>> help me with this, senator paul. judge'sistrict court ruling in this case, did it set policy or standard leon -- beyond a particular town to or >> i'm not an attorney. you may have to ask. my understanding is that rulings are not universal. the supreme court typically does. you will see the courts make decisions and they do not affect the rest of the country. my understanding as a non-lawyer is if you want to make a standard for the country, you should do it and if the courts rule one way or another, that does not prevent us making a decision, weighing in on this.

i'm concerned that there are people who inadvertently can , who arel of the law just stopping to pick up the mail and i think we should fix this problem. >> ok. the deputy postmaster general -- i understand an individual one the court case because he had a gun in his pickup truck do the law says you can't that. the picture in my mind is my hometown post office where you pull in, walk in to get your mail and you violate the law if you're hunting rifle is in your car. the courts sided with the individual, not with the post office. my understanding is the post office is appealing that ruling now. my hope is this will go all the way to the supreme court, because i think it truly

violates the second amendment. either way, the fact is, senator paul is making the point, what is ave seen in precedents trend to allow responsible people to act responsibly in their state and all senator paul expansion forhe the rights of responsible gun owners so they do not have to change everything when they walk into get their mail. that is precluded. all the post office has to say if you are following the laws of the state in terms of second amendment rights, then you are not in violation. hardnot think this is as of an amendment as everybody thinks it is and i do not think it will create a difficulty and we have done this before in certain areas. it has not been harmful. it has been beneficial.

>> thank you. -- are youiliar with familiar with the court case we are talking about here? i am going to ask you, if you could comment for us, what is the postal service proposition? postal service's position? are you appealing the judgment, the rule? do you have an opinion on the amendment as modified? >> thank you. with regard to the legal status of the case, i would defer to our general counsel who is here, who i think would be in a better position to discuss the status of the case. tom marshall is the postal service's general counsel. >>. the case you are referring to is district court case out of colorado, as you suggested.

in that case, the plaintiff was challenging the postal regulation which bans the carrying of guns on all postal property. he was licensed to carry a firearm. the district court determined that our regulation was not unconstitutional insofar as it prohibited a gun being brought into a postal property, but the judge determined with regard to the postal parking lot in this particular postal office with only this particular plaintiff that our restriction was violative of the second amendment. we are appealing that decision to the united states courts of appeals 10th circuit. >> all right. thanks for that clarification. thed you just give us perspectives of the postal service on this underlying

please? you, mr. chairman. our postal inspectors are responsible for the safety and security of all postal facilities. i strongly believe the current policy should remain in effect. about anyoncerned additional security measures. they are concerned about the safety of our employees. the 32,000e given employees it will cost additional resources to go through every one of those facilities and make sure they are safe and secure. the administrative burdens on the postal inspectors from their point of view is going to make it difficult on them. as you know, there has been some history of violence with regards to postal facilities. and i think for the safety and

security of both our customers and our employees, we believe our current policy should remain in effect. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman, may i make a comment? yes, please. >> i think this illustrates why we need this amendment. the post office is obviously guns in theiring parking lots are facilities and are appealing it. i think this is an open westin and the people should weigh in on it through their representatives. noted thatshould be the history of violence from the post office has not been citizens coming into the post office. it has been postal employees. >> ok. what i would like to do at this point in time is to offer -- is there any further discussion on this? point, mike,other if you would not mind. as far as the amendment i would

offer, this amendment is supported by the nra some of the national association of gun rights, and don't owners -- and gun owners of america. all three groups will resist attempts to strike this language. any attempt to replace it with the study will be opposed and this will be seen as a vote, whether it is a vote to replace, this will be seen as a vote as to whether or not you support law-abiding citizens' right to carry a gun in the parking lot. this is a big deal, particularly through rural america, where people do go hunting. i am not willing to let this go have asupreme court, to kentucky in the finder go to jail for accidentally showing up in a parking lot with a shotgun in their truck. this is a big deal.

a replacement effort will be seen as a vote against law-abiding gun owners in america. ok. >> mr. chairman, the department of justice -- are they represented here today? i know they have many issues with this amendment, many of them being issues of construction. are any of them here today? i know the postal service's position has been made clear. i think we all understand the opinion of the judge was that the parking lot is one thing, but inside of a federal building is another thing. the former in that case being unconstitutional for a gun to be restricted, but in the latter case in terms of inside the buildings, it is constitutional. this amendment does not make any such distinction. i think for us to proceed to adopted this amendment on this bill at this time rather than leaving it for the court and

hopefully getting the justice department opinion on this would be a mistake. >> one other point though is the post office is appealing even allowing them in the parking lot, so we have the full force of the post office appealing and saying they don't want you to have your shotgun even in your car, in your post office arcing lot. that is what we are talking about. we are not talking about the courts said it was ok. what we are talking about is the post office is appealing. that is what we are voting on. on thewe are not voting parking lot. both sides have appealed. the postal service appealed on the question of the parking lot, but this amendment is not limited to a parking lot. the other side, the plaintiff in that case, the citizen is appealing be decision of the court inside federal buildings that this kind of restriction is constitutional and this amendment would reverse that. i think we should hear the justice

formally on this. we should not make a decision before this gets to the floor, if we have time, which i would assume we would at least to hear from the justice department on this matter. i think we should leave this to the floor as some kind of review i interested persons. perhaps a hearing. but in any event, not to adopted this time. >> anyone else? i am going to call up a second-degree amendment i will be offering in response to senator paul's amendment. -- my godfather would take me hunting. we were up in west virginia. i remember a number of times going hunting in the morning or even later in the day, we would put our shotguns in the trunk of our car and we would stop at a place, a convenience store. we would stop at different

places, get something to eat, maybe something else we needed to buy. when i first heard about the parking lot amendment, the court case in colorado, i actually thought about those experiences about, dad and i thought well, what if we stopped at a post office on our way home from a day hunting? i'm glad that case is being heard in the courts. i think there is a very narrow interpretation. it has been described by senator paul and the postal service. that will be revised by the u.s. circuit of appeals. i agree with senator levin. the amendment offered by senator paul goes well beyond the parking lot. inclination is for us not to get ahead of the courts, to let the circuit court of appeals hear the case and have the input, of among others the

department of justice, but frankly i think the district court judge decided the right thing. spent a lot of years of my life trying to improve the services of the postal service, making sure that they do not just have the funds to for survive, to be relevant, but to be robust. on theout everybody subcommittee has done a great job on this. in addition to managing expenses , moving forward the postal service must manage i think some 32,000 post offices throughout the country and that includes ensuring the safety of its employees, its customers, property at each of these 32,000, 33,000 facilities. focusedr committee has on the financial help and the department caliber service the

postal service offers, my colleagues would agree that ensuring the physical safety of post office employees, customers, and the mail should be a top priority. thisor paul has offered amendment to essentially allow the carrying of firearms on postal property, so long as the individual is abiding by state laws. the postal service maintains the current regulation barring the possession of firearms on postal property, barring law enforcement, reserves and promote public safety and is in the best interest of its customers and employees. my view is this. how can we vote on something when we have an heard a minute of testimony from a single expert or consulted relevant federal law enforcement agencies, particularly on an issue of this magnitude?

