in about an hour, we will talk about the criminal justice system, prison reform, and terrorism with the former new york city police commissioner. "washington journal" is next. ♪ all week long on the washington journal, we've been talking about the issues on the u.s. southern border. talking about the politics of immigration and some solutions. today, we want to hear from you. what is were solution for immigration reform? what is your solution for what's happening right now on the u.s. southern border? for democrats. (202) 585-3881 for i republicans. independents. for

the president, the speaker, lots of people have been talking about immigration reform and what's going on in the southern border. here is a bit of speaker boehner from this week. [video clip] >> we have a true humanitarian crisis underway with children caught in the middle. unfortunately, it's a crisis of the president's own making. his actions gave false hope to children and their families that if they enter the country illegally, they would be allowed to stay. our priorities are clear. take care of these children, return them safely home to their home countries, to their families and secure the border. i sent a letter to the president last month fling out some specific actions that he should take to address the crisis, including sending in the national guard. the national guard is uniquely qualified to address these types of humanitarian crises and

utilizing their expertise would free up border agents to focus on their job of securing the border. now, the president said yesterday he would consider doing that only if he gets more money with no strings attached. he won't do it for the kids. it's all about politics. president assured the american people that the border was secure, but clearly, it is not. chairman rogers and the members of our working group are reviewing the administration's request. i can tell you this -- we are not giving the president a blank check. host: new york times op-ed this morning. adelson.r, sheldon citizens are paying 535 people to take care of the legislative needs of the country.

--

it is time for the house to draft and pass a law that reflects our countries you mandy and self interests. differences with the senate theld be hammered out by

members of a conference. loudoun, tennessee on our republican line. a passionate person and i really love children. but i think it's a shame that we perform abortions and kill children in our own country and we are willing to take in other people's children. i think they should be sent back with their parents because nobody can take care of them like their own family. it is a shame that they are sent here. i don't know whether they are coming by design or they are fleeing from their country. whatever is going on, we should help our country, but let's keep all the children -- host: rudolph calling from

chicago on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i think the american people -- what if we had werepeople back when we forming our identity. we turn back five or six-year-old children. we should incorporate these children into our country and follow due process. this type of hate from the other side for those people who don't understand our history. chicago is a city of immigrants. it would have never been an economic powerhouse without the invitation of people from europe and the south. it's a shame that we don't call on our experience to extend that hand to children and call are

give them an opportunity to demonstrate what america has to offer. where would tennessee be without the individuals who came from foreign lands to repatriate that area? congress should appropriate the money for the president's program and add on if necessary and then address these children in that respect. prior to world war ii, this back a boat loaded with people because of the oppression of hitler and those people ended up in the concentration camps. we need to change our approach and act like americans. host: carmen from hamilton, montana. independent line. caller: good morning. i remember when we stabilized

the central american government in the 1970's. amosa. rid of some o those were our puppets. we left a vacuum down there to where people grew up without their fathers and mothers because they were shot to death and their grandparents are gone and stuff. these kids are growing up without police protection. the gangs have taken over. what kind of americans are we? where did our hearts go? we are a nation of immigrants. when the president can get a bill signed to help these people out and the people who do get angry -- these are just tiny children. what a shameful image we have put on for the whole world. and murderthere people so we can steal resources we don't give a break

on anything. you have a bunch of people in america who hate. afterd a program to go the haters and teach them to be kind and compassionate. war.been in a -- the world is so bad. what's happening with these children, i could sit there and cry. host: do you think the president should have gone to the border? caller: it would have been nice if he had gone to the border. it that is not the problem. people down in texas and arizona and everybody along the border, the extremists come out. our extremists are just as bad as the ones they have over in the middle east. -- theyemists forgot

came from somewhere else. host: thank you. asked been aske tweaked in a response to the op-ed be read. -- we read. the wall street journal lead editorial this morning. a better border solution. --

the wall street journal goes on to write that the larger tragedy of this episode is that it is doing enormous and needless damage to the cause of immigration reform. the obama administration's incompetence has undermined its own agenda. once the misery of the children has passed, no one should think that illegal immigration can be andped by enforcement alone more border patrol agent or more harassment of american business. jeh johnson, the head of homeland security was on the hill testifying about this issue this week. [video clip] situationl the recent , the average pace at which unaccompanied children were reported was something like 1800 a year. >> how many stayed? >> thousands.

eventually, if there is a final order of deportation and they have gone to the process, they should be returned to their home countries. we have done that at a rate of 1800 a year. part of this request is so that we can accelerate that process so that more are returned given the current situation. tom in fontana, wisconsin. republican. caller: i have a quick question for you all. yesterday, the last segment of your show, there were sev calls taken, for independence and one republican. guysis going on with you about letting everyone have their voices heard? host: thank you for pointing that out.

would you like to talk about your solution to immigration reform? caller: send them back. we take care of 50,000 year. -- 50,000 a year. 50,000 more.t get with it. we are being invaded. thank you. host: jack in davenport, iowa. democrat. caller: this democrat wants to agree with the previous republican caller. that, to point out remember the movie titanic and the people were afraid that everybody would swamp the boat it a moved back in. that is what will happen here. in a scientific fashion, if we have a disease and there is too salcell,r pouring into a

the cell explodes. your solution number one. flies with a spoonful of honey than a gallon of vinegar. there is too much honey. the catholic and baptist charities are providing too much help for these illegals. thee have to cut back on tax deductions to the religious institutions that are supporting this invasion. , you want more people that are educated outside of the country? how is it possible that when somebody has to pay $100,000 to get this degree and somebody from india pays $10,000 ?nd can work for $60,000 the people here have to compete

against that. they can live off a $60,000 wage .o pay off that $100,000 loan we have to eliminate the student loans that are holding back our own americans. has there been an influx of immigrants? caller: of course. i have seen it in chicago and omaha. i have not seen as much of it here in davenport. it is absolutely astonishing how much is occurring in cities that were made a sanctuary cities by these crazy mayors. they must have had some i'm not seeinga it in iowa. in theseng it so-called sanctuary cities. the will made against of the omaha people. i have seen a whole lot in chicago. host: philip in florida.

independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. beprehensive solution would go ahead and pass amnesty for everybody here and come at the same time, eliminates the the minimum wage. everybody and prevents the same thing from happening in the future. i challenge everybody else to tell me why this would not work. not why you don't like it. just white would not work. thank you. host: on wednesday, the president spoke directly to congress. [video clip] a letter to, i sent congress asking them to increase penalties on smugglers and to give us flex ability to move migrants through the system faster. , i asked congress to fund these efforts here it half of the resources would go to ander security, enforcement

expedited removal of people who don't qualify for a humanitarian claim. half would go to make sure we are treating children humanely. we are making investments to tackle the root problems in central america. right now, congress has the , workty to work with us with state officials, local officials and faith-based groups and not for profits or helping to care for these kids. congress has the cap has to be to work with all parties concerned -- capacity to work with all parties concerned to it directly addressed the situation. they want to see a solution. the offers them capacity to vote immediately to get it done. in the long run, the best way to truly address this problem is with the house of representatives to pass legislation fixing our broken immigration system which, by the

way, would include funding for additional thousands of border patrol agents, something that everybody down here indicates is a priority. host: the $3.7 billion request that the administration has made to congress in emergency funding. you can see how it breaks down there. here is the front page of the washington times this morning. eks risk passage of border children funding bill. north carolina. good morning, richard. the 1.64 million, that is the most they have ever returned.

they stopped them at the border before they even got into the united states and turn them back. turned them back. that is how they got the calculation. which is not how it was. always something other than it was. , you can stop funding for sending aid to mexico or these countries. of doingdifferent way it. why don't we take the $5,000 that these people are paying these people illegally to bring ,hem here, put them on a flight you can take so many a year, every three months and can sign up and take a flight into a designated area where they can go right through the court system in a 30 day timeframe. you can use the military to fly them there and they could pay

social security bonds. people who deserve to be here, you can keep them here. people who don't have any right to be her, when the plane is flying to pick the people up, they can take them back. a simple solution. anything simple does not work. guatemala,ries like the average income per month in guatemala is $227 in rural areas. where are all of these poor people getting $5,000 to get here? i would like to know the source . if they happened, they should be able to post that bond. -- if they have it, they should be able to post that bond. host: fewer illegal immigrants. these are apprehensions by the thousands.

pete at 1.6 million in 2000 -- in 2000. 1.6 million the low point was in 2011. doug from virginia. a democrat. caller: i feel like we have to shut the border completely off. maybe send regard down and shut it completely off. highways,s, the everything. block it off. put the people on the south side of the border and enforce mexico to help deal with it. we will see pileup on the other side. of will see a lot less letting them roam right up to the country to hear. the military solutions to take care of these cartels.

he raced them. -- he raced them completely off the face of the earth -- you erase them completely off the face of the earth. host: this is from the washington times. san diegoflights to halted. --

dennis is calling in on our independent line from south carolina. caller: hello? how are you doing? i think the first thing we have .o do is secure the border it has to be shut down and secured to a point where no infiltration takes place. bill thatsupplemental is asking for $3 billion. the administration is asking for this supplement. it's a revolving debt if you don't close the border.

they are anticipating more children in 2015. this is a revolving occurrence here. in order to get this thing under wraps, you have to seal the or additionale guard members. that is first. it has to happen. the only onem is asking the real questions to the administration concerning the supplemental bill. that are here now are going to be distributed across the united states. they are sponsored by illegals here already. they will never see a day in court. they are scattered across our country and are directly attached to a welfare system because they don't speak killing which and therefore can't get a they don't speak the

language and can't get a job. if you can't get through on the phone line, want to participate in the conversation on this issue and offer your own solution, you can go to our facebook page. we are have a lively conversation at this point. here is other news from roll call. house republicans plan to sue president obama for failing to enforce the affordable care act according to a resolution authorizing the lawsuit posted on the house committee's website. don from alabama.

