bills and taking action to create jobs. that's what we ought to be doing, not this continued foolishness. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from georgia?

>> may i inquire as to the time remaining on each side? >> the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has 13 1/2 minutes remaining. >> thank you. i'm pleased to yield a minute and a half to the freshman member, the gentleman from oklahoma city. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it is interesting that the minority whip would like republicans to help in fixing this bill considering that they weren't interested at all in republican input when they passed it in the middle of the night with a pure party line vote. i think everybody understands that the promise of obamacare has been thoroughly discredited but the worst is yet to come. the authors of the bill promised that it would bring down the cost of health care, but premiums have gone up substantially. they promised that if you like your health care plan and the doctor you have, you can keep it. now when you go to the president's healthcare.gov web site it says you may be able to

keep your plan. many promised it would create jobs. even teamsters union president james hoffa has said the bill will destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week. and unfortunately, they caved, and now companies like hobby lobby are being forced into court to problem that they having to provide abortion and other health care services that violate their beliefs. the attitude will beyond a shadow of a doubt carry over into its tag team partnership

with hhs in enforcing obamacare. let's pass hr 2009 and start putting an end to this madness. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield two minutes to another distinguished member of our committee. >> i thank my friend for yielding. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what was a silly exercise has suddenly turned into an insane exercise. we understand they do not like the affordable care act. but i beseech my colleagues on the other side to start working to help improve the system and desperate need of reform and make changes along the way as we learn what works and what doesn't. let me inject a few facts into this debate. since the passage of the affordable care act, the u.s. health-care spending has grown

3.9% in the past three years, the lowest growth rate in 50 years. medicare spending rose just 4% last year, the lowest rate since it was created in 1965. medicaid spending dropped by one percent in 2012. and according to the congressional budget office, medicare and medicaid will spend $1 trillion less than previously projected. more than $15 billion in fraudulent payments have been recaptured under the affordable care act. hospital readmissions have fallen for the first time on record, resulting in 70,000 fewer admissions in the second half of last year alone. if more than 250 healthcare organizations are getting paid now according to the quality of healthcare being developed and no longer the quantity of

services being rendered. and finally, the growth in premiums is off the floor, mr. speaker. annual premiums from employee sponsored health care increased 4% in 2012, the smallest increase in the last word seniors. we still have more work to do. but this debate and the effort to delay and defund and dismantle and destroy the affordable care act is not where we need to go as a nation. i encourage my colleagues once again to vote no on this ill- conceived legislation. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman from time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. speaker, i appreciate my colleague chastising us to change elements of the affordable care act. it is curious.

i believe that the gentleman supported one of our efforts to weeks ago to delay the employer mandate. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> i now yield another one and one half minutes of my time to the gentleman of california. >> thank you. i rise in opposition to this misnamed piece of legislation. it should be called the 40th time we wasted taxpayer time and money act. this is not new to us. we have seen this before. at we have seen this movie before. 39 times. we know how it ends. this is just another attempt to dismantle the affordable care act. we have wasted too much time and too much money on this already. what we should be doing is working to make the aca better or spending our time trying to help pass some jobs legislation. this bill is particularly cruel because it hits the poorest among us the hardest.

and we have seen that movie before also. that is why we have this piece of legislation. this is in response to a national crisis. this did not come about by itself. hospitals and doctors and clinics in all of our districts. they provide 100 billion dollars a year in uncompensated care. families were one layoff away from not having access to healthcare. people with existing conditions that occurred through no fault of their own. maybe they had bad luck with having cancer or gave birth through a c-section. a pre-existing condition and they could not get coverage. people in all of our districts were given a lifetime cap on their health care. this is accident. it was in response to a crisis.

let's get to work. let's get this thing improved. let's put people back to work and stop messing around with this foolishness. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that a letter from americans for tax reform be inserted into the record. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield a minute and a half to another member of our committee. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized for one and one half minutes. >> i rise in support of america's working families and against this bill. i would ask why you would take away a tax credit, a tax credit that helps working families, for the first time in many instances, afford insurance. particularly as this majority

seems to have never met a tax break they did not like. at least until today. time and time again the republican majority defend special interest breaks. subsidies for big oil. tax write-offs for big corporations. even as they are laying off american workers and moving more operations overseas. but where is that same zeal today in defending to the class tax cuts for middle-class americans? maybe i should not be surprised. after all this majority has repeatedly tried to undermine the tax credit. they have wanted hard-working americans to pay the entire credit back if they get a slight increase in pay. the majority has crossed some bizarre threshold. going through principled opposition. some will say they have issues with the irs. when we come back after the

august break, they will stop the irs from sending income tax refunds? no. this is just an excuse they are using. this bill is one hundred percent about denying americans access to affordable healthcare. in new york, people will be denied tax credits if this bill is enacted. >> second. >> my colleagues, i'm tired of this dog and pony show. political red meat is not what this country needs. we need a congress with a vision for tomorrow. a vision focused on creating jobs and strengthening our economy. not a 40th vote on a new, even more dangerous way to repeal the affordable care act. with that, a yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

i asked to submit a letter from six taxpayer advocate organizations into the record. >> without objection, it will be inserted into the record. >> i reserve my time. >> may i ask about the amount of time on both sides, please? >> the gentleman from michigan has 14 minutes. the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes. >> do you have any other speakers? >> i have speakers that may be coming. i am prepared to close at any point. >> ok, we have other speakers. i now yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, the ranking member on the small business committee. >> the gentlelady from new york is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the bill today.

we find ourselves in another redundant and unproductive debate over the affordable care act. the estimated cost of today's vote is over $1 million. paid by hard-working taxpayers. but instead of focusing on jobs and economic growth, we are wasting time and money on denying health coverage to small businesses and their employees. not even half of the application bills have been passed, and yet republicans are continuing their attempts to undermine health reform. this obsession must end. it is to move on and start tackling the challenges the american people care about. jobs, jobs, jobs, economy. preventing the irs from implementing provisions of the

affordable care act does nothing to help our nation's small businesses. rather, it will keep small employers from taking advantage of the small business health care tax credit, which is already helped over 360,000 small employers and 2 million workers. it will prevent businesses from utilizing the 50% tax credit in the new exchanges next year. that is why today's vote is your responsible and out of touch with americans. we must continue to ensure that quality health coverage is available and utilized by the businesses that are the sole of the american economy. i urge the members to vote no. i yield back my time.