i do not believe we should up and decades of settled law without at least studying the issue. i would urge us today to commit to studying the issue before voting without having all the facts in front of us. go beforeg lots will the federal courts. i want to offer a second-degree amendments for the paul amendment number three. i would like to offer a modified version of my second-degree amendment that was stipulated this morning. the modification makes clear that the postal service must implementingegin any changes recommended in the reports. let me say that again. the modification makes clear that the postal service must immediately begin implementing any changes recommended in the reports. this amendment would have a group of experts look at this issue, recommend what if any would beo current law

prudent. it recommends the bureau of inspection service, the girl alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, justicedepartment of submitted reports to the house and senate regarding the security changes, if any, that need to be made across the country should the carrying of firearms consistent with state law be allowed on postal property is or inside postal offices. by and in myth and requires the postmaster general to submit a report to the committees of jurisdiction in the house and senate for the process that recommend security changes and whether these would necessitate facility closures or relocations. wouldstmaster general also be required to make recommendations regarding the feasibility of current regulations to address be lawful carrying of firearms on postal properties and how that would impact the safety of postal

employees, customers, property, and to the u.s. mail. to take a votet on any amendment without having all the facts, and with senator paul's amendment, we just don't have that much to go on at this time. there will be consequences for the public safety -- we need to know the consequences for the public safety and the postal service's finances. i would urge support for carper urging agree amendment study on this issue. the modification makes clear the postal service must immediately begin recommending -- implementing any changes recommended in the reports. >> mr. chairman -- >> mr. chairman? have with youri second-degree amendment is you are giving the post office authority that congress ought to have when you tell them to begin implementing immediately

whatever they find out in their study. we have no assurance anybody in congress will have capability on that committee and have no idea where that study might go. it might be considerably more difficult than the present language. caveat, i have that difficulty and i appreciate that you put your guns in the trunk of the car when you went to the post office, but i come from a part of the country where most people do not have the drug. they call it a pickup. [laughter] senator? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate this modification. i appreciate senator paul's amendment, what he is trying to do here. i would just say this. of the strong support second amendment. i have more guns than any of you and i want some more, ok? at the bottom line, some places with guns are not appropriate.

this building would not be appropriate to have a gun in it. i do not think it is appropriate to have a gun in the post office. the parking lot is a different issue, however. are aal america, there lot of folks who might be out hunting gophers and they have the guns setting in the pickup. it's just a matter to have the tools to do their work with. if i had my druthers, and we do not have the opportunity to vote for this, i would vote to allow guns in the parking lot, but not in the postal service -- in the post office. >> thank you, senator tester. any more comments? if not, i am going to ask the clerk to call the roll on carper amendment amber to as modified. -- number two as modified. vote]call

>> senator tester question mark senator -- senator tester? senatorbaggage? baldwin? mccain? [roll call vote]

mr. chairman, on the vote with those present, the yays are 8, the nays are 5. on this vote, the yeas are 9, the nays are 6. the minute is agreed to. >> thank you. i think we need to do a procedural vote? . mr. chairman, the amendment we will be voting on is now the primary amendment, and i would like to propose a second-degree amendments to the primary amendment and that would be amendment three as modified. >> suspend just for a moment please.

>> i have no idea.

[raps gavel] come to order please. senator paul, i think i said at the last markup -- my last opportunity to share the markup of a major bill. this is my 13th or 14th year in

i cannote, and this remember another time when someone offered amendment and a second-degree amendment was offered for the underlying amendment. i also offer the opportunity really -- the third-degree amendment, which is really what the original amendment. i that were to be approved, do not think that would be approved. if you were to invite me to come back again -- we could be here for the rest of the day. i do not think that is what is by the bill. >> in my experience, what usually happens is it turns out to be a side-by-side rather than a second-degree amendment. usually they vote. >> in this case, i have offered the second-degree. we have had discussion of it. we have had a vote.

make one response? >> yes, please. >> i guess it's a question. this goes along with senator in the saying, is there an attempt by the majority not to vote on this issue? you would rather vote indirectly on this issue rather than directly? issue is at hand. it is important. can you carry your gun into a parking lot? can you carry your gun into a post office? is that the intent of the chair not to vote on this issue directly? nomr. chairman, there is question where i stand on these issues of second amendment rights. i have taken a beating from a lot of folks because of my votes in the past, but i do the right thing for alaska. if you want to do the parking lot issue, let's write that amendment right now. let's just say, whatever the district court ruled, that is the law for this amendment. i am happy to support that right now.

multipleppy to vote on amendments. the thing is, we should not have a committee where we cannot vote on certain amendments. you can vote on an amendment you could agree to. that's fine. voted to strike this language at would protect hunters and gun owners. you all voted to strike this and not address an issue, a very serious issue. you can't have it both ways. paul, i disagree. the way the amendment is drawn, it is clear. after the process is moment it, if you want the parking lot issue, i am hubie -- i am happy to do that right now. and that would be very >>. that would the in accordance with the way the court has already ruled, and i support that. i hear you. if you want to do it, let's do it. let's quit playing parlor time

-- parlor games. let's to the chase and make sure that my folks in atlanta when they go to the eastchester branch in anchorage and they park with her gun in the car, they are not going to get in trouble. that is the issue. let's cut to the chase and do it. that's what gun owners in my state care about. >> my inclination is for us to now and thenery there are debates and other committees and issues, we reach the ranking member says this is something we need to continue to have a discussion on. obviously this issue will be on the floor. we will leave this issue. you will have an opportunity to offer an amendment, perhaps craft it somewhat differently. maybe along the lines suggested by senator begich. amended a amendment as

by the second-degree amendment has been approved, and i would like us to move on to take on other amendments. this is not the finish line. this is not the finish line, ok? we have the floor. we have conference. and we have courts. so, this is an issue that will get a lot of air time before we are done. all right. thank you. with that, we will come back -- go ahead, senator tester. chairman, being in this position, and the previous position for 15 years now, and i don't know i've ever had anyone come up to me and say, it's really important that i need to carry my gun into a post office. and montana is a very gun-rich state. the coin,er side of there have been debates about guns and parking lots of other places before. it's not kid ourselves. this is about politics. this is about 100% politics.

because if i vote against this amendment some of the commercials are not going to say jon tester voted against guns in post offices. testere going to say jon voted against guns in parking lots, which is what the this is about a political election in november and what kinds of ads will be run. and how the record will be distorted in those ads. echo that because at the beginning of this debate saids clear, senator paul nra will score this. light, nra isking going to score this. you will be in big trouble if nra does not do. let's put on the parking lot amendment and quit obfuscating this with some demand everybody has to carry their gun in their post office.