republican. we've got a nation of laws here. the first thing these people are doing are breaking our law to come into this country. the reason we have checks and balances is to make sure that will be a productive part of society when they come here. the first thing these people do is break our laws to get here. we have a nation full of people who are sleeping on the streets. we have children, american citizens that are not being taken care of. they're living on the street. we should address the problems we have in our own country before we let everyone else in this country. --se checks and balances these people coming in are ill. they are bringing in diseases that will spread across the country.

we need a lock on the border. it needs to stop. we can do it, but we have to have a president who is going to hold up our laws. eric holder is not holding up our laws. they are there for a reason. host: on this issue, where does it rate on your political scale? know, i'mwant you to a republican, but i would vote for anyone who i think would do good for this country. i am a patriot. political scale, i think this is probably the biggest issue we have outside of the affordable care act. , democrat. portland, oregon. caller: i have three points. one, i agree with the previous color. this is a nation of laws and we have checks and balances. it congress needs to be checked and balanced.

watched the hearing on unaccompanied children. this has been going on for three decades. our immigration system has not been updated to reflect the amount of movement in and out of our borders. we need to check people coming in, but we have no exit visas. we need to track people and make sure they are following the rules on their way out. as far as the education system goes, the colleges have a seats that areof slotted for international students because they paid a lot of money to come into our borders and get that education. more graduates that are international students in

our stem arena of academics than we do american citizens. unfortunately, my concern is, if stayep saying that you can here because we need you and you have the knowledge we need, what happens to our american graduates? it becomes extremely competitive . competitive for work outside in the private sector. we need to make sure that we children,wn american children born to american citizens, native american children have access to the same path to education and employment in order to shore up what we are as america. a system of laws and checks and balances. usa today money section.

most stem grads don't get stem jobs. -- brett here in washington. what is your solution for immigration reform? caller: the same one in the senate considered when they passed the bill last year. they were talking about having social security cards that are made so that they would have biometric capabilities. you could get checked at work. i'm not sure who was supposed to -- they should have had some way to say which agency because nobody trusts the irs or the justice department to come to your employment and check to see if you have a social security card. that is the glitch in the

situation. the border has nothing to do with it. andrched with the deniers got laryngitis. there is no way you can control the border with the national guard. we will compete. let's compete. let's get a bill passed. don't listen to people like john boehner. illegally bought painkillers. pass a bill. compete legally. thank you. this is from the hill newspaper. obama names new u.s. ambassador to russia. taft.rancis

john from arlington, virginia. republican line. caller: the broader thing is to improve the economies in central america to the point where you have less inequality and they are less dependent on people sending money back from the united states. where the governments are stable enough that the people want to stay. we don't mind if they come because they are on the same economic level that we are. -- theve to put a tariff protection of the border is a relevant this case because the kids come across and want to be caught. put a tax on mexican products coming into the united states and tell the government in mexico that the tax will increase as far as we need the the problem that

they are allowing to come through their country. the focus the message and help us alleviate this problem. to -- we did have this 30 years ago. it did not work. unless the current immigration law deals with the problem of subsequent people coming in illegally, it is not going to work. all of those have to be solved. the key thing right now is to let mexico know that it will pay thesee for allowing massive numbers of immigrants to come through their country to the united states. that will be in the form of the tariff so that we can pay for the problem that way. host: this is karen on twitter. from politico this morning,

returning to the national stage. he has a new book out called "firing it back." one of the few regrets he mentions is the decision to add air a campaign ad apologizing for his remarks. that is an politico this morning. in the hill, highway bill nears. the story from yesterday afternoon. approving measures on thursday to fund highway projects, raising hopes that congress could soon reach a deal to prevent sidelining construction projects this summer.

the two measures rely on similar .provisions to with just three weeks left before the break for office, lawmakers are racing to find a temporary solution to keep the federal highway trust fund from going bankrupt. anthony in colorado springs on our democrats line. what is your solution? , ifer: i would like to say obama wants $2 million, we tould give him $2 million pursue the cartels as terrorist organizations. blow the hell out of them. host: bob on twitter. dave in hammond, indiana. independent line. caller: good morning.

we already have the people rounded up. take them to their embassy in washington. shoved them through the gate in the embassy and tell them it's their problem. they can live in their embassy together or they can put them on an airplane and send them home. we take them right to their embassy and dropped him off and let their embassy handle it. we tell them we will charge you for what it costs us to bring them to you. tell mexico we have 12 million of your people here. how big a deal as is immigration to you? caller: i fought for the people of this country. at a lot of the people who come across the border.

those are stout guys. how come they are not wearing the uniform of their country and fighting the cartels? they want a free ride. they want the american dream without having to pay for it. i was born right here in indiana. my family 300 years ago might have come from somewhere, but i don't have any connection to them. i'm not a hyphenated american. i don't get what the problem is . the corrupt people running these countries, you have to hit them in the bank account. you hit the mob in the bank account and it gets their attention. federalshington post, hiring falls to a four-year low. if slowing to its lowest level in nine years.

another day of calling. calling.r dave this one on the republican line. it caller: i'm suffering from compassion fatigue. we need to show no mercy here. these people are coming here illegally. we have been invaded by illegals for generations now. to digestt been able these people into our society. they don't want to assimilate anyway. they have enclaves of spanish people. speaking send a message and put these people on a bus straight to the airport and send them back to guatemala. thatwill send a message

they are not welcome here. host: using an influx of immigrants -- are you seeing an influx of immigrants in the durham? they are all spanish speaking. the are here to have a job. they are not here to become americans. you can go to a group of these guys and what people will speak english, but the rest don't. it's not just recently. has been for a long time. all over eastern north carolina. barbara from austin, texas. caller: good morning. i'm the first one to tell you, i don't have a solution. i do have a few comments. we need to remember that children are innocent. we need to keep that in mind.

president obama did not create this immigration problem. banner has been there longer than obama -- john boehner has been there longer than obama. texas two presidents from from 12 years who did nothing about it. it is easier to complain. all the people on the right do is complain. i would like to mention another country that i am familiar with. a wealthy country like the u.s. the people there are very compassionate. refugeesn political that are true refugees and they have a very complicated political system. they have a strict immigration program. i'm talking about norway. my son has been there almost 15

years. after 15 years of living with , he is not considered a true norwegian. he has all the rights and everything, but he is not completely integrated. host: what do you think of that system? caller: i think it's good because they taken people from refugees that are true and they helped them everywhere they can. they provide everything for them in the beginning and eventually, most become self-sufficient. , if io to visit my son stay one day past the three months, i will be sent back. do republicans in congress nothing but complain and blame obama for problems.

host: are you a supporter of the president? caller: yes. i was in the audience yesterday when he spoke in austin. he told it like it is. republicanst the suing him for "not doing his job. " it's the republicans in congress who don't do their job. we need to deport the two-par ta party. host: do you think the president should have gone to the border? caller: no. that would have done nothing. seeing the damage after the storm or something. he knows how many children are here. he knows the problem better than anybody. republicans look for anything to complain about. they hated him from the minute they heard his name and they

will always hate him and oppose es.rything he does host: what do you think of rick perry's work on this issue? caller: he has a lot of call to criticize obama. he is a destructive force and i will be so glad when he leaves office. i want texas to go blue, of course. host: we will have to leave it there. couple of headlines from the texas newspapers. the san antonio express news. and the dallas morning news this morning says porter crisis dilutes economic message. i pigeon, michigan. independent line.

-- white pigeon, michigan. independent line. caller: most of the callers have been very frustrating for me to listen to. the last lady is the greatest. that all theaid republicans want to do is complain. i agree with that. i'm not a democrat. as far as i'm concerned, most callers are comparing apples to oranges to rhubarb. the mexican problem is not the same as guatemala and el salvador. colorsany of these listen to -- callers listen to previous to these calls? did anybody listen to dick durbin or tom harkin?

i was listening to all of that. what are these people talking about? , get rid of the obstructionists. all of them. they do not cooperate with anybody or anything. host: front page of the washington post this morning. the white house debriefed. obama has tried to free himself from the constraints of office. by strolling on the mall or hopscotching to country as part hopscotching the country as part of a campaign style tour. just a little bit from this piece.

stephen madison, nebraska. republican. nebraska.n madison, republican. caller: our country is too big and too affluent. we can't even solve the simple things. defeatedntries are not . they commit suicide. out terrorist organization there worth their salt wouldn't take advantage of this and bring their people in? how incompetent would they have to be to not? what is our solution to it all? legalizing dope. that is just great. we have been living in the sweet thatof history for so long

we have lost touch with reality. i don't think that republicans hate obama. we feel like he is not up to the task. he went from community organizing, he has no executive experience and he is just checking out. waiting out the clock now. he does not know what to do. i probably wouldn't, either. the man just lacks experience. this is arnold in roxboro, north carolina. democrat. caller: i don't think this is rocket science. we deal with the immigrant problem in haiti?

they are just as poor. we don't tolerate them. they get in a boat and come over here. the only way they get here is if their body floats ashore. send the nra down there. they want to shoot their guns and stuff. send the guard and nra. let them do their job. host: thank you very much. jim tweets and, it would be so much easier to be compassionate if we were to $17 trillion in debt.

weren't $17 trillion in debt. warren wades into west virginia senate to bash wall street. paul ryan will look to draw a contrast of his own when he campaigns for capito in charleston.

deer park, washington. independent line. joshua, what is your solution to the immigration reform question? caller: let me reiterate something from a couple of calls go. you call these people and documented. naturally, you don't know where they are really from. a softldn't you have invasion of our country? sent in.es it we are committing suicide we are committing suicide here. we are violating our laws. you would send in these people and set up armories around the nation. you don't know if they are from other countries. you don't know. like clowns.