>> the gentleman from georgie. -- georgia. >> i reserve. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> it is my special privilege to yield my time to the person who left our efforts in health care reform as a testimony to her career. the gentlelady from california. >> the gentlelady from california, the minority leader is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the leader from yielding the time. this is the 40th attempt to hurt the financial well-being of the american people. 40 is a number from with meaning in the bible. 40 years in the desert. but it is fraught with nothing in trying to overturn the

affordable care act as they are trying to do today. when my republican colleagues vote for this bill, they will vote for putting insurance companies back in charge of people's health. when they vote for this bill, they will be voting for an initiative that deprives patients of their rights. of making pre-existing conditions a reason for discrimination. that is what this vote does. that is the joy of the affordable care act. no longer will being a woman be a pre-existing condition. your annual or lifetime limits are eliminated. insurance companies must spend their money on insurance. that is what people call it. -- that is what people bought. and they must do it in a way that focuses on health care, not

they were spending too much on much on themselves and not enough on policyholders. so, here we are for the 40th time. what is really sad about it is not only the violence it does to the health of the american people and the policy that enables them to have prevention and wellness and about the health of americans, not just healthcare. what is sad about it is for 40 times we have had the opportunity cost of bringing a jobs bill to the floor. a jobs bill that is daring. a jobs bill that says, let's make it in america. build the infrastructure of america. strengthen our communities of

education and public safety and the rest. instead of that, instead of passing appropriations bills, the republicans are in this aimless path, taking us into chaos as we go into august, because in september, the moment of truth will be here. the fiscal year will end on september 30. instead of preparing for that, republicans are once again on this fool's errand of making matters worse for the american people. putting insurance companies in charge of people's health, depriving patients of their rights. this budget challenge is a very serious one. we should not even be leaving here today because we have not done the work necessary to prepare for the end of the fiscal year. instead, we are wasting the taxpayers time and money.

i urge our colleagues to vote no on this legislation. i urge the american people to insist that we get down to the people's business of job creation and to find a budget that we will not destroy the full faith and credit of the united states of american, to find a budget that will grow jobs and the economy. if we don't and we shut down the government, as some on the republican side have said, unless we repeal the affordable care act -- what does that mean to you? it means to you that your 401(k) success is in jeopardy. it means that if you have mortgage interest payments, you probably pay more. your credit card bills will probably go up because of the increase in interest. it is just not right. it does not understand the economic challenges faced by america's families.

they want to maintain their homes. want to have prospects for the future. it is just silliness and is not deserve the time we are taking on the floor, much less a vote by members of congress. with that, i urge a boat -- i urge a vote no. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan. >> mr. speaker, it is now my special pleasure. as i think everyone knows, the two committees work very closely together. as chairs, mr. waxman and i were able to work with others so closely. i now yield with special privilege and leisure two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. >> mr. speaker, this is a do-

nothing congress. it is absolutely pathetic. there are millions of people unemployed. are we working to create jobs? no. we are not trying to help them. what we are doing today for the 40th time is make sure they can't get health insurance. this is an obsession on the part of the republicans. i was commenting on it the other day in committee. i said it is such an opposition that the laws become the republicans' great white whale. they will stop at nothing to kill it. so, here we are. their 40th attempt to repeal the affordable care act. i think it is a disgrace. is this all we have to do? spend 40 separate times trying to repeal a law that is going to bring healthcare to millions of americans who have been denied health care opportunities

because of pre-existing conditions, because the employer does not provide it to them, because they could not afford it. it would give people the middle class choices, the competition between choices of health insurance. the prices will drop. the quality will improve. this whole health-care bill was based on republican ideas including a requirement that everyone get health insurance. that was endorsed the heritage foundation. i am astounded we are back here today. the last thing we are going to do before we take our vacations and go home and tell people, sorry, we can't help you. we are trying again in the house of representatives to appeal -- to repeal one bill that has been passed, that can mean so much to so many.

i urge that we defeat this legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia? rights reserved. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield one minute to the ranking member of our subcommittee. >> the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, as i listen to mr. waxman, he is talking about obsession. you might ask, why is this happening here and what is going on? this has happened before. this is the worst nightmare for the republican party. in 1964, the american medical association was flat out against the institution of medicare. when i was in medical school, they came up to medical schools.

the president said, boys, there is not going to be any medicine in this country. we have got that socialized medicine coming in. and do you know what happened? they made the people so afraid that when they went out to enroll people in medicare, people said, well, i don't want any of that government medicine in my house. look at medicare today. nobody on that side would dare take out medicare because the american people found out that what they were told in the advertising campaign leading up to it was not true. and that is what you're getting here today. untruths. vote no on this. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that a letter from 15 or 16 organizations the inserted into the record.

>> without objection, it is entered into the record. >> may i ask a much time both sides has? >> the gentleman from michigan has two minutes. the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes. -- the gentleman from georgia has 16 minutes. >> mr. speaker, are you ready to close? >> i am ready to close. >> i have sat and listened to the debate and many of the slogans we hear repeated again and again and again. i would simply return to the point i made earlier. for a family that makes $40,000 a year, has two adults working, that does not get coverage at work -- which is true for many americans. maybe 35 million americans have a situation something like that. the affordable care act says starting january 1 for about $40 a week they can buy health insurance and private insurance

companies as good as the members of congress have. what is the plan from the other side since they are reviewing this? this bill takes that away. what is the plan from the other side? they will talk about bills they have introduced and letters they have written. there is not one bill. one vote. one day that would answer that question. we eagerly await. after 1000 days of the republican number -- the republican majority, the american people eagerly await the answer. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. >> i yield myself the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> republicans today are using the higher rest -- irs as a trap

to express their hatred -- their hatred of health care reform. the assertions that the irs will have access to personal healthcare information is wrong, is deliberately misleading. the irs will only receive routine information. name, address, family size, incomes. coverage status needed to provide tax credits. that is it. the rest are falsehoods. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back his time. the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. speaker. again, it is important for folks to appreciate the republican goal and health care to make certain that every single american has the highest quality healthcare. we simply believe it ought to be

patient centered healthcare and my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about patient centered healthcare, but what they support is washington centered healthcare. washington making the decisions. we believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making the medical -- we believe patients and families and doctors ought to be making the medical decisions. i have hr 2300 which is a patient centered bill that make sure everyone has affordable coverage, that everyone has the financial feasibility to purchase coverage that they want, not the big government forces them to buy. that portability is there, so you do not lose it when you change your job or loose your job. in a patient centered way. not await the government forces you to purchase what they want you to purchase. second, this is not a responsible piece ofthat

the american people and that this is a responsible piece of legislation. they do not think the irs should have a thing do with their healthcare. we have heard that this bill is not going anywhere at all. it is a futile attempt. i would remind my colleagues on seven pieces of legislation, bills signed into law by president obama that defunded or repealed portions of his healthcare law. hr 1473 froze the irs budget. hr 674, saved taxpayers $13 billion by adjusting eligibility for obamacare programs. hr 675 made deductions to the independent advisory board and the irs.