>> we will get a chance to vote on the amendment when the bill comes to the floor, and i hope we will get a good vote, and it will come to the vote -- to the floor. >> i want to add one comment. most of the amendments we will have on this bill are about parochial politics, whether it is parochial representing the printers or not closing down a service center or limiting closure of post offices. and are parochial events political events, too, because the point i would make, this bill is about expanding revenues and cutting costs to the post offices. i think we ought to get back to getting to the substance of the postal till. >> just quick. to me the way to get past this impasse is a vote on both amendments. carryinghe ability to a gun on the parking lot as well as the post office and vote on ad amendment to carry it in

parking lot, but vote on both of them. that would be the way to do it. for the chair to say we will get this vote on the floor, and has not been the history since i have been in the senate. we have not been able to vote on amendments on the floor. it is part of the dysfunction of this place. we have committee hearing, and i am happy to move on, but i could not just remain silent. we are not getting votes on amendments. let's vote. chairman, i want to echo in support of senator johnson's comments. i would love to vote on an amendment that just deals with parking lots. issueed that issue last and the colorado court case as an example of what a judge has already decided. albeit not for the rest of the country. it seems to me that we ought to vote on both event is both amendments and move on. >> i cannot guarantee 100%, but

i can guarantee my paycheck -- and i will make sure we have that opportunity. let's move on. senator pabegich -- >> i want to make it clear that if senator paul's amendment is offered, we could object to the ruling of the chair and move forward. if we object to the ruling and moment, senator paul's i will make it very clear that we are going to have a simple amendment to echo the issues i hear from alaskans, done owners every single day. that is on the issue of the parking lot. that is what the presentation was a week ago by senator paul, as the issue. that is what we should hone in on. court case he talked about, and the court case is very clear. i want to make this very clear, because i think that is your

point, that we should offer it, and i recognize you want to move on, but in some ways, why don't we do with this here and offer his amendment -- we will draft of something quickly. i can't imagine that if your amendment goes forward, if it does not go forward, then an additional amendment and then we will get this issue resolved. >> let me say in response, i think we had a good discussion here. i know not everybody is happy with where we are. i think the best way for us to get happy is to continue this conversation. i want to be able to bring this bill to the floor. i want us to be able to continue this conversation. there's a clear compromise here that can be offered on the floor. it could be bipartisan, does not have to be paul, and there's a good chance it would the adopted. it would address the underlying concern here, take politics out, and address what is a real concern.

shotgun in thehe trunk or the pickup is an issue. let's just move on, ok? and i pledged to work with senator coburn, senator paul on the democratic side to get this as i had -- resolved. respect, i going to object to your ruling. and the reason for it is this is an issue we should just resolve, and i recognize that the debate on the floor will be the floor. but i think i want to make it in the sense of how to deal with this. don't just dowhy with this once and for all? i think if senator paul was thinking about this, we could have a compromise right here to do what we both wanted to and be done.

mr. chairman? >> the problem from my thispoint with continuing is that senator paul offered an amendment, legitimate, you offered a second degree, legitimate. and i do know procedure early to thatget back on now without like you said before we can be here all day and keep voting and voting and voting over and over and over. my sense in looking at the parliamentary posture here in the committee at this point, at least for now we ought to close this issue down, go on to other amendments, and maybe if there is a way to bring a procedure lead to bring it back cap, but we are spinning our wheels here. >> if i was cheering this

committee i would rule against senator paul as well. otherwise we will never have a process that we can operate committees on. intand with the chairman saying that this is not an eligible amendment because it is actually third-degree amendment. we do not allow these in the senate. even though some of us might want to come up because we lost privileges on the floor. i would just back up the chairman that i would rule exactly the same way, that it violates part of entry procedure, and that it cannot happen. i think we move on. senator begich, i would urge you to -- i would urge you to withdraw your objection and let us move forward and actually vote on the paul amendment as amended, as substituted, and i promise you we will come back and revisit this issue

sooner or later on the floor and you will have every opportunity along with every democrat and republican on this committee to craft that proposal, and i think it will have a good chance of getting it done. we will have the opportunity to get the input from law enforcement agencies and others that we have not been able to receive. you not tourge object and let us move forward. >> i would also say if you object to the rolling of the chair and you are successful, this committee will never operate effectively again because you will have allowed a dent in the committee for third-degree commitment which is a disaster, which means it never ends, which means we can never move product to the committee. i understandan, what the ranking member is saying, but the fact is we will determine whether those happen

later on down the line. this is an important enough issue, more important than the emphasis you talked about. we are talking about the constitution. us to aink that brings higher level and i support senator begich in his objection. i quite frankly think we should take a vote on these two issues, as senator johnson has said, get it signed this the man we could be done by now if we just move on. mr. chairman, again, and i mightize that some people think we will be here all day on all kinds of amendments, but my view is this is part of the committee process. sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not, and we have a tug of war. i would move to waive the rules for the purposes of two amendments. one would be the rand paul commitment, one would be the begich amendment, specifically

on the parking lot issue which will be drawn here quickly. the senior democrat on this committee is not me. it is senator lefvin. from time to time i looked for him advice, and i just asked him for his advice, and i will ask them to share his advice with us. break the rules, we cannot override the rules that way. i believe -- or else we are going to have an endless overwriting of the rules.

that means there are no rules. that may sound familiar to some of you. that is what i believe. senator coburn is correct now. on the other hand, we can if we wish by unanimous consent to order,o amendments be in let them be drafted, and see if we can come up with a unanimous consent agreement to proceed at the end of the markup so there is time to not adopt, but to write these two amendments. i would suggest that chair with told a vote on adopting the substitute until the end of the markup and during that time let's have these two amendments prepared and see if we cannot get a unanimous consent agreement to vote on them, because that is within the rules, by unanimous consent. justld be very careful and overwriting the chair. i think it opens up a lawless

committee procedure. >> all right. i think that is good advice, and why don't we -- i want to thank senator coburn for his comments and helping us turn to do this. i think we will have the vote on paul as amended by my substitute, and why don't we use the remainder of this markup to see what we can do in terms of finding something we can all agree on, most of us agree on, and without -- with that having been said, do we need to-- on, ileast agree to vote mean not necessarily agree on the substance, that would be agreed by unanimous consent hopefully to vote on one or two amendments. for the end, so we have an hour or whatever to draft those two amendments. whoever isurn to

advising us on these matters, staff, but in terms to what i need to be doing at this time. do i need to make unanimous consent, or do we need to just move on to the next amendment? say something, please. >> the latter. >> just set it aside and move on. >> i will set it aside and move on to the next amendment. sure who that might be, but it might be. >> i would like to offer a second-degree amendment to the height camp amendment -- ke heitkamp amendment. this amendment will address carrying of guns in parking lots and will be amended from previous amendments that i have had in that the date will take in effect take effect one day after.

i would like to vote on the second-degree amendment. >> can i just ask the gentleman just to withhold your amendment for a few minutes. effort to try to craft an amendment on this subject -- >> as long as we have unanimous consents -- consent that my amendment will be voted on, but this is my last chance to know i will have a vote right now. i will really push it as long as we agreed by unanimous consent that what there will be a vote on my amendment is worded by us. >> can i have the minute? >> it is similar to what has been presented other than an enactment date change. >> let's suspend for a moment.