invasion be a soft waiting to be military. host: republican from fresno. hi, harry. caller: i say we send in the military and take over the border. we have to be able to secure our borders. immigration has allowed this many people to show up at our doorstep, we have a definite problem with the border patrol because somebody is turning the cheek here. it is not rocket science. they are turning the cheek here. they are walking in freely and taking our benefits. our kids can't compete at the university level. thise to pay 40 grand for

and he is not even a legalized citizen here. we have to get rid of the ice agents because it's not working. we are spending billions of dollars on these people and they are showing up at our doorstep. i live in one of the neighborhoods in california and it's totally hispanic now. obama, you won't even go into the border? that is where the problem is. send the national guard in. send these people back to their country and let their country deal with them. if not, take over the country. takeot go over there and on these gangs? host: the wall street journal has a long front-page piece

analyzing deportations of children. we don't have time to get into it too much. this is the wall street journal this morning and there is the headline. mike is in memphis. democrat. is for thesolution congress -- the lack of cooperation between the isislative government killing us. rushlike they've adopted limbaugh's philosophy. obama cannot do it by himself. it is going to kill us. if this country is being destroyed from within. our military needs to get to the border.

we can't continue to live this way. we are destroying this great country. the lack of cooperation between -- democrats and republicans the tea party is not offering any solutions to problems. the only solution is to criticize the executive branch of the government. it's purely racism and prejudice about the black president. it does was a white president, -- if thisa party was a white president, with the the tea party would cooperate. no.s always no, no, any are not offering

solutions to the problems. this country will be destroyed unless they cooperate. host: from the washington times this morning. democrats seek to upend hobby lobby contraceptive ruling. look for that next week in the senate. the senate is always on c-span2 live. texas.n republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. is passinglution immigration reform.

the congress should get together and work on some sort of immigration reform alleviate the problem -- to alleviate the problem. ladyead and take down the in new york with the torch in her hand. the one that says give me your tired and poor. take the statue down because we no longer believe in her. all these people saying deport everyone are descendents of immigrants themselves. we don't need a bunch of hatred and venom and vitriol in our politics right now. have you felt the attacks of immigration -- the effects of immigration? caller: we have a couple of people hanging around looking for work in the town center.

manyve not really lost muc jobs or anything like that. some of the churches are starting to ramp up to try to do something about the humanitarian crisis that this is becoming. these are small children that need help and care. calling on thee independent line. the president was in your state this week. do you think you should've gone to the border? caller: i don't think it would have helped. he is going to be condemned no matter what he does. i don't think another photo opportunity or speech on the border would help. he needs to work with the congress and try and try over and over again to get some kind of immigration reform pushed to the congress -- through the congress. host: gop pushes back on approving border funds.

william is calling in from martin's burke, west virginia. republican line. -- martinsburg, west virginia. caller: i have a solution to the immigration problem. we have to stop the flow of immigrants into the united states by locking down the border. we need to turn back everyone who does not come through the point of entry. places andgo into areunicate -- if you illegal, you have a two-year time frame to identify yourself. you come forward and say that you came here legally and you'll pay a fine and sign the paper, but they will give you a card. you will be able to get a drivers license and insurance. you register and pay taxes just

like a legal immigrant would. at the end of the timeframe, up and sendnd them them back. imposeernment can penalties to the countries of origin where they came from. that is a great start. host: michelle from massachusetts. democrat. with, on want to begin i'm an unemployed legal secretary as of 2008. i went to social security to find out what my benefits would be. i went into social security and i was the only american there. i was told to make an

appointment. i told him that i paid into the system and you can't take care of me. these people had not paid one cent. they were getting refugee status. this has been going on for a long time. it is terrible for those children, but none of them came in with a certificate or anything else. they should be taking back to the country. senator dick durbin did not mention anything about what went on in his own state. it is a terrible thing. we have unemployed servicemen, children that are starving -- it is a really bad time in this area and i think we have to take care of our own first.

findoburn is right -- they the family relative and they send them there -- two families that are now illegal, and they will not come back for the hearing. you have to have the exit visas and the people that enforce the law. our state governor, deval patrick, we take care of immigrants. we do not take care of u.s. citizens. they know the system. shut off the benefits, and they will not come here. they know what they can get. host: michelle in massachusetts. finally, nathan in arkansas on our independent line. you have the last word -- what is your solution? simple, cuts very off the source of chief employment. the people you need to be looking at is the people that

are hiring these people. they should be forced to pay a hefty fine for each and every undocumented person in this nation. that is why you have such high unemployment rates in the country of american citizens because i am not going to hire you for $15 an hour when i could have this guy for $10 an hour. it is as simple as that. host: thank you, nathan. bernie's says it is a natural response to the poverty we have created with the trade agreements countries signed with us. amber says the ineffectiveness theongress -- diana says ineffectiveness of congress is the problem and finally richard, place political and financial pressure on mexico to seal their border. one more from twitter -- obama has deported more than any other

president, employers must be punished, not the women and kids. the houses is coming in for the last stretch of work before the august recess. we have one more hour to go in the "washington journal," and coming up is bernard kerik, former new york city police commissioner. we will be talking about prism -- prison reform. >> baseball doesn't strike me -- i do not want to get metaphysical -- i am the anti-metaphysical group of baseball, but it is a good sport to be the national pastime of a democratic nation because democracy is about copper mines and settling. you do not get -- compromise and settle in, and you do not get a lot of what you want. that is what is baseball. win 60w every team will

games, lose 60 games. the rest is the middle. it is the sport of the half loaf, as is democracy. >> george will on his latest book on baseball and wrigley field, and the recent controversy surrounding one of his latest columns sunday night on c-span, it :00 p.m. eastern on "q&a." >> that our republic is not so focused and so dedicated not to unthinking andy stupid labels. [applause] i would remind you that extremism in the defense of vice.ty is no [applause]

[applause] thank you. thank you. thank you. and let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of .ustice is no virtue host: -- >> senator goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1990 -- 1964 republican convention this

sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from our new york studio, bernard kerik, former new york city police officer -- to police -- police a nomination -- a nominee to be the interim interior minister, and also a felon. what happened? i had advised president bush that i had hired an illegal anny and failedn to pay payroll tax. i went through a five-year investigation. in november of 2009 i pled eight felonies, most

of which were related to my children's nanny. i was sentenced to 48 months in the federal prison and i spent three years and 11 days in a minimal security federal prison camp in maryland. host: what was that experience like for you? is theit is like -- it it is for anyone else that has been in jail over prison. the deprivation of freedom is more profound than anyone knows, especially for someone who has been a law-abiding citizen, someone in my position who has been a law-enforcement officer for -- i had it 30, 35-year pretty much impeccable career up

until that point. then, to be sent to prison, to have your freedom taken from you , to take your -- to lose your civil and constitutional rights. to lose your children, pretty much for any period of time, is more profound than you could imagine. it was extremely difficult. it was difficult then. it is probably equally as difficult today as it was then with the collateral consequence , and itelony conviction is something that no one wants to go through. no one. host: commissioner kerik, what are some of those collateral consequences that you talk about? i think -- first and foremost, i do not think the general public, and even congress, who makes these laws,

i do not think they understand ,he consequence of a conviction of a felony conviction and what it does to an individual, their families, their children. you know, we live in a world promote ore most, -- say that america is the land of second chances. if you are convicted of a felony, regardless of what that felony is, there is pretty much no second chance. you are a convicted felon for the rest of your natural life. very with men in prison -- were first-time, nonviolent, low-level drug offenders, they were sentenced to 10 years. ofyears for five grams cocaine in a conspiracy.

if they live to be 120 and never have another problem as long as they live, they will be a convict felon and will suffer the loss of civil and constitutional rights, the loss of the right to bear arms. they will have difficulties, probably a 70% to 80% of faculty in retaining a real job -- difficulty in retaining a real job. rentwill not be able to apartments. they will not be able to get educational assistance. recently, the american bar association and the national association of criminal defense lawyers put together a three-year study on collateral consequences throughout the united states for a convicted felon, and i think the total 45,000in all was about different collateral consequences. don't get me wrong, i need people to understand there are

people that belong in prison. there are people that belong there a long time. some may belong there for life. but we put people in prison today, many of which did not need to go to prison, number one, to learn their lesson. they could have been punished by some alternative sentence or alternative means, be it home confinement, house arrest, a fine, ay service, a severe penalty, but we send them to prison. once we send them to prison and they come home, the collateral consequence of their imprisonment and their condition will last forever and i do not think anyone understands that. host: did you ever have these --ughts when you are your new york police commissioner or

head of the department of corrections? guest: no. you know, what happens as a law-enforcement official or a commissioner, you have a job. your job is to take that guys off of the street -- that guys street and off the you do not think about what will happen to them. don't get me wrong, i have put a longin prison for time, some for life, but these were bad people. me, shoot myill but then i met people that were sent to 10 or 15 years -- they were were

commercial fishers who had caught too many fish. i never realized, never even thought about those types of circumstances. we have evolved into a society where we now take a number of the regulatory issues and turn them into cons, -- crimes, turn that concept into criminal conduct, and i'm not saying these people should not be held accountable for their actions, but a commercial fisher that catches too many fish, fine him, penalized in some way, but to make him a convicted felon, to take his license away -- i was with the man that had been fishing since he was 17, 18 years old. he was now 55. he owned his own business for the last 40 years. he lost his business.