hr 4348 saved another 670 million dollars from the boondoggle of the louisiana purchase that was included in the original bill. all of those repealed or changed portions of the affordable care act signed into law by the president of the united states. we have heard heart-wrenching stories by our friends on the other sides about help challenges and illnesses. yes, mr. speaker, there are challenges out there. as a physician i can attest to that, spending 20 years taking care of asians. but americans do not want washington deciding what kind of healthcare they can have or should have. we need patients, families, and doctors making those decisions. it would be preposterous to say that republicans do not like affordable care, quality care, accessible care. nonsense, mr. speaker. nonsense. what we want is the highest quality of care that respects the principles of affordability and accessibility and choices and responsiveness and innovation.

we simply want patients and families and doctors to be in charge of healthcare. not washington, d.c. and not the irs. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national youle satellite corp. 2013] will discuss the report with the gao's director for aviation issues, steve lord.

you can't imagine a first lady today without a cause. causesother hand, those are not permitted to intrude upon lawmaking. or an official capacity. it has always been a tight rope. and seeing how each of these women walk that tightrope tells you a lot not only about them, but about the institution and about society that they represented. >> next week, we will begin an encore presentation of our , "first lady's influence and image." week, martha washington to

angelica van buren. first ladies, weeknights all this month. on c-span. house minority leader nancy pelosi answered a reporter's question. >> i'll add to that if you tell us about your glasses. >> they are google glasses. you're telling your family what you're going to it for lunch as soon as you look down at your lunch? >> >> democratic senators tom harkin and dick durbin hosted a forum on immigrants in a middle school in ames, iowa. both are supporters of a bill for undocumented immigrants.

this is just over an hour. >> thank you all very much for coming. [applause] >> thank you all very much for coming. i'm the director -- move along here. thank you all for being here. and for this extremely important topic.

and one that we just -- i appreciate -- my good friend dick durbin, senator durbin from illinois. >> 12 years ago when we first started on the dream act. so, senator, thank you so much for your work. [ applause ] well, as i greet you this morning, i'm reminded of a famous incident involving franklin roosevelt. he was addressing the daughters of the american revolution and he greeted them with the words "my fellow immigrants. likewise this morning, two united states senators are

hosting this forum. we are both sons of immigrant mothers so we proudly greet you with the words "our fellow immigrants." [ applause ] and a very special welcome to those on the stage and in the audience. for two centuries, waves of immigrants have come to iowa to build their own lives and a much better iowa. my mother as i said was one of them. in 1921, she immigrated from a tiny village in a country now known as slovenia. she arrived in the port of boston with barely enough money to buy a one-way ticket to iowa never to see her homeland again. she was welcomed by iowans with open arms. today our immigration system is broken. the vast majority of americans know it. doesn't work for imgrants who want to build a future for ourselves or a better america.

it doesn't work for our wages and it doesn't work for our businesses who need a quality and stable labor supply. and a great majority of iowians want a better system. they support an accountable reform that allows families to come out of the shadows, remaining employed, and contributing to their communities in the economy. that is why the united states senate, i'm proud to say, passed the border security and economic opportunity and immigration modernization act in 2013 known as the immigration bill on a strongly bipartisan basis. it allows employers to verify workers. it brings undocumented families out of the shadows and into our community. the state of iowa, our state is using $18 million a year in state and local taxes by not offering a pathway to citizenship. in 2010, total business revenue

of $216 million. as i travelled around iowa, small towns and communities, i see so many new businesses, small business, and main street businesses opened up by our new immigrants to this country and to our state. common sense immigration reform according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office will add to our economy. get this, it will reduce the deficit by nearly $1 trillion in the next two decades if we have immigration reform. [ applause ] president obama, he met with us again this week. he's eager to sign this bill into law. i'm hopeful the house of representatives will take up the senate bill and get it passed. and with that, i thank you and i'm going to turn to the leader on this issue. 12 years ago, he's been on this a long time, our neighbor, senator dick durbin of illinois. >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you.

it is great to be in ames, iowa, home of iowa state university. the alma mater of tom harkin, the proud cyclone. we do have a lot in common. a lot of corn and soybeans in our neighboring states. a lot of immigrants to our neighboring states who built it into what it is today in iowa and in illinois. and we have a broken immigration system. i think we know this. [ applause ] and it's time for us it's time for us to face the reality that if we can fix this immigration system, we can build the american economy and we can do the right thing. 12 years ago -- 12 years ago, a young woman contacted my office in chicago.

her name was tereasa lee. tereasa was from korea. her mother and father brought her here at the age of 2. she lived in a very poor family. her mom worked in a dry cleaning shop in chicago. she, even though coming from poor circumstances, got a break. something called the merit music program gave her a chance to learn to play the piano. she wasn't good, she was great. by the time she graduated from high school, she had been accepted at the julliard school of music and the manhattan conservatory of music. she was filling out the application. she came to the line that said nationality, citizenship. she turned to her mom and said what should i put there. her mom said, i don't know. i brought you here when you were 2 and i never filed any papers. the young woman said, what are we going do? her mom said let's call durbin.

they called my office and we checked the law. the law was clear. tereasa li had to leave the united states for ten years and then apply to come back. it didn't sound right to me. you know, a lot of us drove here to this meeting this morning. some of you might have passengers in the car, maybe even children in the car. if you got caught speeding, you don't expect the child in the back seat to also get a speeding ticket. that's what was happening to tereasa and so many like her -- came here as a child. spent their lifetimes in the classrooms of america, pledging allegiance to the only flag they've ever known, singing the only national anthem they've ever known. and then learning, legally, they weren't part of this country. so i introduced the dream act 12 years ago for her, for tereasa, and for a lot of people just like her. i want to tell you the end of the tereasa li story because it's great. two families in chicago took pity on her and paid for her education. she graduated from manhattan conservatory of music. she played in carnegie hall.

she ended up marrying an american citizen, jazz musician, and became a citizen herself and now she's completed her phd. in music. we're a better nation because tereasa li is here. we're going to profit from her as we will from so many dreamers who can bring so much to this country. well, here we are today and we're facing the dream act and its future. there have been some characterizations of the dream act that are just not fair. there are things said about the young students and young people that just aren't fair at all. that's one of the reasons we're here in ames, iowa today. you're fair-minded people in iowa, so are we in illinois. you'll look at the facts honestly and you want people to say honestly what you tell them. what you want to hear today is that these young people have so much to offer us. we included the dream act in this comprehensive immigration reform bill.