>> ok, let's resume this conversation. we talked a little bit with dr. coburn and others, and what i think i will ask you, if you will, withdraw the second-degree ,mendment so we can debate it voted up or down, and i would ask unanimous consent that once we have done that, that we have the opportunity to consider two amendments, one offered by

senator paul, which could be the amendment that we see redrawn or the original, and then another amendment that deals with the parking lot issue. and we would have a chance to both debate today -- to debate both. >> as long as the amendment we are considering our to up or votes, as long as the agreement is we will vote up or down on my language and there will not be a substitute, and we are agree not to second-degree my amendment, and i will be happy not to second-degree the other men. >> i need unanimous consent. is there objection? there is none. >> i will and greet -- i will withdraw my opinion. we showed you some of that hearing earlier. we will show you the the hearing

tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and on c-span3 that house foreign affairs entity hearing, looking for al qaeda militants in iraq. the sochi olympics as they get underway tomorrow. a professor from looking at the history and politics of the olympic aims. then more on that. after that, raymond kelly discusses efforts to secure the sochi olympics, and as always, your phone calls. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. websiteew c-span.org makes it easy to find and watch all of c-span's coverage of official washington. homepage called federal focus. each day you will find coverage

of house and senate debates, congressional committee hearings, event with the president and members of his cabinet, respirations from the white house, affable hill, the state department, and the pentagon. plus select the supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org, making it easy to keep tabs on what is happening in congress, the white house, and the courts. john boehner today said he thinks it is unlikely that congress will pass immigration legislation this year. he said house republicans do not trust obama to enforce the law. his comments came at his briefing with reporters today. >> good morning, everyone. i travel around the country a

lot and run into people on all corners of america and all types. everywhere i go, people are wondering why there is less opportunity today than there used to be. i think this week we got a report from the congressional budget office that reminded us of one big reason, and that is the health care law. under the law, people wore work less and under its employer mandate, wages will be lower. in the end, the law will drive two point 5 million full-time workers out of the economy. just like that, gone. in the white house, the response was they made a joke out of it. come on. that is the attitude that has produced the worst economic record in american history, and it is more proof that the law must go. newe that may take a

president, there are things we can do to get the economy growing again and back on track. we can start by expanding markets for american companies to export products and services. that would be good for american jobs and republicans and the president agree on that. trade promotion authority is ready to go. why is it not done? with jobs on the line the president needs to call his own hardy so we can get this done. he also could pick up his pen and approve the keystone pipeline. departmenthe state produced yet another report showing what we already knew, that there is no reason, scientific or otherwise, to block this article any longer. once again, because some of the president's friends don't like the idea of the pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs that would be created, it's not going

to happen. that brings me to my final point, immigration. you all know for the last 15 months, i talked about the need to get immigration reform done. this is an important issue in our country and has been kicked around forever and needs to be dealt with. having said that, we outlined our principles last week to our members, principles that our members by and large support, put together by the leadership team, and they believe it. but i never underestimated the difficulty in moving forward this year, and the reason i have said that we need a step-by-step commonsense approach is so we can build trust for the american people we are doing this the right way. and one of the biggest obstacles we face is one of trust. the american people, including

many of my members, don't trust that the reform we are talking about will be implemented as was intended to be. the president seems to change the health care law on a whim whenever he likes. now he is running around the country telling everyone he is going to keep acting on his own, keeps talking about his phone and pen and feeding more distrust about whether he is committed to the rule of law. listen, there is widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws, and it's going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes. >> mr. speaker, we understand the concerns of your conference on immigration and some of the concerns about how the administration would -- [inaudible] do you see any reason why you would peel back your attempt? you are going to try to move some pieces of immigration? >> we are going to continue to discuss this issue with our

members. but i think the president has to demonstrate to the american people and to my colleagues that he can be trusted to enforce the law as it is written. >> is that the predicate that you have to receive some trust from him. in talking with this with your members ties different than moving a couple of bills on the floor. >> yes, it is. the president is asking us to move one of the biggest bills of his presidency, but yet shown very little unwillingness to work with us on the smallest of things. we sent a letter to the president outlining four bills, whether it's the skills act, the research bill, a couple of other bills. the president could reach out and work with us on those and begin the process of rebuilding the trust between the american people and his presidency.

>> [indiscernible] is this legislation stalled until you see something specific? >> we are going to continue to talk about this with our members, but the president is going to have to rebuild the trust so the american people and my colleagues can trust him to enforce the law the way it is written. >> when will we see any proposal on the debt ceiling will get the support of republicans after this week? >> i think we're still looking for the pieces to this puzzle. but listen, we do not want to default on our debt and we are not going to default on our debt. we are in discussions with our members how to move ahead and we have time to do this and continue to work at it. no decisions have been made. >> clean debt bill? >> we continue to talk to our members.

>> you offered to put forward the approval of the keystone pipeline and attach it to it the debt limit. how can you get 218 for keystone? >> mother teresa is a saint, if the congress wanted to make her a saint and get it attached to the bill, we probably couldn't get 218 votes. [laughter] >> on the trade bill, apparently there is as much problem in your caucus as with the democratic caucus and you wanted the 50 democrats' vote in the house, is that true? >> we have broad support in my caucus, but i don't think we have 218 votes for this. the president is going to have

to produce some votes. >> mr. speaker, secretary lew said late february the debt limit has to be raised. what do you think the effective date certain actually is, and at what point does the house actually have to act on something? >> before late february. i take jack lew at his word. if that's what it is, that's what it is. >> prospects for immigration, trade legislation, health care legislation appear to be dim and perhaps even dimmer, what is congress going to do this year? >> we have a lot of things on our plate. i think getting the sgr extended through the balance of the year or getting a permanent fix to that would be very helpful. we've got issues with flood insurance that we are going to have to deal with.

but i do believe that issues like our version of how we would fix the health care insurance system is an important issue. tax reform continues to be an important issue. let me reiterate one point. i have made clear for 15 months the need for the congress and the administration to work together on the issue of immigration reform. it needs to get done. i'm going to continue to talk to my members about how to move forward, but the president is going to have to do his part as well. >> after boehner said he thinks

is nottion reform likely, jay carney called for a consensus on the issue. here is a look. >> i will say couple things. we remain optimistic about the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform in 2014. we have seen significant movement among republicans on this issue. and it is heartening to see that republican leaders in congress, including the speaker of the house and others, identified immigration reform as a necessary priority. that is a good thing. when it comes to the president's record on issues encompassed within comprehensive immigration reform, it is important to look at what he is done already in helping build a bipartisan in helping build the most effective border enforcement that we have ever

seen over the five years that he had been -- he has been president, and we have seen seated and improvement. employs over 1000 border patrol agents, and they have deployed technote 1 -- technologies along the highest traffic areas making progress toward a stronger and safer border. that is an issue that is of particular concern to republicans as well as democrats, and is reflected in the fact that the legislation in the senate the president supports further enhances border security. and when it comes to the president's on that, i think it speaks for itself. nothing like this, nothing this important, nothing this ever comes fast or easy in washington.

different,ot be any but it remains an absolute fact that we have made enormous progress in building that consensus and that even the republican party, which had at its -- as its operative policy position not that long ago as its issue self-deportation has come a long way toward the middle or toward the consensus now shared by businesses, big and small, labor, law enforcement, religious communities among republicans and democrats across the country. we continue to see positive progress, and we are going to work with congress to get this done. >> in spite of your opposite ms. him -- your optimism, the person who is holding this up says he does not see the likelihood of it happening this year. i am wondering if there comes a point or will come a point when the president, like he did on

climate change, will say if congress will not act, i will and you will consider what to be done without congress. >> there is no alternative the comprehensive immigration reform passing through congress. it requires legislation. the president has made that clear in the past and that continues to be his view. that is why we need to work together to build on the existing bipartisan consensus to a billhelp deliver through the house and then a bill that can ultimately reach the president's desk. i think the challenges within the republican party on this issue are well known and they do not have anything to do with the president. has noted before, harbors been significant. i think there is a genuine recognition among leaders in the republican party that this is the right thing to do for the economy, to our middle-class, for our businesses.