he lost his life. he lost his life. his family was on public assistance because he caught too many fish. nine and. -- fine him. you turned him into a convicted felon. the guys in the prime years of his life. he can now work. cannot get a job. as no business. -- has no business. cannot pay taxes. i do not see that as just. there is a way to address those issues without turning these people into felons and having them, it and the economy, -- them, and the economy, most importantly the economy, suffer internally. i do not get it. host: what would you like to see done -- pardon me -- and at what level of government? guest: first and foremost the

mandatory minimums in the guidelines have to be addressed. either repealed or overhauled completely. i think -- i am not the only one saying this. the attorney general himself has cited. former attorney general's have said. it.aid it is not a democratic or republican issue. this is coming from both sides know, house, where, you the legal profession is basically saying these things have to be addressed -- the punishments are too severe, the sentences are too long. they are destroying families. they are crippling our economy. the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines -- i think they have to be addressed. i think we also have to look at alternatives for incarceration. as i said earlier, home

confinement and house arrest, fines and penalties, community service, we put a number of professionals in prison that could be serving their community t. ways that we really need i you have doctors that have been arrested and charged with -- or convicted of some kind of financial crime relating to either insurance or taxes, but overall they are phenomenal doctors. put them in communities where they are needed. you have professors and teachers -- we have people with phd's and master's degrees that could be teaching at community colleges for nothing. week, 20 15 hours a hours a week, make them go teaching a community college for nothing. we have kids in these

communities that really need an education and they do not have the money to get it. have people teach them. there are a number of things you can do alternatively to punish people without putting them in prison. the cost of incarceration runs about $28,000 a year to house a federal inmate, but the reality is that the guy is making $150,000 a year and you stick him in prison for three years fish,e he caught too many it is a cost to you, the taxpayer, of about $600,000 for his stint in prison. ?hy not find -- fine him fine him 150,000. suspend him. i think it is absurd. 202 is the area code for

all numbers and we have set aside our last number four former inmates. we would like to hear from you. let's hear from our callers. , fromsioner kerik columbus, georgia, on our democrats line. i am calling because i feel like once the person is put into prison, and they do their time, they are convicted the rest of their life for their crimes. that is double jeopardy. they should be able to get a job and get back into society and be able to work and take care of their families. once they do their time, they are still a convicted felon the rest of their life and it is hard for them to get a job. what just out there like -- you are saying is true.

host: thank you. let's get a response. there is -- i agree totally with what you just said. here is the problem -- you never finished paying your debt to society. , thes american people press, congress, the people that make these laws, they will stand before an audience and talk about how a person has to be held accountable and pay their debt to society. at what point does that that --debt end? it does not. you pay that debt for the rest of your life. there is no time where you say you have now been made whole, you have done your prison time, your probation time, you might've gone beyond that and are now a model citizen, we will now expunge your record.

we will give you back your life. we will give you back your constitutional and civil rights. that does not happen. there is no -- it does not happen. the problem is you pay that debt forever, and that is not just. the punishment is supposed to fit the crime, and i am confident this is not what our founding fathers wanted when the constitution -- the personal and professional annihilation of someone that made a mistake, and i have to agree with her. bob, winchester, california. republican line. go ahead. is right on.guest i was a priest -- a prison minister and a priest for 15 --rs, and i hope set up the i cannot think of it anymore -- the freedom fund.

about. what it is prisons are now a cottage industry. they are built a company that bids on the prisoners, and then they stuff full of prisoners. is 2.7% of the world's 25% ofion, and we have the world's prisoners. your guest is so right on. see, it is about getting them into the system. once a young man gets into the system, and unless you are smart, like i was, i saved my son -- you cannot get them out. -- for forgiving this

this for myforgive son. he was one of the first 17 that landed in afghanistan. president clinton gave me , but your guest is so right -- they want you to be there. they want you to get in prison. man, they getng caught, they get in the system, and there is no way out. bob. let's get a response, let's hear from bernard kerik. guest: peter, here is the thing -- two issues. one, it is an $80 billion a year industry, so there are a lot of lobbyists out there. oute is a lot of industry there that wants as many people in prison as physically possible , but i agree with your caller

on this one point. that is these young men and ,omen that come into the system you are creating, in my opinion -- you are creating an enormous amount of recidivism where they will come back into prison and here is why. you take those young men that i was talking about earlier -- 19 aars old, gets arrested for conspiracy, five grams of cocaine, you sentence him, 10 years of prison. he does 8.5. , heng that 8.5-year period gets no life improvement skills. he is physically in a prison. foron is a training ground commonality -- you learn how to lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, gamble, and flight. your disagreements -- flight.

.- fight you disagreements are usually in extreme verbal confrontations or physical confrontations. so, that is your education in prison, and then we let them out to go back into society. they cannot get a job. they cannot get public assistance for education. they cannot find an apartment. they cannot get a place to live unless they have somebody on the outside that is going to take care of them. at what point do they basically give up? at some point they give up and they have to revert to crime or they have to go do something stupid to take care of themselves or take care of their families, and that puts them right back into the system. they need in education -- a real education, and they need real programs. we put tons of people in prison today for addiction. people that aren't it did to -- people that are addicted to

drugs need treatment. they do not need prison. they need treatment. we put mentally ill in prison. they belong in treatment centers. they need to be taken care of by clinicians, not sitting in a jail cell, a prison cell. all of this stuff leads to enhanced recidivism, and the numbers continue to turn over. one last thing on your caller's description, i think we are about 5% of the world's population, but we are 25% of -- we hold 25%ns of the world prisoners. how is that possible? how is it possible we have more prisoners than russia or china? the insanity of the system is unsustainable and it has to change. the congress, our legislatures

have to address it at some point. it will cripple our society. it will cripple our economy. host: bernard kerik this is a tweet that we have gotten, and -- it is funny how opinions change when the shoe is on the other foot. guest: that is right. that is exactly right. basically, it is an education. it is an education. here is the issue. one of the reasons i'm talking i you, one of the reasons testified before the congress, one of the reasons i talk about this constantly is because the general public does not understand the damage that the system does. if you have not experienced it firsthand, if you have not been there, if you have not dealt with it through some personal discourse -- a family member,

friend, or otherwise, you have no idea, and the reason i know that is because i was in the system. ran two the largest -- i two the largest law enforcement agencies in the country, and i did not know half of what i know today than. so, you are right. or theyan criticize, can agree, but the bottom line is i have now seen the system. " the -- i have now seen the circle, and i think a system is broken. we have flaws and failures that are crippling society, crippling the economy, devastating families, and crucifying children. we have to do something about it. host: the prison policy initiative group put out this chart -- 2 million people are currently locked up on a day-to-day basis in the u.s.. state prisons contain the most.

here are federal prisons. local . group also policy says about 12 million people a year siphon through the u.s. prison system. calvin. newark, delaware. independent line. go ahead. .aller: good morning, mr. kerik i want to first thank you for coming on and sharing your story and trying to make a change. i want to say that. i am from new york. i want to say thank you for that. -- imment is there are read somewhere where they spend about $40,000 per inmate -- either the taxpayers, the government, or both, and as for children in the education system, it is only 8000.

now, it seems like there is an incentive for these prisons to keep being built when it is paying $40,000 per inmate. that is a lot of money per inmate and it gives them incentive to keep locking up more and more people. that is my first comment. my second comment -- i was diagnosed with a mental illness. ever since being diagnosed with a mental illness, i have had to do with the criminal justice system, and since having it, i have dealt with several charges because of the mental illness. to speak on that, i believe that drug users need treatment, people with mental illness need treatment, not jail, like you said. for having me. host: -- thank you for having me. host: thank you, calvin. bernard kerik. guest: i understand what he is

saying. back to the financial issue, the economic issue, you run -- depending where you are at, and depending on the system, you could say that an inmate costs $100,000 a year depending on where they are being held. the bottom line is state government across the country, it cannot sustain these costs. that is why you see a lot of state governments across the united states that are looking at alternatives to incarceration. they are looking at criminal justice reform. they are looking at reducing mandatory minimums. they are looking at the overall criminal justice systems in an intent to reduce bed space, prison population, and i have to give credit to the state of , some ofvernor perry -- other states out west

right on time states -- crime states that are really addressing criminal justice reform. for whatever reason, a lot of this has to do with economics. you cannot sustain these budgets. you only have so much money in the budget and once you run out of money, no one is coming to your aid, so you have to do something about it. in the federal system -- in 1980, there were 25,000 prisoners in the united states federal system. it is 216,000, i think it is 218,000. not one year since 1980 has there been a reduction in the bed space. it has increased every year right up to this year. the federal government prints

money. they keep putting money into it, and at some point the american people have to realize it is an economic cost that is written in them, therdening american taxpayer, and i do not see this being sustained. i think at some point in time it has to be addressed. i give the attorney general and in tryingent credit to do something about it. i just hope the members of congress will get on board, cut across partyion, lines, and do what has to be done. right now you have senator booker from the state of new jersey, rand paul, and a number of others that are truly looking at criminal justice and prison reform. i hope others jump on board and do it needs to be done to get the laws changed. 9:00 a.m. this

morning, c-span will be covering the hearing by the house judiciary over-criminalization task force live on c-span three today and it is about the need for criminal code reform and the over federal is a in federal criminal law. 9:00 a.m., c-span3. next is mark from fort lauderdale, florida calling in. hi, mark. caller: hi, how are you doing? host: good. caller: thank you for c-span and mr. kerik for bringing this to the front. i called and the inmate -- called in on the inmate line because i served some time myself. you had a tweet that stole my thunder -- the shoe is on the other foot. mr. kerik, as you are climbing

the ladder, and even when you reached the top of the food chain, you always thought that permitted -- prisoners and criminals as earth more time, that they were getting off to easy -- deserved more time, and they were getting off too easy, and now i like to see that you see how rough things can be for people that fall into the system. when i was in the bureau of prisons, i met some fallen politicians, some judges, and they all say the same thing, if only i knew then what i knew now. host: why were you in prison? --ler: bank fraud and host: bank fraud. host: were you guilty? caller: i thought i was not, but the judge told me i was. host: thank you. bernard kerik. guest: if someone told me before

you willrison that meet great men, great fathers, great businessman, good professionals, doctors, lawyers, that are really good people, honestly, i would , thataughed -- whatever are really good people, honestly, i would have laughed. at all.not have agreed i have to say i went to prison. i was house with lawyers. i was housed with doctors. i was housed with other professionals that make mistakes , and i want to go back to your caller. when you asked him was he guilty, he did not think he was, the judge thought he was. there are people in prison today that had no criminal intent. evenw men that did not know they did anything wrong. the days of criminal intent are

pretty much over. toyou not have to intend commit a crime in the federal system, and you can wind up in federal systems, which is pretty scary. at the end of the day, they made a mistake. they did something wrong, but they paid the price. they are good family people. workers.rd i met some really, really hard workers. all i am saying is once they have done their time, once they have paid their price, and paid theiro society, -- paid debt to society, give them back their constitutional and civil rights. make them whole again. that is all i am asking because today as it stands, it does not happen. also apply to violent criminals who have paid their debt to society -- should

that also apply to violent criminals who have also paid their debt to society? guest: i think they have to be looked at. like i said earlier, there are people that do bad things that belong in prison. somebody pays their debt to society. at some point in time, when does that debt end? for violence, you know, it is something that has to be looked at. my biggest concern is the nonviolent prisoners. today, well, as of int year, you had 27,000 men minimum security prison camps in the federal system. that means they are not violent, because they could not be there if they were, and they are doing under 10 years in prison. these men can go back into society. they can work.