it was the strongest version of the dream act ever written and it will give these younop chance to make a dramatic contribution to this country. i went to the floor of the senate 54 different times to tell the stories of dreamers with color photographs. it used to be they wouldn't come forward and tell their stories because technically, they were subject to deportation. but over the years, they stepped up and they realized if this cause was going to be one that won over america, america had to know who they really were. and they've done that. sometimes at great risk. they could have been deported telling their stories. but they knew there was no chance to move forward on this issue unless they were willing to take the risk. there hasn't been a single issue in american history or any other countries involving civil rights or human rights where young people didn't step up with the energy and idealism that really led us to the right place in

america. [ applause ] their parents -- they deserve a round of applause. scared their parents many times because they were coming out and telling people who they were. but they did it. luckily we have a president who understands that. he passed this deferred action. he deserves a round of applause. he passed this deferred action deportation order beside it and gave them a chance to apply and stay in america without fear of deportation under the executive order. a half a million have done so so far. they submitted the backgrounds to the government. they know if they haven't graduated high school or have a serious background, they have no

chance whatsoever. it's written into the law and the executive order. the suggestion these are petty criminals or drug smugglers, it just doesn't square with the reality of the dream act. that's one of the reasons i wanted to come here today. you're going to hear from eduardo rodriguez. tom is going to tell you his story. and hector salmanca who's here. and they're going to tell you what life is like for a dreamer. what their dreams are for the future. that's what this is about. to focus not only you, iowa, and the nation on doing the right thing, fixing the system in a just and fair way. you'll find this isn't an easy path, not for the dreamers or anyone who steps forward. first, they have to register with the government. second, they have to pay a fine. starts out at $500 and ends up being $2,000 before it's over. they have to pay paxes on any dollar they earn. at the end of the day, at the end of ten years with no government benefits, they have a chance -- a chance to become

citizens. 2/3 of the people that live in this congressional district support a path to citizenship. 2/3 of them support it. it also turns out that it's good for america. not just that we revalidate who we are and where we came from but it's good for our economy. it's going help us grow the economy, reduce our deficit, and grow jobs. if anybody is surprised by that, take a look at who we are and where we are today. all the immigrants that came to this country from far flung locations have made america what it is. those people who ignore our legacy and basically our roots really ignore the values of this country. we are better -- i'll close --

i'll close by telling this story. i went back to my mother's hometown in lithuania. she never got back. she never returned. but i did. and i saw the church, catholic church where she was baptized and they showed me a well in the village where all of the villagers drew their water even when she was there. i thought what it must have been that night when the family called all of the relatives and friends for the big announcement. they decided they were going to leave and come to america. they heard about some lithuanians who made it to east st. louis, illinois and they were doing pretty well. my grandfather said, if i'm going there first, if i can find a job, bring the kids. he left, found a job, called for my grandmother. she came with three children including the first dreamer in my family, my 2-year-old mom. came over in a boat.

landed in baltimore, caught the train in st. louis and got out on east st. louis where i grew up. i wonder about the people who were sitting around the house when they made the announcement they were going to america. i'll bet you a nickel a lot of them when they left the house were walking home saying what is wrong with this family? they are leaving their good home here. leaving their church, their relatives, their family, their language, culture, dog, cat, chickens, and going to a place where they don't even speak the language? they'll be back. no, they never came back. that's my story. that's my family's story. that's america's story. there is something in our dna about the immigrants who had the courage to come up and get here, really to fight against great

odds, to succeed here. thank goodness we did. that's who we are today. we should celebrate it. we shouldn't apologize for it. we ought to build on it to make us an even stronger nation in the century. thanks, tom. thank you. thank you, dick. thank you. >> well, dick, thank you very much for that and thank you for your great leadership. folks, i want to reassure senator durbin and anyone else who may be tuned in on this, that we iowans, we are a welcoming people. we are a compassionate and caring people. [ applause ] >> we do not -- we do not believe in characterizing people with hateful, spiteful, degrading language. we believe that every human being has worth. we believe those who want to come here to work to build a

better life are not criminals. they are people who want to build a better life for themselves and their families and we ought to be finding way to help them do that here in america. and here in the state of iowa. now, senator durbin referred to this, but i just -- again, i want to make a point. there was a poll taken just this last wednesday by something called the american action network. that showed that 68% of the voters in this district, iowa's fourth congressional district, support an earned pathway to legal status. and, again, this poll was take by the american action network. who are they? it's conducted by the tarrant group, a republican firm that did the polling here in this district. so that it wouldn't be seen as a bias one way or the other.

in this district, in this district, 79% of the voters responded to this poll would support a plan to allow a path to legalization. a path to legalization, 78%. and the poll said nearly 3/4 said immigration reform is a very important issue. so 70% back a path to legal status. it's overwhelming even in this congressional district. even in this congressional district that people in this district want immigration reform. they want this mess cleared up. they want these young dreamers to have a part in our society. and just because one person, one misguided person uses language that is degrading does not reflect what we believe in the state of iowa. [ applause ]

now let's hear from some dreamers here. eduardo rodriguez came to the u.s. from mexico with his parents. he was 1 year old. okay? you're older than that now. shortly after, his family settled in sioux county, iowa, that's this congressional district where he attended elementary and middle and high school before going on to a local private university with a degree in sociology. he received the work permit from the docket program, he's worked as a youth manager leading programs for at-risk youth and sioux county. hector salamanca is the youth outreach coordinator for the american friends service committee in des moines. after graduating from dowling catholic high school, again, my

alma mater, in 2011 and realizing that he was undocumented, he committed himself to join the movement to pass humane immigration reform and helping the general december point latino community. due to his tireless dedication, he was featured as one of 13 people to look out for in 2013 by the des moines register. he's studying law, politics, and society at drake university. he aspires to be an immigration lawyer. we welcome both of you. after those two, we're going hear from a senior attorney and share of the partner at the daift brown law firm, a law firm with offices in ames and december point and she represents individuals and businesses in immigration-related applications. we'll hear from nick harrington, a union representative of ufc

local 222 in sioux city. and he is -- he became a union steward, but he left, went back to school, took business and marketing management and then after his time in school, he returned to ibp in august of 2001. and in his time there he was a union stuart, a member of the safety committee. and he's worked in all of the different areas and now he's a union representative after 12 years. so we'll hear from nick. and reverend barb, we'll turn to her, an ordain elder of the united methodist church, prior to that, was the pastor of los americas faith community for the united methodist church for 11 years. a congregation of latino immigrants. eduardo rodriguez, tell us your story. >> first of all i'd like to say

i'm thankful for this opportunity. i didn't tell a single soul until i was 21 that i was undocumented. to be here and feel so supported and loved is amazing and it's a huge blessing. thanks to everyone around this table. i really appreciate it. i guess my story is i was born in mexico and my parents brought me over to the states when i was a year old. we settled in california for three years, but after that, we lived in sioux county for the rest of my time here. that is my home. i grew up in orange city, iowa. i've been there since first grade until i graduated from college. and i loved the corn fields and i love even sometimes the smell -- i know. but that -- that is home. that is where i feel comfortable. and it's been great to see the way the community has changed over the years.