expandinglk about growth and opportunity, comprehensive immigration reform is very much a part of achieving that and achieving it together. so we will work steadily on this issue and we believe that it will get done. houston chronicle leader nancy pelosi also spoke about houseation today -- -- minority leader nancy pelosi also spoke about immigration reform to date. this is 35 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. hope the votes do not interfere with our normal schedule. today a democratic -- democratic

colleagues are holding a vote to renew emergency unemployment insurance and to restore the vital economic security to america's families. than 1.7 million areicans across the country reeling from the loss of their emergency unemployment insurance. another 72,000 americans lose it. failing to extend u.i. will cost 240 thousand jobs this year. as we know, this is one of the ways we would prefer to be doing job creation, and that is the fight that we have, but do not do job creation and not to would have a detrimental impact on the economy. for every dollar spent, u.i. brings more than one dollar 50 to the economy.

this is spent for necessity and injects demand into the economy. we would rather have other stimuli in terms of job creation, building infrastructure for america, tax policy to encourage people to make it in america and you have our communities have the wherewithal from a successful economy to educate our children, protect our neighborhoods, have our first responders be respected in the work that they do for us. but when it comes to u.i. republicans in the house will not allow a vote on extending it. this is stunning. they will not even allow a vote. one of the reasons they will not it.t is they do not believe they other reason they do not do it is because they know it will win. the continued refusal to ask and this support for hard-working americans is simply indefensible. republicans should work with democrats. we have come a long way. i believe this is an emergency.

million people were confronted with an emergency, we would act. i do not think this needs to be paid for. we have said to try to rake the logjam -- to break the logjam, we want it to be paid for. was that a reason they did not pass it, or was annex used not asset? anave spent -- or was it excuse not to pass it? this is where it always begins because this is where families are, at their kitchen table, desperately needing something that was always part of our free enterprise system. cycless that we go in and the unemployment goes up or down, and that is a safety net, unemployment insurance, not just for individuals, but for the whole system. this is stunning and indefensible.

at the same time, this week, starting tomorrow, the treasury will have to resort to extraordinary measures to insure the united states of america keeps its obligations and pays its bills. these are for bills already incurred, you know that. on generate 22, jack lew called leadership and related to us to say that treasury would be resorting to extraordinary measures at the end of this week to ensure that the united states of america heats its obligations. on monday, secretary of blue once the -- secretary lew once more and with tax filing season underway and all the rebates that go with that, these measures will buy only a short time for congress to raise the debt ceiling. last week members of congress received a letter from a group of leading business organizations, including u.s. chamber of commerce, american

bankers association, american insurance association, consumer bankers, and dependent community bankers, bankers large and small, financial service institutions, urging swift action to preserve our economic recovery and our nation's financial standing in the world, by limiting be uncertainty as to whether or not we will incur an historic deficit. -eir letter is and our default would be in his store the fault or raise -- and historic default or raise the debt ceiling. i do not know what is going on in their caucus. they keep trying to find a way to lift the debt ceiling by putting proposals on there that should not be on there. it should be clean.

it should not be a negotiation. the full faith and credit of the united states is not in doubt. the constitution affirms that. congress passed these bills that incurs this debt. need to meet our obligations. so i am hopeful the speaker will come to us and say let's just work together to get this off the table and remove all doubt, because the mere mention of it 2 contributed to a downgrading of our rating. this now on top of shutting down government in october, shutting down government in october, and then when we finally put a bill on the floor to open up government, over 60% of republicans voted to keep government shut down and to default on the full faith and credit. so let's just do it. let's just do it.

it's really important for people at home at that kitchen table. from theer came boardroom, from the conference table, but the important table to us is the kitchen table. and at that conference table, to the kitchen table, the consequences of jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the united states of america is exceedingly grave. high interest rates for your mortgage, car payment, student loan, your credit cards. higher interest rates under business loan that you used to pay employees or extend -- or expand your business. this has a direct impact on you. this is not a theoretical debate. this is about you. significant growth -- below to your 401(k) when the stock markets would plummet, and they would indeed if we do not lift the debt ceiling. if this were to happen, again, as i say the, the longer this is drawn out, the speaker says we

will do this by the end of february. the end of february is looming. we are here three days next take. we are out now. we are here 2 1/2 days next week. there we are, the end of february. if we allow this to happen, it would be an extreme dereliction of duty on the part of the republican girardi in the house. congress must raise the debt ceiling and we must do so without the lay. that is what we are not doing. we are not passing unemployment so farce, and we are not addressing legislatively our responsibility in terms of the debt ceiling. we should be doing that, and what else we should be doing instead of the nonsense that they are bringing to the floor, the american people need ongress just stop stalling the debt ceiling, renew the unemployment insurance, and let us go forward with an

opportunity agenda that builds an economy, an economy that works for all americans. we need to be unleashing the full potential of america's women, and that is why we are so saidled that the president when women succeed, america succeeds. agenda,women's economic it is not only just our title, it is a statement of fact. when women succeed, america succeeds. and our economic agenda, we could implement, and it would ,row our economy, fair pay equal pay, and raise the minimum wage. over 60% of the people who get minimum wage are women. the 21st witas anniversary of family medical leave.

behind, and left affordable childcare is he central to unleashing the power of women -- and men and families. on the subject of paid leave, a survey by the national partnership for women in families has found only 27% of women say they were paid full wages when they took leave, compared to 39% of men. we still have this gap. 30% of women say they received no pay compared to just 22% of men. they should all be getting paid. but this gap between women and men is remarkable, considering that most of the caregiving is for by women, for children, parents and the rest. although i have had some of my colleagues here say to me even though the republican side of the aisle, i have taken more days off from work to care for a sick parent than i ever did for

a sick child. they know that this is something that families face. they do not have to worry about having paid sick leave. this in balance is hurting families and holding back the full attention of the america's women. we need to pass the family act, and that is something that rosa , ofuro, our patron saint all issues, pay equity, raise the minimum wage, rosa delauro and others on the subject of the would of paid leave, that pay family medical leave for all workers and allow employees to earn six d six percent of their wages for up to 12 months. more time with my opening, so i will just go to your questions.