they can pay taxes. they can take care of their families, but in reality we prevent them from doing that, and that is one of my principal concerns. rake is calling from new jersey on our democrat line -- is calling from new jersey on our democrat line. go ahead. .aller: good morning mr. kerik i appreciate you. i am pretty sure you are rehabilitated and are a cool dude. askedstion was actually by that tweet. -- if i hadtion basically the power to become president of the united states, and i would give you back your position, would you look into other cases right now,

especially talking about the case -- 13 years ago about a young man named dominick suter who basically ran an israeli moving system company out of new jersey, and look into his businesses as well? would you, as commissioner, reopen that case? they were held in a new york city prison for a couple of months. does that ring a bell to you. -- to you? host: commissioner? guest: no. the name does not signed -- sound familiar. host: let's take the question and broaden it a little bit -- have you talk to your former colleagues about your reform efforts, and have you met any of the people that you put in jail since you have been out? guest: no.

i have not met anyone that i put in prison, but i have talked to a number of my colleagues, and peter, i have to tell you, initially, when we have these somersations, and i think of my best conversations, actually, were in prison. a number of my former colleagues, people that worked for me -- keep in mind, in the new york city police department i had 55,000 men and women that worked for me, and in the new york city department of corrections i had 13,000. so, it is a pretty big group of people, many of which came to prison to see me, and during the course of our conversation, when we talked about the criminal justice system, i thought initially they thought i was losing my mind until we sit around that visiting room and we look around the room and i start identifying people and what they have done.

this guy, is a commercial fisherman and he caught too many fish. they see him with his kids, his , andchildren, his family then they get to talk to his family when they leave. they see a young man, 19, 20 10, 15ld, who is doing years, for a low-level drug offense, and they talk to his family and they get to understand the devastation that it is caused his family. or, they see a businessman or an doingey that is in prison a year and a day -- a 75-year-old attorney doing a year and a day. he is 75 years old. what is the sense in sentencing him? put him in home confinement. i do not think anyone comprehends time. this is prosecutors, judges,

cops, me -- nobody understands what it is like to live by a clock that is standing still. no one. until you have done it. me, and they have said, especially the press -- they love to jazz this, just this up in the media. you went to a minimum-security fed. a country club, club my answer is find the finest hotel you can find. in manhattan you have the saint regis, four seasons. take one of those hotels, walk into their finest suite, go into the bathroom, lock yourself in that bathroom for a year and tell me how luxurious it is. the deprivation of freedom is

not luxurious, and i do not give a dam where you are at. i do not care what situation you are housed under. i do not care what your facility is like. you cannot talk your kids in and not, say prayers with them, visit them at school, or take them to a school event -- then it is pretty horrific, especially for someone that for their entire life has abided by the law. it is horrifying. -- for my think colleagues, they did not get it. they did not understand it until they were physically there and got to see it, and a number of them today look at it very differently. host: person. california. you are on with bernard kerik. caller: thank you, commissioner kerik. i appreciate your valuable input into the country via c-span.

guest: thank you. and as i was arrested had -- and as a private investigator for 23 years, i was arrested for a nonviolent -- or according to what the laws were at the time, serve five years -- served five years of a sentence. i was plea bargained. the reality is we have to understand these problems begin attorneylocal district and their efforts to make convictions, whether they are valid or not. unfortunately, we have a local police force and district attorney who are looking at would like you to

give me some input, or give the nation some input on the problems we are experiencing with the efforts to prosecute at the lowest level, table i. -- thank you. host: carson, what were you convicted of, and were you guilty? caller: i was convicted in a plea bargain of assault with fidelity -- deadly weapon on a police officer. host: do you think you are guilty? caller: i absolutely was not guilty, but by the dynamics of our local system as commissioner kerik knows, we have a necessity to plea bargain. i was originally arrested for nine felonies and three pleameanors, but had to bargain as they were throwing up 25 years in my face.

bear in mind that had never been arrested in my entire life until i was 52 years of age. host: how did that change your life? caller: it changed it profoundly, as commissioner kerik indicated. you are not done once you have served your sentence. you have a permanent stigma attached to you, and even at age 60 now, it is impossible for me to get meaningful employment. host: thank you, sir. bernard kerik? i -- listen, i understand what he is saying. this system has to be fixed. i want to touch on the prosecutor thing and the law enforcement thing in general. nobody is more pro-law

enforcement than i am, even with all i have been through. people violate the law, they need to be held accountable. flawed.system is on the prosecutorial lens, i have worked -- personally, i have worked with, i think, some of the most incredible, phenomenal prosecutors, both at county level, and a federal level. i was assigned to the new york force.k i think i worked with some of the best prosecutors in this country, but you have to keep in mind, whether it is a local county prosecutor or a federal prosecutor, their performance evaluation is based on three things. one, the conviction rate.

two, the amount of time someone is sentenced. three, the positive press they bring to their office. those are the things a are judged on -- their performance evaluations are they still on the. that has a lot to -- on that. that has a lot to do with fairness and prosecution. a public defender -- a federal public defender is not based in judged on their acquittals. they are judged by how many cases they can get off of the desk. the system is flawed. we need to have oversight of prosecutors who violate the laws . real oversight. they need to be held accountable. it is not all of them. them, butmost of there are prosecutors in this violatetoday that do

the laws to enforce them, and a to be held accountable. real accountability. i think if we had that, we would see less of those problems. from mineral wells, texas, on our public line -- republican line. , did i mr. kerik understand your crime was not paying social security taxes on an illegal alien that you had hired? guest: yes, sir. some of them, yeah. that is amazing that that could be a felony. i never would have believed that it guest: -- believed that. guest: take my word for it. caller: it sounds like somebody up in our had a personal grudge against you to prosecute you for that when there are politicians taking bribes that are never

prosecuted. for example, senator robert torres celli took bribes. the person who bribed him, i understand, was prosecuted, but the senator got off. so, somebody wanted to take care of him, but the criminal was briber, the brider -- not the person bribed. host: let's leave it there. bernard kerik, do politics play a role in conviction? guest: they are not supposed to, but the reality is they do. there are selective prosecutions all of the time in this country, and you would have to be blind to say there is not. there is. be it politically selective,

personally selective, it happens. it is human nature, almost. it should not happen, but it does, and that is another arena of accountability that should be looked at. -- that isut it is the way we operate. you know, it happens. to,know, it is not supposed but it does, and anyone that says it does not, or anyone who thinks it does not, open your eyes and take another look. host: just another few minutes with our guest. derek from their moronic, new area --from new york new york. waser: about 22 years ago i beat up by police, charged with reckless endangerment.

i had money and was able to do my stuff out and i was the witness to a murderer, and due to the fact i was a witness to a murder they ended up dropping some of these charges, but i still have the felony on my record. new york city for this, was awarded six figures, but the police were never put in jail for what they had done to me. police lie. i do not understand why this goes on. police lie and they do not get charge. over six paid me figures for what happened -- new york city paid me over six figures for what happened to me, but nothing happened to the police. host: bernard kerik, can you speak to that issue in general? guest: i cannot speak to that specific case because i do not know about it, but to say police are not held accountable -- that

is not true. they are held accountable in many circumstances. i cannot talk to his specific issue, but if you pick up "the new york post," or "the new york daily news," several times a month there are police officers that are held accountable for either ethical breaches or some in activity -- whether it is assault, a drug-related issue, no matter what the case is, police are held accountable. in new york city, in general, you have the manhattan d.a. office, or the local district attorney's office that looks at these issues. you have the civilian complaint review board that will look at an assault issue like that. then, quite often, you have the federal government that will come in and look at an incident like that where an officer is involved in assault to see if there is any federal civil violations.

do things slip through the >>? -- through the cracks? of course, the police are held accountable when they are caught. host: mark, alaska. go ahead. caller: thank you. thank you to the guest for his honesty and taking this cause up because it is a scourge on our nation, and it is an embarrassment. first of all, he has made some excellent points. the prison lobby is getting built up because of the private prison industry. that is one of the first things we need to eliminate. tois our duty as citizens incarcerate people, and it is not something that we can farm out to a corporation. once that happens, we have a lobby, and we know how powerful the lobby industry is. i would also like to say that

the presumptive, one mandatory -- or mandatory sentencing, came about in the 1980's, when we -- i guess we lacked a way to manipulate the voting base, so politicians would talk about being tough on crime, and that byhow they got elected instilling all of us with fear. host: mark, we are running out of time. let's get a comment from commissioner kerik on the privatization issue. guest: privatization is doable in certain circumstances, in lower-level facilities, but i would not -- i would never sign a contract with a private corrections company that had a mandate to have that contract for 20 years and i would have to

guarantee them a 90% occupancy rate. this is not a hotel. anyone that would sign a contract guaranteeing an occupancy rate in the facility -- you would have to be doing something illegal, unconstitutional to sign that contract. would sign a private contract with a private organization if they could guarantee me a reduction in recidivism -- create programs, have programs that reduces recidivism. guarantee me that, and i will think about signing the contract. your view on the death penalty, and has a changed? my view on the death penalty is the same as it was before -- someone who kills someone with malice, and they are convicted, personally, i have no objection to the death penalty. what i do have an issue with today, and i would feel and --

extremely uncomfortable with -- i would have to see incredible, incredible evidence to prove the person was guilty. we have seen way too many cases where there has been -- there have been prosecutorial misconduct in some of these cases that have been overturned, and that scares me. i am for the death penalty, but i think there has to be guarantees within the system that where there is oversight on the prosecutors that prosecute these cases -- to ensure that convicted of a death penalty case that they are really guilty. >> what is your advice for what is yourhost: advice for ex-felons that do not have your resources or felons that do not have your resources?