when i first arrived there, it was me and my cousins that were the only latinos at the elementary school. as the community has changed and more and more newcomers have come, it's become something a lot different and it's i think something that can be such a benefit to our community as we see almost one in four elementary school students now in the local school systems where i live. you see tortillerillas spring up in smalltown, iowa, it's been a huge change but it's also been a boost in benefits to the local community and it's just exciting the times that occurring right now. that is something that senator king needs to -- representative king needs to be aware of is that his district is changing and that people are nn

build relationships with the local immigrant community and they're realizing the struggles and hardships they're going through. that is what is drawing people to this issue is relationships and people and stories. that is what is powerful. that's something that's missing from representative king's speech is the human aspect. because i doubt he knows any dreamers or any undocumented immigrants and their stories the way he talks about them. so i think that's just something he needs to come and -- come to a realization to that his district is changing and needs to be more in tune with what is occurring because it's vastly different than the picture he's portraying and i'm just excited for what is happening here and it's very encouraging. i'm very excited for the bill that the senator has been working on.

and i think now is just a very exciting time. and it's just -- the excitement is building and i see this as a huge opportunity for this, you know, bill to come through. so i'm really excited and thankful to be here. and thank you so much. >> hector, tell us your story. >> before i start, i first want to thank the senators for being here, the fellow panelists and you, yourself, as well as the iowa dreamers that are present. make some noise, iowa dreamers. whew! i also want to -- on behalf of american foreign service committee, i want to hand some things over to both senators.

one is our idea of immigration reform as well as a packet of about 400 -- 437 postcards from different iowians throughout a couple of past months who are in support of immigration reform who want this reform to happen. both of these are in representative latham's district but several comes from the representative who represents this district. so first, i want to give this to representative -- senator, senator harkin. and senator dick durbin. >> thank you. one last thing, i'd ask that both senators please sign a post card, easy do. sign your name. here you go as well. >> this guy's organized. hello, my boss told me to do this. so i had to do it. all right. so my turn to tell my story.

my story is similar and different to every other dreamer's due to the fact that when my family came to the united states, we came on a tourist visa. my earliest recollection was us being on the greyhound bus at the age of 3. and i remember my little brother, my now big brother -- my little brother throwing up on the bus, on the greyhound bus. so i've grown up in iowa since i was 3. i'm originally from puebla, mexico. my mom was a lawyer. my dad was a firefighter, taxi driver. he did any job to bring money to the family. due to the economic situation in mexico, we had to, you know, come to the united states. my family originally planned to be here only for a couple of years but the situation in mexico deteriorated even worse so we decided to stay. i was not aware of my undocumented situation, my undocumented status until i was getting ready to go to college. essentially my end of junior year at catholic high school.

my dad told me -- i was coming back from hanging out with my then girlfriend. he said hector, i want to talk to you. come with me to the car. he told me the story of how we came to the u.s. and how my tourist visa expired while i was in elementary school. i said, no, i'm going be fine. i don't need to drive or anything. but -- but as i graduated dowling, i realized that i couldn't go to a state university. i couldn't go to continue on my education due to the fact that i wasn't eligible for state scholarships or federal grants or loans or eligible to the things that my classmates were. i then took the initiative along with my fiance, tess, who's out there, to go and visit the service committee where the legal service director explained to me my particular situation. understanding my situation, everything that it meant, really opened my eyes to what i had to

do to overcome this situation that i faced. so, since i graduated i now have just completed my associates degree at the community college and attending drake university and i dedicated myself in my spare time to reach out to other latino youth to engage them and tell them don't let your undocumented status prevent you from achieving your goals. [ applause ] for myself, thank you for sending me to dowling where they drilled it into you that education is key for the future. you need to get educated. the entire time i've been in the u.s., i heard that message, education is key and we need to continue to educate ourselves and we need to get involved

because even though we have this undocumented status, i've got deferred action so i'm okay for a couple of years, we can't allow ourselves to fall in this rut where we think everything is going to be fixed or we can lay in the background and have other people take the initiative. we need to be out there in the forefront. we need to be engaging our representatives, our senators, out there telling the iowa people, telling our representatives, especially the representative who represents this district and my representative, representative tom latham that we are here. we might not get media coverage like the dreamers in california or the eastern coast, but we are here, present. we've been here for several years. i want to give a thank you to dick durbin for introducing the dream act in 2001. i was in roughly the third grade. i had no idea something that happened happened so long ago would have an impact now.

my parents believed the dream act would have passed and not have to tell me i'm undocumented. i'm here for the nonpassage of the dream act. for me to be here now, you know, 12 years later looking back, it really shows how we need to come together and advocate for the comprehensive immigration reform. we need this. i don't want to wait another 12 years and have my now 9-year-old brother turn to me and say, hey, hector, what happened to immigration reform? how come you're still undocumented. what happened? i want to say we were the forefront of this battle it shall this struggle and we held the passage with other latino leaders. i want this reform to happen and i want to tell our representatives directly you hold basically the power to do that. you hold the power to say we want to bring this to a vote. house leader boehner, we want to bring it up for a vote.

my point of view is what do you have to lose? what are you afraid of? if the bill doesn't pass, the latino community can look forward, regroup, move on. if it does, we can all rejoice. that's not the end of the struggle. for us, even here in iowa, fechb even if this bill continues to fail, we need to continue with this struggle for iowa. right now, those with deferred action, even myself, we can't get federal loans, federal grants. we can't get those scholarships. we need to continue that struggle, the struggle to get our driver's license as well. the whole emphasis that we need to continue to move on. if we don't stand up front and say, hay, i may be an immigrant from the other country, i'm iowan and i deserve the same rights that you do, if we don't

do that, all of this will be for nothing. we need to move forward, fight, telling our representatives, calling them, visiting the offices, telling them we want the reform to happen and we are here. as the postcards show, 400 some iowans want the reform to happen. 47%, 48% of this representative's own district wants the reform to happen. they can't deny those facts. he and i and other dreamers want this to happen for all of us. [ applause ] >> oh, that was great. i guess, so, see, hector's going to be a lawyer.