but it is very exasperating to used to be boring. now it is devastating because of what it means to the american people. the president complained about fox news being unfair to him, particularly with the benghazi coverage, with the irs targeting conservative organizations. do you agree with that? >> i do not remember him talking about that. maybe it was not important to me, among all the wonderful things we were talking about for the things we can do for the neck and people. i do not think it is important. >> i have a question about the -- >> i have had the pleasure to be along with greta with the state of the union, so i enjoyed that. >> do you support the president's agenda or can you do

anything in your caucus to compromise or develop-- >> what subject? >> trade. doosport the agenda -- you support the president's agenda -- trade, and party of we come from san francisco, born and raised in baltimore, two cities that were built by clipper ships and trade. i understand the vitality of that. a trade agenda is important to our country. that is a little bit from from what senator -- that is a you'rent story from what asking about, the proposal on trade promotion. that would not have many votes among democrats in the house. that does not mean it could not get to a place, and some members have been trying to work diligently to try to find a

bece where more people more unified on supporting a trade promotion act. cus caucus -- the bau proposal, it did not even try to get our butts. >> [indiscernible] relate to those transparency. there has to be much more transparency in the negotiation. not a fee to companies given all accompli.ait members are working through some of this. until they get to a better place, i do not think there are very many votes in the house the credit caucus. really, we always have to try to find a place so we can come together on it, and then make a judgment about the trade agreements that had been negotiated. one thing -- and i think this is

really important -- one issue, especially the transposition -- transpacific bill, the currency manipulation. wedo not see -- just what have seen about that, the substance of that, there is tremendous unease on that subject. it might get better. it may be better than we know. that is why we want more transparency. that is one of the guests the rvicers to america -- disse to american workers. when you manipulate the currency, it changes the whole arena people are working in. yes, we are trying hard. someone whoine, would usually oppose a trade agreement, is working with colleagues, and some will never be there. a few may be there now. in the meantime we would like to get -- we would like to do something that brings people to get the, so we are working on

that. >> [indiscernible] saying that the affordable care act has a determinable effect on the economy, causing over a million people to file for earned income that is. what will house the credits you do combat -- saidn you show me where he it would have a negative impact on the economy? where did he say that? i have not seen that. he said that some people might choose not to work because they have reached an age where they would rather retire and be with their families and they are not old enough for medicare. hearing, hey at the chrishen he was asked by van hollen, a ranking member there, about this subject,

there were many reasons people lose their jobs and we feel sorry for them, the business is not good and people have to let people go, one thing or another. what if people say i want to spend more time with my family, when you have pushed a man for labor in this kind of economy, you reduce the unemployment rate, because those people who are looking for work can find more work. elmendorf said yes, that is right. amber asked that the fact that van hollen had identified something that cbs thinks spurs employment and would reduce unemployment over the next few years. i would take issue with your characterization that he said it would be detrimental to the economy. this is a question of when we passed this bill, how many times did you hear me come in and say, this is about life, a healthier life, liberty to pursue your happiness.

this is a value of our founders we are honoring. and that we want people to have the freedom to be a writer, photographer, to make music, to paint, to start a business, to release the entrepreneurship of america, because people would no longer be job blocked by the had the freedom to follow their passions. ending job lock has been a valid republican goal for years as an issue highlighted by senator mccain got chairman paul ryan, and the heritage foundation. this job lock issue is a very change in the dynamics of our company. the of an economy where people can follow their passion, their aspirations, their talent, their skill instead of being locked by policy -- blocked by policy. >> house republicans will come after you. they will come after you and say

this is a neutral arbiter, the cbo -- >> he said a number of things, and i do not know where he is in your quotation, but we need to make sure we make the record straight. thank you for giving me the opportunity to do that. boehnerur or so ago, really dialed back seemingly where they stood on immigration reform. they released their principles last week, and he said there's a lot of internal strife in their conference, and he indicates they do not trust the president to enforce things. this is really a blow to immigration reform, and you hope not, but it seems he does not have the votes to do it, and it is political -- >> when they say they do not trust the president to do it, why don't we just pack up and go home? we have a democratic system. we have checks and balances.

we have three branches of government. in fact, we are the first in the constitution about the legislative branch, and what we are supposed to do is legislate. and not make up excuses as to why we do not. and so that is not a reason not to do an immigration bill. that is an excuse not to do it. and around here you have to always to french between what is a reason and what is an excuse. i believe that speaker boehner is in good faith and go forward with an immigration bill. i think that we have said to him, i know the prerogatives of the speaker firsthand, anyway you want to bring to the fore, we want to work with you to do that. we do not have any -- unless it is -- bring it to the fore and let's have this debate. but bring it to the floor. bring it to a vote. we have the votes to pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.

i do not think that john boehner, a member of commerce from ohio, speaker of the house, wants to be the person who says if we do a bill, it is going to end up with an underclass in our country. that there is no way that any of these evil can ever achieve citizenship. if that seems to be the obstacle, that is the choice that needs to be made. it does not mean they are citizens in the short term, and arduous path, but you cannot be prohibitive by the law. so i have to -- they have to face the reality. either you do it and enough of the excuses, but the reasons of their, let's have a debate about it, and try to find a compromise. i believe he is in good faith trying to do that. you say there would be the votes do it in the senate. >> absolutely. >> this might not be the course they take, it is a political environment, an election year,

and he has a calculus, i'm going to have my head handed to me if i put this on the for. >> let me give you an example in this congress. the violence against women act. the violence against women act was something that was for the first term of their majority and into this term, 600 days had to expire. the authorization. this is a harmful thing. 1990's, we work together to pass it and to fund it in appropriations, which is what i was. is it is re-arthritis and it time to be reauthorized, or long overdue. it expired ring their first term. they do not want to bring it up. we had to make it too hot for them to handle. this is about results and

solutions that were positive for families with violence, against anybody, man or woman, but it is called the violence against women act. i have always suggested to the speaker on these and other matters from bring everything to the floor, that every audio vote their hearts out, which is what he did in the advance of the violence against women act. they brought the act, which passed in a bipartisan way, overwhelmingly in said it already voted women voting for it in the senate. that was one bill. that is what we wanted taken up. a bipartisan bill that passed the senate. and then there was a bill that said we are against violence in women exist if they are native american, and lb gt woman, or an immigrant. then the protections to not hold. isn't that the most ridiculous thing ever? one of the most ridiculous. there was actually no way we were going to support that.

we were going backward from where we had been. not a good place. before,ought the boat floor, theyon the voted their hearts out, discriminated against the categories i mentioned, and then we had enough votes to pass the violence against women act. that then vote on what ever want here and then have a compromise. and that would be a compromise, where some will that can take us to conference with the senate. it i believe -- knowing him, believe he does want an immigration bill. i believe he does not want to be the speaker who says i will do an immigration bill as long ofit creates an underclass americans. you have to have a path. it has to be arduous and a long term and the rest. nonetheless, it is not prohibited or has such obstacles that are so insurmountable that

no one can do it. i have faith in him and a good faith that he is him but i had to take some tough votes when i'm speaker, and what we did as a people take the votes they wanted to votes. members have to enable the speaker to do that. >> [indiscernible] on thean into you kennedy center recently and you said you would do an interview with him. you said you would do an interview with him in your office. take greta. i have known her longer. [laughter] said you were busy in february, march, april among may. i know you are woman of your work, and i will ask you if you will be honoring your commitment? >> it was at the white house,

the first time i ever saw him, because i never see him on tv. [laughter] reta came along, and so i did greta. we went from one outlet to the next. >> [indiscernible] days, maybe ie will. i was not pleased with the disrespect he showed to the president. i was not like a warmer upper. on the debt ceiling you said you preferred a clean that -- clean. >> and republicans want to add a pay for -- >> clean. there are all things that can be discussed in their place. of this is not a matter initiation. this is the full faith and credit of the united states of america. and the only reason the speaker is adding this things is because