guest: i could tell you, peter, i have tremendous resources, and i am not doing tremendously better than any of them. they have to stay focused, trying to get beyond all of the negativity and all of the stigma , and, you know, do whatever they have to do to stay out of prison. do not go back. and it is not as easy as it sounds. especially for -- go ahead. host: go ahead and finish, sir. guest: it is not as easy as it sounds, especially for guys that are uneducated and we have people that come out of prison that are uneducated, illiterate, and they will have an enormous problem finding jobs -- basic, low-level jobs. it is an extremely difficult circumstance.

host: if people are interested in following you in this work, where's the best place for them to go? guest: bernard kerik on twitter. oup is my company website. host: adrian in orlando. 30 seconds. ofler: basically, at the age 18 i went to the court system for things i did not do and i had that i have done -- stuff where i was defrauding in my own name, and it affected me to where i had to go before immigration. they violated my probation after i was released from a gratian von -- immigration on condition that i complete probation, pay back the money. however -- apologize, time is up --

can you get this up in two seconds? caller: yes, sir. process because of some sexual ordeal with another male, which was not true. host: bernard kerik, to her for with us. the house is now in session. . chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. in these important days in debates here in the people's house, we beg you to send your spirit of wisdom as the members struggle to do the work that has been entrusted to them. inspire them to work together with charity and join their efforts to accomplish what our nation needs, to live into a prosperous and secure future. please keep all the members of this congress and all who work for the people's house in good health, that they might faithfully fulfill the great

responsibility given them by the people of this great nation. bless us this day and every day. may all that is done here be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. enyart. mr. enyart: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? will gilbert mr. speaker, i ask -- mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. wilson: sloan gibson

v. ed the ryan dorn hospital. v.a. chairman jeff miller visited both hospitals in january, promoting the expedited health care for our veterans. the lack of treatment our veterans are receiving from the v.a. is inexcusable. sadly we have learned about lack of care at v.a. facilities across the country, leading to death, cancer and other progressive illnesses. a preview of obamacare chaos. this has been a failure by the president who was alerted by his transition team in 2009 that there was mismanagement. as the former c.e.o. of the u.s.o., acting secretary sloan has experience to restore accountability for our veterans. moving forward i have faith that the professional staffs at dorn and charlie norwood v.a. hospitals will ensure that those who fought for our freedom will get the health

care services they deserve. in conclusion, we will never forget september 11 and the war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you, mr. speaker. i just shared with the speaker that the battle to save the lives of afghans who helped americans as guides and interpreters has been a roller coasters. documented again wednesday ght in a gripping film, "the interpreters" by vice news, about the american failure to protect those who helped us. the program was brought back to life during the difficult government shutdown period by a bipartisan effort. now that same bipartisan spirit is needed again, because only a few hundred visas remain with 6,000 people in the pipeline with thousands more who must

not be left to the tender mercies of the taliban seeking revenge, to torture and kill them. it's the moral obligation of every member of congress to protect the men and women who helped americans who protected us in some of the difficult of circumstances. please don't just co-sponsor h.r. 4594. demand action before we adjourn. lives are at stake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, this week i had the opportunity to join rural school advocates from across the country here in washington for the release of the why rural matters 2013-2014 report. a biennial report from the rural school and community trust which analyzes the state of rural education for

communities in each of the 50 states. this important research document gives policymakers and the public fresh insight into the social and economic context that influence educational outcomes and also reinforces how these conditions must be better understood, including in the context of how federal government allocates title 1 funding. title 1 was initially created to offset the impacts of poverty on student learning. unfortunately, the report shows once again that children receive preferential treatment based not only on their economic circumstance but on zip code.of their surely all on each side of the aisle believe all children are created equal. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. enyart: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. enyart: mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about a good

friend, a hardworking public servant and a true advocate for the american people. today i rise to talk about nator allen dixon, -- alan dixon, the gentleman from illinois. he was one of the finest public servants our country's ever known. through a storied career, he walked the halls of power in springfield, illinois, and washington, d.c., but never forgot his southern illinois roots. he was a mentor to generations of southern illinoisans. his sense of civille civility is a commod -- civility is a commodity that is in even greater demand today. it is in his honor and memory that i encourage the spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation as we continue to serve our fellow citizens in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and

extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from arizona is is recognized for one minute. mr. franks: mr. speaker, last month palestinian president mahmoud abbas openly united with the terrorist group hamas and right now they are raining down rockets upon the innocent citizens of israel. alf of all israelis sought shelter in bomb shelters. and this administration has said that abbas, proclaimed in an israeli newspaper that, quote, finally peace is possible. mr. speaker, i thought nothing this president could ever say or do would surprise me any more, but this flushed and breathless rush to embrace terrorists launching rockets at israeli children is an unprecedented act of cowardess and betrayal. the world, including abbas, hamas and hezbollah should know that america's arsenal of freedom stands ready to defend

our most precious ally on earth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute. mr. carson: i rise today to express my sadness and outrage over the violence that's ravaged my indianapolis congressional district. 80 people, mr. speaker, have been murdered so far in 2014. in the last year alone, two police officers, officer bradway and officer renn were senselessly gunned down in the line of duty. enough is enough. i'm calling on my fellow hoosiers to end this violence, and i'm asking my colleagues here in congress and in the administration for help. with violence on the rise, police levels in indianapolis have dropped below 1,500 officers, the lowest number in

seven years. we need increased funding for law enforcement and programs that keep our children off of our streets. we need the resources to not only combat crime but prevent it from happening in the first place. it's time for us to end the violence and make our streets safe again. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 661, i call of the bill, h.r. 4718, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 381, h.r. 4718, a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to modify and make permanent bonus depreciation. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 661, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on

ways and means printed in the bill modified by the amendment printed in house report 113-517 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on h.r. 4718. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. camp: and mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: our current tax code is a wet blanket on this economy. it puts our businesses, their workers and their products at a severe disadvantage. in this current climate, businesses aren't growing and hardworking americans are seeing stagnant wages and fewer hours. adding insult to injury, the united states is the only country that allows important pieces of its tax code to expire. the result, businesses and their workers are left constantly guessing whether certain policies will be around next year, hurting their ability to plan for the future.

the national association of manufacturers told congress that the expiration of bonus depreciation at the end of 2013 has had a chilling effect on the economy. this statement is sporpped clearly by the fact that during the months of 2014 total capital investment across the country fell by almost 12%. a major factor on why the entire u.s. economy contracted by nearly 3%. a survey of nam members found that a third of business owners would not make any investments this year without bonus depreciation and section 179 expensing, which the congress voted to make permanent in a bipartisan basis in may. this bill would provide a permanent 50% bonus depreciation deduction and make the deduction available to more farmers and businesses across the country. in congress we always find a way to make things more complicated, but today we can enact a simple bipartisan

provision that provides an immediate incentive for businesses to invest and hire new workers. bonus depreciation has received long-standing bipartisan support and has been renewed on a short-term basis nine out of the last 12 years. so after so many years of this policy being in place, it's time for us to agree that we should make it permanent so businesses can do what they do best, invest in the economy and hire new workers. the effects of making bonus depreciation permanent are real. analysis done by the tax foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%, which would add 18 -- $182 billion to the economy, would increase capital stock by over 3%, would increase wages by about 1% or $500 for an individual making $50,000 a year and would create

212,000 jobs. growing a healthier economy, creating jobs and helping americans see bigger paychecks is exactly what this country needs. making 50% bonus depreciation permanent is supported by associations representing a variety of industries -- farmers, telecommunications, manufacturers, energy, construction, retailers and technology. over 100 groups have voiced their support for bonus depreciation stating that it will provide an immediate incentive for businesses to make additional capital investments, thereby boosting the u.s. economy and job creation. this provision has gained strong bipartisan support in the past as have many of the permanent tax policies the house has voted on this year. by making long-standing features of the tax code permanent, we can facilitate a comprehensive overhaul of the tax code. such an overhaul in turn will create an america that works

with a strong vibrant economy. today's vote will bring the immediate economic relief so many businesses and hardworking taxpayers are asking for. i urge my colleagues to join us in making a stronger, healthier economy by passing this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> i have a point of order against the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i have in my hand a copy of the budget act of 1974. if you look at section 311, it's entitled enforcement of budget aggregates, and the bill before us, mr. speaker, violates that section of the budget act because it cuts the revenues below the levels that were set forth in the republican budget that was passed on this house floor with much fanfare on may 15. the bill before us does not keep the revenues at those

levels, and i would like, mr. speaker, for the purposes of this point of order to point out that on may 15 of this year, chairman ryan, chairman of the budget committee, filed a statement in the congressional record reporting the current revenue level for fiscal year 2015 and the remainder of the budget window. and this is what he said when he filed that. and this is, mr. speaker, in the record of may 15, page h-4428. this is what mr. ryan said. . this is needed to implement the section 311-a of the budget act which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels. this piece of legislation, mr. speaker, as you can see, clearly violates that provision of the statute of section 311-a of the

budget act, because it increases e deficit to the taxpayer by $287 billion above what was cited in the budget resolution adopted by this house. a clear breach of the rules. so, mr. speaker, i ask that the point of order be sustained and that the house republicans have to live up to their own budget resolution, which, as i say, they passed with much fanfare not that long ago. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. camp: may i have be heard on the point of order. i would just say that the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit. after the failures of this administration to grow the economy and create jobs we have an economy that's contracting, we have more kids living at home than ever before, we have real wages declining. after the failure of the policies of this administration to get the economy moving -- i