lori chesser with the davis brown law firm. you better keep an eye on this guy. >> thank you for bringing a spotlight to this critical issue to iowa at this time. and, of course, thank you to eduardo and hector. you're a very hard act to follow. so i'm not worried about competition. we need all of the good immigration lawyers that we can get. and we need all of the dreamers that we can get. now, i'm here today really not as an immigration lawyer so much as a representative of the business community. because i spent the last 20 years working with businesses that -- that bring immigrants to the states to work in various capacities. and so -- and so i was asked today to represent that -- that perspective. businesses are not partisan. businesses are not interested in partisan politics. businesses are sbrelsed in

having workers, historically and currently today, immigrants have played a critical role in the u.s. workforce. and in iowa, right now, we have about 5% according to most estimates of immigrant workers in our workforce. but that 5% is really a critical percent because immigrants complement the u.s. workforce. and going forward, which is what i think we really have to stay focused on when we're talking about immigration reform is the future as well as the past and the present, but we have to look to the future. going forward, immigrants will play a particularly critical role in the workforce in the u.s., but even more so in iowa. you know, in iowa, they're doing a lot of work between businesses and education to prepare iowa's workforce for the future.

future will be what they call middle skill jobs. middle skill jobs are typically filled by the native u.s. workforce so to speak. but we still will really need immigrant workers to fill particular segments that can't -- that aren't being fillled by the u.s. workforce because workers are hard to find for jobs or there are special skills that are needed. so we have to keep in mind that we're facing as a country and this is where iowa is even -- is really on the consulting edge, maybe the bleeding edge, we're facing the retirement of the baby-boomers. and as the baby-boomers have started to retire, they'll continue to retire. then they'll age. then unfortunately, some will get sick and we have to think about all of those needs going forward.

we need to back fill for the jobs that the baby-boomers leave, but we need to have workers that will fill jobs created by economic growth and other opportunities that, you know, we're all hopeful will be in iowa's and amera's future. and so recent studies have shown that throughout the united states, but also in iowa, that all growth in workforce in the next 30 years will be attributable to immigrants. because of this demographic of retiring baby-boomers and the generation coming after them. and, of course, also, i think, senator harkin alluded to, we also need to fill jobs that are currently here. but we need to create jobs, we need innovation. this is where immigrants have really contributed to america as well. immigrants are more likely as a group to start businesses, immigrants are more likely to have a patent when they're working in the high-tech

industries and that than native foreign counterparts. and then finally, we have to remember that we live in a small world. we can't isolate america from the rest of the world. and that's true for our economy. and so therefore our economy is not a zero sum game. our workforce is not a zero sum game. businesses and workers adapt to changing policies and circumstances. so we work with the rest of the world but in a sense we're in competition for the rest of the world. for exports, imports, and workforce. so immigration from the business perspective should be viewed as a precious resource for many reasons, many, many cultural and many other reasons, you know? but also economically. and we need to make sure that that resource is being managed well, both now a and looking to

the future. so we look forward to working with the senators and the representatives as the business community to really form immigration law that will help everyone -- help immigrants, help the dreamers and the dreamers are such a critical part of our workforce needs going forward. but, of course, of our communities and i certainly recognize the dignity of people as people but i wanted to bring out the economic aspect as well because it's important for the well being of everyone. we look forward to working on that and have an immigration bill that will really work for iowa and for america. [applause] >> thank you. >> i was remiss in not adding that lori is a member of the greater december moyn partnership work board.

lori is the vice chair of the american immigration council, a policy focused national nonprofit organization. thank you. again, going to go to nick harrington, the new representative from uwsc local 222. i just double checked with senator durbin. from the business standpoint, the u.s. chamber of commerce supports the immigration bill. businesses get it. they know how important it is for the economic vitality of america. and it was also endorsed by the afl-cio. labor understands it also. we thank both of our business and labor community for supporting the immigration bill. so, nick -- nick, you've been involved in ufcw where you call it packing house workers and stuff. it's been my experience as i toured them -- i didn't work in them like durbin did. he worked his way through college, he worked as a meat cutter in packing houses.

but as i come around, i see more and more of our latino community working in our packing houses, meat consulting and places that you represent so please tell us about that. >> i'm with ufcw local 222 out of northwest iowa. we have a packing house in cherokee, iowa and dakota city, nebraska. together that's close to roughly 5,000 employees and i would say 75% of them are latino. >> 75%? >> yes, yep. so 75% of who we represent is latino and immigrant workers. again, good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the panel and the audience, senators? i'm honored to be here today to talk about an issue that affects us all. these united states, our united states, has been the place for dreams and opportunities for immigrants for hundreds of years. this dream lives today.

the opportunity to achieve this dream has become tarnished by political rhetoric and partisan politics. comprehensive immigration reform must create a path to citizenship. there are as many as 11 million immigrants aspiring to be americans living and contributing in the united states today. this path must be streamlined for dreamers who are brought here as young children with immigrant parents. these people are part of the drive and the will of our economy. they open shops, restaurants, and stores. they work in fields, factories, and in meat packing. giving the life blood to the middle class like the irish and german and other immigrants centuries before. congressman king has made comments about immigrants that are wrong and offensive. congressman king also feels that today's immigrants in some way

are substandard compared to everyday americans. well, let me tell you as a real blue collar iowan, i started in working in meat packing at one of the world's largest beef plants at the age of 18. as a young man fresh out of high school, i had been around -- i had never been around that environment that meat packing involves. i worked many jobs with most of the men and women being immigrants. unlike some would have you believe, the immigrants working there paid their taxes. just like me. [ applause ] they paid their insurance just like me. and most important, they were working for a better life for their families, just like me. [ applause ] in my years of working in the meat packing industry in the

last four years working as a union representative, i can tell you immigration reform will improve the standards for all workers. it will help end the exploitation of any worker. [ applause ] it will help reunite families without living in fear or being separated for up to 3 to 10 years waiting to try to bring their families here legally. friends, brothers and sisters, this current system is broken. every american worker deserves fair pay. every american worker deserves the opportunity to live this dream -- the dream of our fathers, grandfathers, and great grandfathers. now is the time for america to create a modern 21st century

immigration system. now is the time for reform to create an effective mechanism in the employment eligibility and reform must not be piece milled or incremental. it must be comprehensive and timely. [ applause ] this is our chance. our chance to make our mark in history getting today's american dreamer a fair and equitable chance to become an american citizen. i leave you with a quote from labor activist cesar chavez. once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. you cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. you cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. you cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore. we have seen the future and the future is ours.

thank you. >> thank you, wow. [ applause ] >> well, that was powerful.

.

[captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] the obama administration and the steps by the fed reserve, if those steps collectively were not taken, i believe he would have gotten into a depression. it is a small price to be paid for the additional debt that was aken on. as much as i hate debt. i do have a very big problem. the thing that brought me to

public life was the concern about debt that was occurring. i was deeply concerned about the trajectory the one was on. with respect to domestic spending, that is not the problem. 1968 or 1969, we were almost 14% of gdp on domestic discretionary spending. 1988, that was down to 6%. it was dramatically reduced. 2012, that was back up to just ver 8% of g.d.p. nowhere close to where it was back in 1968 or 1969. it is not in the appropriated account.

the problem exists, in my judgment in the parts of the federal government that are growing. the healthcare economy. we were at 1% gdp in the healthcare comes back in 1970. e're headed on the path we are n for 12% of g.d.p. in the healthcare accounts. that is where the explosion in spending is occurring. on the other side of the equation is the revenue. this is where i had differences with some of my republican colleagues. they say it is a spending problem. if you look at the chart of spending and revenue over the last 60 years, three years ago, we were at a 60 year low on

revenue and 60 year high on spending. 60 year low on revenue and 60 year high on spending. no wonder we had record deficit. in my judgment, when some of our friends say it is a spending problem, they have got it half right. yeah, we have a spending problem. that was necessitated to avoid a depression. a revenue problem exacerbated tax cuts we could not afford. it took our revenue base to a low. my judgment is that we have to have both halves of the equation. we have to have more discipline, especially on the parts of the pending that is growing.

it is entitlement accounts. primarily, healthcare. he have also got to work on the revenue side of the equation. we are still not back to where we need to be on revenue. if we look at the historic records, if you looked over the last six years, five times we have balanced. revenue has been about 20% of g.d.p.. we are going to be 17.5% of g.d.p. this year. we have been short over we have been. we are expecting revenue to be -- it is still somewhat short of where we have in the last five times we have balanced. i am honored to be part of this panel. i served with my colleague.

we had disagreements, but if i know thing, don nickels, when he gives you his word, it is his word. that is a very important thing. he was selling you is willing to work together to get something one. we had disagreements, but we rk gged together progressively. you never question where he was on an issue. he made it clear. [laughter] tommy was a joy. he was an absolute joy to work with. do we read everything? no, we did not -- did we agree on everything? no, we did not. but we wanted results. the problem is the problem. the problem is people who are unwilling to get results -- and it is not just on one side of the aisle. i wish it were.

it would make it easier. we have got problems on both sides of the aisle. let's get something done. >> it is a good segue for our rapidfire. a real quick round here. we can open it up to respond. he department of commerce will release its preliminary second quarter g.d.p. figures. it might be difficult to figure it all out tomorrow. some analysts expect it could be less than 1%. if that comes out, congress is planning on leaving and going home for the august vacation. when we return, there will be less than nine legislative days before the new fiscal year egins.

here have been no 2014 appropriation bills sent to the president. the senate house has not agreed to even go to conference on a budget resolution passed by both chambers. those two budget resolutions for tenant $91 billion difference between the senate and the house. $91 billion. nbelievable. our own estimate here at the bipartisan center is that we will reach -- we will run out of cash. we will reach the end of our rope sometime between the end of october and the middle of ovember. made it clear has that administration will not negotiate on the debt limit increase. we have a 2% sequester and

mandatory programs that will begin in october and a much larger one. there is talk of enacting fundamental tax reform this session. we have seen some green shoots of bipartisan in the senate. not clear if we have seen it in the house of representatives. i think it is fair to say we are at the brink again. you have all been there. what should we or the american public anticipate how this will turn out? i will open it out for anyone to ake that on. >> it doesn't look likely that congress is going to get a big deal. the statement that mr. lew and the president made on not negotiating on a debt limit is

ridiculous. i have been to a lot of debt limit extension egotiations. the administration may not like them, but they have to sign the bill or veto the bill. >> it includes the funding for the affordable care act. >> i doubt it includes that. i'm trying to remember. i think we passed the congressional review act as part of the debt limit. harry reid was a principal sponsor. congress has a right to write legislation. the president can sign it and veto. -- or veto. congress has to pass it. they have to be mindful. if they want to defund affordable care act, they need something that will get through he senate.

congress has to pass a debt limit extension at some point. they are running into a significant dilemma. it takes leadership from congress and the white house to avoid the train wreck. and as i said before, i don't think this president is interested in deficit reduction or cushing entitlement. >> that might be a good segue. i guess the president is meeting tomorrow with democrats in both the house and the senate. what should the president expect when he meets with congress omorrow? democratic members? >> let me say that i was born in oklahoma. it is the last thing i have in common with my friend here.

ralph [laughter] he said it was ridiculous for the president to negotiate. this issue has been joined to the debt ceiling. hat is ridiculous. it puts at fundamental risk the econom welfare and the economic strength and the leadership capability worldwide. that is what is ridiculous. what is ridiculous is that we have had a fight about mathematics over the past three years. it misses the big problem. the big problem is the fact that we have had a huge transfer of income over the last 30 years. meanwhile, it is eroding the pocketbook earnings of average,

middle-class families. we need both parties working together to figure out how to attack that problem on a bipartisan basis rather than having another silly debate. there is one problem in the process that bothers me. one of the reasons it has become so politicized is because congress is never at work anymore. they come in here -- when i started, we started the session monday afternoon. it went until friday morning. today they come in at tuesday at 6:30 p.m. and they are in town for a full day on wednesday and thursday by noon they are gone and heading for their planes. as a result, they never have the time to learn the substance of n issue.

they do not have time to learn the substance of an issue. they fall back on the politics of the issue. it becomes more polarized. members have to spend so much time being glorified telemarketers and raising money for their campaigns that they have little time to work out and understand the differences. i believe that you are not going to get these problems solved until we have developed a higher degree of confidence in the other guys personality and concerns until we have learned all over again how to work together. it takes time. we need to get to know human chemistry that people are dealing with and that is missing on the hill.

>> what's going to happen this fall? >> i'm a little more optimistic. i'm always overly optimistic, i guess. i'm scandinavian. [laughter] i see hopeful signs. i saw it and immigration. i saw it in the farm bill. but you know, things have got to o start somewhere. i think the president does care about the deficit. e has got to prioritize. averting a depression over deficit. in my judgment, that was a wise prioritization. now the deficit is coming down. $1.1 trillion last year.n to $3y

2015. that is a dramatic improvement. the long-term has not been dealt with. the failure, collective failure has been the inability and unwillingness to deal with our long-term prospects. i think there is at least a chance we will not have the grand bargain, but we could have an additional increment of deficit reduction that i think would help economic confidence. i think it would help economic growth. the president has laid out something that would make an important contribution. hat will change the cpi. it helps you on the revenue side and the spending side. it helps you by about $250 billion. there is a much bigger benefit for the second and third 10 years. i think it is entirely possible

that you do have a negotiation around the debt limit. i believe, you know, whether it is right or wrong, to get an agreement on a debt limit extension, there will have to be some larger concessions. it will have to be around a long-term fiscal trajectory. there is an opportunity to get some additional revenue. not by raising rates. i don't think that is the right way to raise revenue. i think we could have raised revenue without raising rates. also, long-term entitlement reforms. not some grand bargain, but another step. the budget control act, people say we do not have a budget. no, we didn't have a budget resolution, but we had a budget law called the budget control act. it cut funds out of domestic spending over 10 years was that we coupled that with the dreaded

sequester which cuts another $1.2 trillion. now you're at $3.6 trillion. if we get another 2.3 trillion adjustment, we would be on a much sounder track. >> the last word on this before we open it up to questions from the audience. the deficit coming down is because of the sequester has stayed in effect. that means that there is potential for another sequester and another issue as it relates o faa. if you were working there, how would you be planning? governor, how would you plan? >> there are two issues that are critical for the faa. first of all, understand what the scenario is.