his caucus does not want to vote to honor the full faith and country the america unless they have a cookie in their lunch, and that is not right. is it not i said to the leadership when we were in the white house, let's just say we make an agreement, is, an oath, whatever it whoever controls the congress, this is off the table. you already had a question. yes or -- yes, sir? after 2017,e growth a tribute in most of that to the baby boom generation -- >> i am sorry. say that again. into this?elp feed >> talking about 2% growth

annually because of the slower labor force. does that make an implicit argument for immigration in your mind? >> i think there is an economic argument for immigration that includes that. there is also the argument that this will, in the short term, a couple hundred billion dollars yearsings over 10 or 20 -- it is like $1 trillion over 20 years. it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. there is an economic argument for immigration. it is no surprise, because immigration has always been the re-invert -- reinvigoration of our country. bringing their hopes and optimism and determination and grit, immigrants coming to our shores with their commitment to making the future better for

their family with their belief in the american dream have been a revitalization of our economy. people wouldmany be paying into social security. we should be doing because we are the united states of america. nobody was a better advocate and leader on the subject than president george w. bush. when he is not making many lyrical statements -- political statements, he said that as we conduct this debate, we should do it in a respectful way to immigrants. governor of texas and president of the united states, this is a priority for him for all the right reasons. it is about who we are as a nation and how we recognize who we are, by and large a nation of with all due respect

to our brothers and sisters in the native american community. and we continue to be. reiterationnstant -- reinvigoration of america. it is moral and economic. that is always the case. does it create jobs? does it reduce the deficit? it does both. , maybe first and foremost, it is the right thing to do. it reduces the deficit and creates jobs as well. >> continuing knowledge that there are some states where would not be helpful for him to ?un would you concern the president as a drag on the ticket? >> absolutely not.

the president and what he stands for and the first lady and the vice president, we have to prioritize. only so many days in the week and only a few that the president might be available. we want to use the opportunities that are available to us to maximize what happens. we are very proud of our president and the record we had with him when we had the majority. we are sad about the brick wall, brick wall -- imagine that the --aker would say brick wall that the speaker said he would direct if the president did something which he has the authority to do, which resident reagan and president bush and resident bush -- president bush did. there is so much at stake. our members no that the american thate have a lot -- know

the american people have a lot to lose. we want to win the battle of ideas and hopefully change the thinking of some of our republican colleagues. and hopefully changing who serves in congress. there is a very serious opportunity gap in our country. , said to you last week indifference. these people who are invisible -- i said the other day at the white house, it sounds like a u2 concert. the people who need help in our country are invisible. youtube.he new my grandchildren tell me that and my kids. the president, listening to his speech, it was like, with or without you, which happens to be

one of my favorite u2 -- in other words, he is going to exercise his power as president. we should be exercising our power as the legislative branch, and that means to find compromise to get results for the american people. the campaign, at the time, you talk about contrast read this is a campaign where their proposal is this and our proposal is this. their proposal is indifference about these invisible people. did you go to the prayer reckless this morning? -- breakfast this morning? they talked about the good samaritan. me and iinteresting to felt it very emotionally was that, when you talk about the parable of the good samaritan, you have to remember that people from his own -- not the

samaritan, but the injured man, from his own area, walked down the street, see him and crossed the street as if he did not exist, invisible and indifferent. a samaritan from another place, really not friendly to these people traditionally, helped him. we have to not only go to prayer the bibleand quote and find our common ground and space, which is a beautiful thing, but we have to act upon it. what i see now are people walking across the street, making the problems of our country invisible to them because they are indifferent. to the challenges we face. there is a great deal at stake in the election. it is not just about the election. it is much bigger than that. and so that is where we start. we can start by saying these people are not invisible and we are not indifferent to them by

passing extension of the unemployment insurance. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> politico reports the chairman of the house republican conference faces a possible ethics investigation. a former staffer says the washington state congresswoman improperly mixed campaign and official funds in her two thousand 12 race to become chairman of the republican conference. the office of congressional ethics has recommended that the ethics committee conducted full

investigation. conduct a full investigation. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at weiss -- at white house events, conferences, and complete gavel-to-gavel coverage u.s. house. created by the cable industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the house oversight subcommittee today had a hearing on irs targeting of political groups. the leader of a tea party-based group in that hearing said that elijah cummings has targeted her organization. later in the hearing, illinois congresswoman tammy duckworth addressed the allegations. here is a look. is completely

inappropriate to provide a platform to unfairly impact the ranking member of the committee. like any member of this committee, he has the authority and the moral obligation to conduct an investigation into serious concerns that are raised. in this case, the ranking member requested documents to investigate serious public allegations of voter disenfranchisement. he wrote letters laying out these obligate -- these allegations and asked proved to provide documents to prove or disprove these allegations. his actions were no different issathose of congressman when he served and he sent letters of similar document requests from all kinds of government and private entities. i would expect that you and every other member of this committee would extend the right documents, regardless

of party affiliation. it is no surprise that the party member has been investigation. what is surprising is that they suggest the fbi investigate his actions as potential illegal activity. that would give him a public forum to do so. the false and relive -- and outrageous accusations against mr. cummings the stripper did by this committee in advance and posted on the committee's website. you knew this was coming and you allowed it to happen. earlier today, mr. cummings wrote a letter to the board of ethics, debunking these claims. he also made all of those letters available to the public on the democratic committee website. i asked that his letters he made part of the hearing today and i regret that our committee would regard this as a blatant political stunt. >> you can see the entire hearing on the irs targeting of political groups tonight on

c-span. a hearing on overhauling the finances of the postal service. over on c-span 3, house foreign affairs committee on al qaeda militants in iraq. >> i think the american public sees the first lady in very glamorous circumstances. gown,dinner, beautiful some speech with a handsome suit or whatever. i think what they may not imagine, looking at the white house from the outside, is that it is actually a very normal life upstairs on those two floors, the white house residence. i would actually lie on the couch and read a book. in my case, my cat would always curl up next to me.

>> watched a program on first lady laura bush on our website or see it saturday on c-span, 7:00 p.m. eastern. monday, our series continues with first lady michelle obama. c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, readings and conferences, and offering complete double to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all in the public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> massachusetts senator elizabeth war and called on president obama to nominate federal judges with diverse backgrounds and views. she was the keynote speaker at a forum hosted by the alliance for justice.