do not yield. mr. van hollen: parliamentary inquiry. parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan will suspend. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from michigan wish to direct his comments to the point of order. mr. camp: i do. after the failures of the policies of this administration, the house has spoken and the gentleman's position has absolutely no merit. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, further on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: the gentleman from michigan clearly wasn't addressing any of the issues raised in the point of order. i would ask the gentleman about section 311-a of the budget act, which is what this point of order is based upon. let's talk about the point of order. the gentleman, chairman of the ways and means committee, voted for the house budget act. he voted for it. and now he's bringing to the floor of the house a provision that violates the same budget act that that budget was passed

pursuant to. so, mr. speaker, let's continue to focus on this point of order. what we have here is a situation where republicans came to this house floor not long ago, passed that budget, and are now here on the floor today with another bill that violates the budget act section 311-a. i would like a ruling on the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the chair prepared to rule. the gentleman from maryland makes a point of order against consideration of the bill. any such point of order is untimely at this point. the gentleman from maryland is free to engage in debate on the bill. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: is the point of order as a result of the fact that the republicans apparently passed a rule that waives the section 311-a of the budget act? the speaker pro tempore: the legislation before us is already under consideration. therefore the gentleman's point of order is not timely. the gentleman's point of order would have had to be made before

the legislation was being considered. the point of order -- -- the point of order of the gentleman from maryland is not timely. van hollen: did the republican rule, did -- mr. van hollen: did the republican rule, the rule that was brought before the house, include a provision that waived section 311-a of the budget act? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman may consult house resolution 661 to answer that question. mr. van hollen: parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. i'm looking at that and it does indicate to me that the house republican rule actually waived the statutory provision that requires that the bill that they brought to the floor comply with their own budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is free to motorcycle toes points on the debate on the rule or debate. mr. van hollen: i point out -- the speaker pro tempore: the not recognized.

the gentleman from maryland will suspend. the gentleman from maryland is not recognized. the gentleman from michigan, mr. evin, is recognized. mr. leffin: -- i the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: mr. van hollen raises such an important point. what's being done here is totally inconsistent. and i'll come to that a bit later. you know what's really important today about this bill is not what's being done here but what's not being done here. this bill and mr. van hollen

points out how inconsistent it is, but no matter how inconsistent, it's going nowhere. and it should go nowhere. essentially what it does is to make permanent what has always been considered temporary. bonus greeshation, which has been tell pore rare -- depreciation, which has been temporarily enacted during the previous two recessions, to help assist the economy during the short term, that's what it has been. allows companies to write off investments more quickly than normal. providing them an incentive to make capital investments now rather than later. and that incentive actually disappears when the provision is made permanent.

and that's why c.r.s. has said its temporary nature, and i quote, is critical to its effectiveness. secondly, it's unpaid for. talk about consistency. talk about a budget bill that talks about the importance of deficit reduction. and here you have the republicans proposing a bill at would add $287 billion in debt. and that would bring the total of the bills that the republicans have brought forth here to over $500 billion. when all is said and done, house republicans will have added more than $1 trillion to the deficit. more than $1 trillion by permanently extending a select

group of corporate tax cuts. but let me just say i must confess i'm amazed at the inconsistency of this position. it was five months ago in the chairman's and the republican ways and means draft that they proposed to eliminate this provision entirely. bonus depreciation was gone, and now they come forth and they say let's make it permanent. that gives inconsistency a bad name. it's appalling. it's really also dangerous. let me indicate why.

the more than $500 billion in tax spending that the house republicans will have approved today is the equivalent of what we spent last year on all nondefense domestic discretionary spending, which republicans have cut so deeply in recent years that it's at its lowest level on record as a percentage of g.d.p. that includes spending more such vital domestic priorities as health research, food safety, and veterans health. and left unaddressed in this approach of the republicans are key domestic priorities such as the new market tax credit, the work opportunity tax credit, and the renewable energy tax credits. o here we are. fortunately this bill is going nowhere.

there likely will be an extension of bonus depreciation in an extender package, if we ever get to it, but for a short period of time costing a fraction of this bill. so what's really important today is not a bill that is going nowhere and should go nowhere, but for what is not being done. i just want to list what is not being done. immigration reform, a senate bill not being brought up here by the house republicans. unemployment insurance, a senate bill providing help for those looking for work, not brought up here. the employment nondiscrimination bill, the senate bill, not brought up here. paycheck fairness, not brought

up. a minimum wage bill, not brought p. eximbank caught in the contest and the conflicts within the republican conference. a highway bill, we are going to get next week another patch. another patch. the inability of the house republicans to face up to the need for a long term highway bill. and voting rights reform? you have a bill sponsored by a enior republican in this house and it has not seen the light of day. so, mr. speaker, what we have today is a bill, and i just want to finish by saying how appalling it is that the

republicans come forth and say, ,et's make permanent unpaid for costing $287 billion, , when in the proposal that they put forth , this provision would have been eliminated. that's 180 degrees in a split second. it just shows, i think, the hypocrisy of bringing this bill up. made especially hypocritical when there's been this utter failure to address all of these other legislative proposals. many of which have passed the senate. so we are going through the motions here today. it's really a sad moment for this institution. i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: mr. speaker, i yield such time he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, a member of the ways and means committee. mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, control the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, chairman camp, for your leadership on this important issue. your leadership on the tax writing committee. if we would have had similar leadership in the senate and at the white house, we would have a different discussion today and that would be one on comprehensive tax reform. unfortunately, we are not having that discussion because there hasn't been leadership. there's been zero leadership from this white house. and after 5 1/2 years of this president being in the white house, he still doesn't want to take responsibility for this economy. taxes are higher.

we have more regulations. we have economy, an economy that's sputtering along. in fact, the facts are the first quarter of this year our economy retracted. retracted. this bill is a jobs bill. it's that simple. it's a jobs bill. we have had bonus greeshation -- depreciation since 2002. this isn't new. it's been in the tax code under temporary law since 2002. extended many times, many times retroactively. it expired, lainl, in december. i was talking to a -- ladies and gentlemen, in december, i was talking to a c.f.o. of a large american manufacturer this week, and he said to me, you understand when you retroactively do this it doesn't help our economy. and when you only do it in

essence for one year, which is the narrative that my friends on the other side of the aisle are acquiescing to, this is a fruitless waste of time because of just accept the senate bill that passed out the senate finance committee at the end of the year, which will retroactively extend bonus depreciation back to january of this year for another year, next year, 2015, that doesn't do a whole lot to grow our economy. it's better than a sharp stick in the eye for one year. but if you talk to a c.e.o., a business plan for several years, so when a business owner who's a manufacturer buys up piece of menry to make a widget, it -- machinery to make

a widget, it costs a lot of money. guess what, you can make more widgets. you can hire a new employee. the new employee makes money, pays taxes to the city of columbus, pays taxes to the state of ohio, pays taxes to the federal government. more tax revenue. a job. more jobs. that's why hundreds, hundreds of businesses and organizations are for this piece of legislation which has been around unpaid for for 10 years. i mean, think of the logic here, ladies and gentlemen. if we extend spending, we tell the american people that it don't cost them any more money. tax cut nd a current so stopping a tax hike, it cost them more money. that's washington, d.c., math. it makes no sense.

that's the inconsistency. bottom line, mr. speaker, this is about jobs. this is about our economy. this is bipartisan. it doesn't need to be partisan, and i have said before i don't want to give up my voting card to the u.s. senate. let the house speak. let's have a good old-fashioned conference committee. i don't expect i'll get my way. i know chairman camp expects he will get his way. we'll have a good old-fashioned compromise. i know that's a dirty word sometimes around here. but as my sixth grade daughter says, isn't it supposed to work, the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, then you kind of work out the differences and it goes to the president? yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. i wish the folks on the other side of the aisle would allow us to change this narrative that, well, the senate won't accept this so let's just take the senate bill.

mr. speaker, i want to reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio reserves. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to another member of our committee, mr. doggett from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. doggett: republicans say they would like to help, but they claim we just don't have enough resources for medical research to address cures for alzheimer's and cancer, parkinson's, multiple sclerosis and other dread diseases, diabetes, for example. wildfire season is approaching and there are not enough resources to begin planning to prevent those wildfires because there's not enough money to actually address the fires when they begin and delay is occurring. we have hurricane season, tornados all over the country, not enough money for the national weather service to give us all the details we need. and only yesterday we learned that republicans were refusing once again to correct the

bankrupt transportation fund. the best they can do is postpone the bankruptcy into next year after the election. as our highways crumble, bridges literally fall down, and as for comprehensive safety inspection of our food and our drugs, like to do it but just not enough money. and there are not enough funds available to monitor effectively infectious diseases or to produce vaccines to stop other diseases. not enough to adequately staff our federal prisons. not enough to fully fund federal law enforcement. certainly not enough to provide strong, effective foster care for the many children that are removed after abused and neglected from their homes. and work force development so we can be competitive with our friends abroad, well, there doesn't seem to be the resource to permit children from pre-k to postgrad to achieve their full god-given potential.

but while there is so much of vital needs that we just don't seem to have the resources to address, these same republicans tell us today that we can afford to borrow from the chinese or the saudis or whoever will lend to us the resource to deliver bonuses to some people. they urge more public debt to fund more bonuses, and while they rightfully argue on every expenditure program that we should be looking for evidence-based, that is programs that actually work and promise and pro-- and provide the promise to outcome and we ought to eliminate duplication and inefficiency, they have absolutely no interest in evidence-based tax expenditures, which is what is involved today. when the evidence conflicts with their ideology, they abandon evidence and pursue ideology. the evidence-based approach to this particular expenditure could not be clearer.