the difficult issue will be policy issues. if this is going to go into effect, do you furlough employees? and protect the core modernization program? do you hold back on some of the modernization? do you not furlough employees? those are tough policy decisions that have to be made. i would urge the faa and i am sure they are looking at those uestions very seriously. the concern is not so much 2014. they might get by. it will not be easy, but they may get by. you would like to think it is an opportunity for some consolidation and changes that might have been difficult and surplus times. those are the policy issues that have to be laid out in a very transparent way. >> the last word before we open it up to questions from the

audience. >> i refer to questions like hat as to what the surrogate judge in new york said. if you like good sausagingst and good laws, it is best that you don't see either one being made. the truth is that our democracy has always been not as tidy as we would like. it we have a problem, we solve it. everyone of us would like to make the adjustments and have a eer. makse make things happen. but congress today usually refers every ask effectively to emergency. i look back, even to the 1950's. the sputnik.

we were behind the russians and then all of a sudden america came together. 9/11. we were way behind. america was wide open. never thought we could have an attack on american soil. we came together. there hasn't been an attack on america since then. there have been attempts, but we have been very successful. we had our backs against the wall. i didn't like the results. i'm the first to say that. i was not there. they came up and made a solution. the budget control act that was being talked about, it had some good to it. senator nickels, of course, he came in with a tax cut. you can argue about whether or not revenue cuts are good. i think they are. that is a partisan difference. but the truth of the matter is the government and emergencies come together to work. i'm certain american will come together. we will not allow the country to go down because we cannot get along.

we're going to fight like hell but at the 11th hour, sometimes we always come together. i'm certain the same thing will happen again. >> welcome to the bipartisan policy center. [laughter] >> allison has a microphone. we have few minutes here for some questions. please identify yourself and your association. >> thank you. my name is dave. 'm with l.l.p. publications. we have talked a lot about some of the longer term, but members of the panel, do you believe that there will be some kind of continuing resolution? or do you believe there will be a government shutdown in october, and secondly, the same with the debt ceiling. do you believe we'll get to the point the agreement will not be

reached until the ceiling is testimonyly reached and agencies have to take steps? >> no, i do not think there will be a shutdown. i think the c.r. will pultely pass. i think the house will pass a continuation. my guess is the house will pass a continuation. my guess is the initial one will be short. there'll be added interest on all sides. hopefully they will over the sequester and come up with a bigger package. i have met with chairman camp. they want to do a deal. they want to make the tax code more efficient. you can raise revenue in some areas and reduce rates and make the economy grow more. the government can make more money in the process. i know that can happen.

there is a lot of income that is not taxed. you can tax it. as a result, you can reduce waste. marginal rates are too high. mine is 50%. over 50%. the government gets over half of every additional dollar i make. that is counterproductive. you do not have to be at a high income level for that to happen. you can have -- you're working for the government more than you are working for yourself. that's too high. >> i believe you are also on the finance committee. >> one place where we have some agreement. not complete agreement. i was part of the group of six. we proposed raising revenue not by raising marginal rates. i happen to agree with senator nickels on this point. i think you can raise revenue. i think you can actually lower

marginal rates that exist today. i think you can put together a package that would raise revenue and lower marginal rates. it would give a lift to the economy. a five-story building in the ayman islands. it claims to be the home of 18,000 companies. they say they are doing business out of that house in cayman islands. they're not doing business. the only business they are doing tax avoidance business in the united states. this is costing us about $100 billion a year. does anybody seriously think that is a tax increase, that those people are paying the same tax that the rest of us are paying? i don't. >> question over here. one over here. >> my name is dennis. i'm an independent

consultant. this is a question for ms. garvey. you were talking about the process of the difficult policies discussions that have to take place. it made a statement of making that more transparent. could you be more specific on what you mean by more transparent? s opposed to the sausage making comment your colleague just made? >> right. a great deal carry about that. there are lots of opportunities. there should be opportunities to lay out the options. laying out those options so people do understand.

first and foremost, i think it is the discussion that others have said here with congress so that there really is a full understanding of what are the trade-offs? sometimes people are not clear on exactly what the trade-offs are and what the considerations hat an agency is giving. given to certain decisions. i think you can do that in a pretty transparent way. >> i think we have time for two more questions. >> bryan alexander. i'm writing a dissertation. [laughter] i have been following these discussions for a long time. many hosted by the bipartisan policy center. i have a question about sequestration. there are a lot of dire forecast and predictions. now that we have seen it in effect and we are going toward another round, where did some of he forecast work out the worst

and better than what you thought? sort of an update on the state of sequestration and how bad it is or how bad it hasn't been. >> i would say this -- i think sequestration as a policy really doesn't make a lot of sense. it is $1.2 trillion of cuts out of the domestic accounts that are going down already. we are cutting the part of the federal budget that is already in decline. we are not addressing the part of the federal budget that is growing dramatically. as a policy matter, it does not make sense. it was put in place, as you know, to try to persuade congress to work on the other parts of the equation that do need fixing. the long-term spending and in

he monday tori accounts. the sequester was put in place to try to provide incentives for congress to act. instead, we could not reach a conclusion. here we are. it does not have as adverse of anfect on the economy as some predicted although i think it is starting to bite. you expect about 1% of gdp. we could avert that. >> anybody here who thinks it is a good idea to cut cancer research or parkinson's or alzheimer's? or huntington's? you name it. i think that is one of the worst examples of sequestration. the second thing that bugs me, i remember going into vice president biden's office and the

learn s simpson-bow got together. everyone was saying it is not domestic discretionary that is a problem. it is the other parts of the budget. everybody agreed with that, but every year when the results come out, they go after that part of the budget because it is the easy one. it is the one that you have to pass every year unlike other pieces of the budget. that is why it is backwards. >> last question and we have to move on. this has been a wonderful panel. in 198 3, alan greenspan tchared commission to reduce social security. in 1990, the whole theory was you would hold hands and jump together. what is different today? why doesn't that work? how can we do something like that?