>> welcome, everyone. please come in and take your seats. we are ready to go. and i amaron, president of alliance for justice. we thank all of you for coming. in addition to all of you in this room, we are joined by people all over the country who are participating by live stream. i have gotten a few complaints from people in phoenix and los angeles, san diego, who have had to get up a little early to watch, but all i can say is, we east coast-ers say to you west coast-ers, that is the price you pay for good weather.

welcome, everyone. we are here today because we understand that judges, just product of us, are the of life experiences, history, and professional past. we strongly believe that the courts and the nation benefit when the fullest possible range of legal and life experience are represented on the bench. not only are the decisions of the courts rendered more fairly and knowledgeably, but those who come before the courts can have confidence that their cases will be heard in a court room where no single point of view dominates. that is why we think there must be room for more judges who have been public defenders, labor lawyers, academics, civil rights litigators, or any of a host of legal specialties that deal with the public interest.

the recent changes in the senate rules which disabled the filibuster for judicial nominations have opened the door to significant changes. now is the time to bring new energy to the discussion of the kind of women and men who should be in judgment, sit as judges in our courtrooms. the opportunity for better balance on the federal courts has arrived. alliance for justice has been in the forefront of advancing access to justice for over 30 years. this subject is near and dear to our hearts. today's event is one of the most exciting we have ever done because of our very special guest, senator elizabeth moran. senator -- warren. she is one of the nation's most energetic, creative, thoughtful,

dynamic leaders, a superstar in the united states senate, and a courageous champion of everyday americans. she is not afraid to challenge conventional wisdom or to direct ourntion to the many ways national institutions have been captured by special interests and those who believe our government should serve only those at the top wrong -- rung of the economic ladder. the courts and the people chosen to lead them need to be part of that broader discussion about the growing threat to our democratic institutions. we are thrilled that senator war senator warren has agreed to join us this evening. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you so much. it is good to be here this morning. i appreciate the invitation to be here. you all have been doing remarkable work and i am just

glad to be able to add my voice all of thed organizations that helped put this together this morning. of you on the west coast this early morning, you are still in your slippers, right? we are all dressed here. i am also pleased to be here with judge nancy gertner. ,he is not only distinguished has had a distinguished career, both as a lawyer and federal shee, but also because serves as the chair of our advisory committee on massachusetts judicial nominations. she has already helped bring three very illustrious candidates forward for nomination to the federal bench. i just want to thank her for her efforts on that. [applause] and i know it will be a terrific panel that follows.

i am so glad to be here to talk about something that is so important and very glad that we are having this conference to talk about diversity on the federal bench. there is an intense fight going on right now about what our federal bench will look like. will it be a neutral forum that interprets the law and dispenses fair and impartial justice? or will we see corporate capture of the federal courts with courts transformed into just one more rigged game? that is what is at issue here. here is some context. we are in washington and, here in washington, power is not balance. instead, power is becoming more and more concentrated on one side. well-financed corporate interests lined up to fight for their own privileges and resist

any changes that would limit corporate excesses. i saw one of these examples up close and personal following the 2008 financial crash. all of the large financial institutions came in and fought vigorously to protect their selves, not the public, but an ongoing battle an effort to try to reregulate the financial and stood to shins. financial institutions. it throughout our system, where large corporate interests come in and make sure their interests are protected and they have an opportunity to tilt the playing field. in democracy, when we write our laws, we at least have some opportunity to get back in and have some reasoned debate.

in a debate and to get some public awareness and to fight for something that balances the plainfield in the other direction. the financial protection bureau is an example of that. the banks resisted the democratic process. we at least have a shot to be able to get through something that was there for the people. in that case, we succeeded. that is how we got the consumer agency. big businesses lose in the democratic forum in congress, if they lose, then if they can rig the courts, they get a second bite at the apple. a second chance to get the outcome that they want. that is part of the reason it is so important that we maintain courts that are independent,

courts that represent a diversity of views from around this country in order to be neutral arbiters rather than part of the rigged system where they have a second bite at capturing the law in the legal system again. this is one of the reasons i believe the national diversity -- professional diversity matters so much in our court system. it is one way to insulate the courts from corporate capture. however, we face a federal bench that has a striking lack of diversity. the american constitution 2008ty did a study in where they looked at the federal bench, the biographies of those who serve on the federal bench, and they concluded that the federal appellate bench was "dominated by judges whose

previous professional experience is generally corporate or prosecutorial." they looked at the biographies of 162 judges and 85% came out of private practice. they said that their conclusion was it is clear from the judge biographies that a sizable number of them worked for large, well-known firms that tend to represent corporations. has supporteda but, asable exceptions, the report that will be discussed today from the alliance for justice shows, the president's nominees have thus far been in line with the prior statistics. 71% of president obama's judicial nominees have practiced primarily for corporate or

business clients, while only 25% are not corporate attorneys. that means the corporate attorneys outnumber all other kind of attorneys by 3 to 1 in the president's nominees to the federal bench. only eight are strict court circuit courtwo nominees have been attorneys in the public interest. obama's% of president appointees have a background in public interest organizations. be clear about this. there are some really talented judges who came from the private sector. i have worked for private clients. i understand that the lawyer's views may not be the same as those of his or her clients. but i believe that diversity of experience matters. it matters that someone has

represented people other than corporate clients. that they have had real experience with people who cannot afford lawyers. they have had real experience trying to fight for the public interest. real experience doing something other than representing corporate clients. praised then white diversity that thurgood marshall brought to the supreme court. noting that he brought to the conference table years of that wase in an area of vital importance to our work, experience that none of us could claim to match. justice white was right. it matters where you come from. judicialently, the nominations process was largely held hostage to an intransigent republican minority that look for any excuse to block

president obama's efforts to nominate federal judges. it is unsurprising, in those circumstances, that the president and the majority of -- senate graduate gravitated towards nominating corporate lawyers and prosecutors that even the most conservative senators could not object to. but that has changed. refusalrre republican not to confirm any judge to the d.c. circuit court of appeals, anyone, regardless of circumstances, lead them to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominations. with this change comes an opportunity. an opportunity to build a federal bench that reflects the best and the brightest from every corner of the legal profession. an opportunity to ensure that

the next generation of judges , andbe fair, even-handed will have broad experience to consider all sides of the dispute in the issues that come before them. one of president obama's early nominees was district court , who worked chin many years as a staff attorney for the aclu. obama stood behind the chin nomination. he had to renominate him three times over three years before the senate finally confirm him. when he was sworn in, judge chin said that despite the obstruction that he faced during this time, he never even considered withdrawing from consideration. why? thee chin's words, "because

federal bench is not just for people from large, corporate law firms or who represent only the healthy or never speak out or play it safe in their careers." judge chin is right. we must fight to make his words a reality. ensure that there will be professional diversity on the bench and that our federal courts will be a neutral forum that considers all sides of an issue in every dispute that comes before them. this is the opportunity we have. this is the opportunity we must sees. -- seize. thank you. [applause] thank you. >> thank you so much, senator. it was wonderful.

go for it. and thank you. offhat a great way to kick this morning's discussion of the importance of professional diversity on the bench. begin our panel discussion, i would like to thank the organizations who are cosponsors of this program. they include the american association for justice, the american constitution society, the brennan center for justice, defenders of wildlife, legal progress at the center for american progress, and double aacp legal defense and education fund, the national ,mployment lawyers association the national council of jewish women, and last, but definitely not least, people for the american way foundation. is a presence today

reflection of the importance of this issue as we head into a critical we share a believe that the makeup of the federal bench should be as richly diverse as the cases brought before it. now is the time to make professional diversity a priority. to get this important national conversation started, alliance for justice has issued a new report called broadening the bench which describes the current state of professional diversity and it shows that opportunity exists for a new approach to federal judge ships. report is available on our j.org and i hope everybody will read it. our analysis found that only