what's involved here is that when any business goes out and obtains a machinery, a vehicle, a truck, a building, they depreciate it over the useful lifetime of that asset. standard accounting principles. and what's involved here today is washington math. it's washington manipulation of traditional accounting rules. it's a matter of violating those traditional accounting rules, and we have learned from the economic studies that that is a very sorry, not evidence-based investment. indeed, even as a stimulus, the analysis shows that for every dollar that is invested we get 20 cents of growth. a fellow could go bankrupt with that kind of economics, and that's exactly what they would have the country doing and not meeting its other needs while funding something that doesn't work. both the federal reserve bank and goldman seahawks, not exactly a democratic

organization, -- goldman sachs is, not exactly a democratic organization, says this treatment, if it expires, will not have any significant economic output. any economic impact. rather, today's bill is an example of the very kind of waste and inefficiency line items that they always say in campaign rallies they can discover and eliminate but today they are perpetuating. i am for a pro-growth, pro-job creation set of government policies, including tax policies that promote competitiveness. it's competitiveness that involves an adequate transportation system, a trained work force, the research in medicine as well as in technology to help us compete, but we don't have the federal resources to hand out one bonus after another to corporations when we know it won't work, when it will not grow our economy at the same

time that the same people that are advocating policies that don't work refuse to pay for policies that do work. we should reject this bill. it is not in the interest of the country. it may be good politics in an election year, but it is bad economic policy as near every economist who has looked at the issue in an objective way has concluded, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: i'd like to recognize and yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam, a member of the ways and means committee and an outstanding member of the select revenue subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman for yielding. we all know the short-term tax policy is bad for business, bad for the economy and bad for jobs. and yet we've heard today from our friends on the other side of the aisle that -- a couple of things. number one, some have argued we are too busy. there are too many other things to be dealing in congress and

so forth and we ought to be doing other things rather than this. i guess are you could make that argument. i don't think it's really persuasive. we can do all these things and they're not mutually exclusive. there are some that argue that somehow this proposal is a manipulation. that's what the gentleman from texas described it. i think the manipulation is having something in the tax code that we know we need to make permanent and not making it permanent. so let's manipulate the adverse effect out of the tax code. that's what we should be doing. there are some that have said this sin significant. i heard that a couple -- that this is insignificant. i heard that a couple of minutes ago. this is not insignificant. according to the tax foundation, they say this, permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%. that's not insignificant. it would increase capital stock by over 3%. that's not insignificant. it would increase wages by 1%

and it would create over 200,000 jobs. that is not insignificant. that's according to the tax foundation. so what is the choice? the choice is to vote no and walk away from that type of growth, mr. speaker. now, who would do that? you get these types of numbers. according to the tax foundation by just pushing the green button. you get that type of growth by voting yes and then getting out of the way and letting the economy come back and do the things -- the gentleman from ohio is not overcharacterizing this. the gentleman from ohio, mr. tiberi, who has great insight, by the way, is not somebody who's saying, well, this is the panacea and it goes away. that was the hype during the stimulus debate. the characterization, well, you just spend $1 trillion and it's all going to be roses after that. there is hardly anybody that says the word stimulus on the

other side of the aisle with a straight arrow. it's been completely eviscerated from the talking points at the white house. but the point is we can do something significant today, not monumental, not colossal but to characterize the type of growth that the tax foundation has said this will yield to as insignificant is either not a clear view of economic reality or just too dismissive and too much a view that we can just be save yors in this situation. we can do -- saviers in this situation. we can do some good things today. we can support the gentleman from ohio. we can move this economy forward. i urge an aye vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: look, to the gentleman from illinois, i favor long-term tax reform. he helped produce a long-term proposal that eliminated this

provision. it eliminated it. and now you come down and say you want to make it permanent. you are -- i guess i can't speak directly to you. mr. roskam: if the gentleman will yield? mr. levin: i'll be glad to yield. mr. roskam: so you make a fair point in that perm nancy is something -- permanency is something we need to strive for. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. mr. levin: i'll yield myself another 30 seconds -- another minute. mr. roskam: so i take your point that it's a good thing and you and i are -- mr. levin: i said long term. my point is you, six months ago, helped produce a package that eliminated this provision and now you come here and you say you want it permanent. this is acrobatics. this is congressional

acrobatics. you are just spinning in an opposite direction. and you're making this place a circus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. levin: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. kind: i thank my friend from michigan for yielding me this time. mr. speaker, this place is riddled with ironies from week to week and this week is no different. yesterday the ways and means committee was working on a markup of legislation for another short-term extension of the highway trust fund. you know, the transportation infrastructure investment we desperately need in this country. we were scratching and clawing to try to find an additional $10 billion over the next 10 months to try to keep some of these projects moving forward, and yet here today we have another permanent change to the tax code at a cost of $287 llion over the next 10 years and not a nickel of it paid for.

our roads are deteriorating, our bridges are falling down. i'm afraiding it's becoming an insult to third world nations today. we're becoming a fourth world nation. so having this fruitless debate on the floor yet again, knowing this legislation won't be moving forward, we ought to be having a hearing in the ways and means committee to develop consensus on a six-year transportation bill that every needs in des pretty our country but we're not doing it. the only thing during an election year is support tax cuts without paying for it. yet, every economist and virtually every business owner will tell you that substantively this doesn't make any sense either. the whole point of bonus depreciation is to try to spur capital investment at a time when the marketplace has frozen up. and it is fear uncertainty preventing business owners from moving forward on their capital purchases. you take away na temporary nature of bonus de-- that

temporary nature of bonus depreciation and you ruin the whole desired effect of what you're trying to accomplish. but i have a feeling that the chairman of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, and others on the committee, they already know this. and that's why earlier this ear when they introduced their comprehensive tax reform draft, they completely eliminated bonus depreciation. and not only that, they clawed back the accelerated depreciation, which is the basis of this as well. in order to help pay for a lowering of rates overall. and i would submit of the 14 tax bills that would permanently change the code that have been reported out of the committee so far at a cost of close to $900 billion, none of which is being proposed, if we support those measures and they get enacted into law, we might as well kiss comprehensive tax reform goodbye because the tools that we'll need to be able to lower the rate and broaden the base and make our code more competitive are taken away from us. and if you permanently extend bonus depreciation, you take away an important tool when we

do run into recessionary times, with business -- when businesses may need additional capital and get off the sidelines. but that hasn't been the problem here. since 2002 we've had bonus depreciation. we got a track record now. you look back on it. most economists will tell you it's been dubious at best. the 2000's were the worst job growth decade in our nation's history. when president bush left office in 2008, he had a net negative job growth during those eight years when he was in office. . since bonus depreciation expired at the end of last year, we have been averaging every month close to 240,000 additional private sector jobs being created in our economy today. that's without bonus depreciation being in place. what we ought to be doing today is having a serious discussion of how we can come together as an institution and find a way to help pay for a six-year infrastructure bill that will create jobs, that will start

spurring economic activity that we desperately need, that will lay the foundation for long-term economic growth with a viable infrastructure system that's there to sustain it rather than having another debate that we know is going nowhere. that's unfortunate, bus we do, i agree with my friend from texas, we need a pro-growth competitive economic policy for the american people. one that recognizes reform the tax code to help our businesses large and small to be more competitive globally. one that also recognizes that there's important public investments that we have to make as a nation in order to ensure the type of growth in the future. part of that is the infrastructure investment that's being neglected or 23 extensions merely being kicked down the road with short-term measures. part of it is having a top flight quality education system and a work force development system so that we've got the best educated, best trained work force in order to compete with increased global competition. it's broadband expansion in every inch of our territory.

it's basic research funding. it's these type of things that, yes, we are going to need resources in order to do an effective job. we keep coming to the floor week after week calling for permanent changes to the tax code without any ability to pay for it. that's going to hinder our flexibility in the future to really spur the type of economic growth and job creation that we desperately need. i encourage my colleagues to vote no on this. let's start coming together on a real pro-growth strategy and work on the jobs we desperately need. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i yield to mr. roskam. the american people it must be confusing. we have had bonus depreciation, this tax polcy, tell porery for over 10 years -- policy, temporary, for over 10 years unpaid for, supported by many on the other side of the aisle. unpaid for.

temporary. many times retroactive. yet moving that policy forward for 10 more years the same way it's been paid for over 10 years costs money. bad policy. even though we are giving for the first time certainty, predictibility to people who actually create jobs in america who must have a business plan and must make those big purchases. amazing. with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i just wanted to address two of the criticisms that i heard from my colleagues. the gentleman from michigan makes a fair point about permanency. look, permanency is a great goal. permanency in tax reform is an outstanding goal. in this current environment it becomes clear that the president of the united states has made raising marginal rates a

precondition for tax reform. we are of the view that that doesn't help grow the economy. the president claims his orthodoxy that it does. so it's not likely that this is going to be a massive tax reform effort is going to be completed. then the alternative is, what do you do in the meantime? i think in the meantime what we do we make this provision permanent, it keeps opened the opportunity for us to revisit tax reform in the future, but we ought not to be leaving the types of numbers i mention admit ago, just to refresh your wreck check, mr. speaker, those numbers were by voting yes, according to the tax foundation, it grows the economy by 1%, increases capital stock by over three, increases wages by 1%, and creates over 200,000 jobs. now, the gentleman from wisconsin made an interesting point. there were several assertions, but one of them i found to be very, very broad. he says, substantively this

doesn't make any sense. those were his words. those aren't my words. those were his words. now, think about that assertion, mr. speaker, in the context of dozens and dozens and dozens of business groups who say, this does make sense. including from his home state, the wisconsin manufacturers and commerce, the rhode island manufacturers association, the american farm bureau, the associated equipment dealers. illinois manufacturers from my home state, and, mr. speaker, from the great state of kansas near and dear tow, the kansas chamber of congress. all of which say this makes sense. this is not dubious as the gentleman from wisconsin said that dozens of economists from all over the world have said, oh, this is a in fairous plot and it's completely not going to do anything? that's ridiculous. this is good. the gentleman from ohio has been working on this for months and

months and months. while it's not about him, he brings great insight into this debate and there's an opportunity by voting yes according to the tax foundation to grow this commifment i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds, let the facts be shown in 2006 and 2007, bonus depreciation expired, and it was renewed when the recession really took a hold. and c.r.s. has said, research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective. we'll renew it but not for 10 years costing $287 billion made permanent. i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis, also a member of our committee, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. million davis: thank you, mr. chairman --

mr. davis: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member for yielding. the longer i listen to this discussion and debate, it reminds me of a game that children play. around and around and around and around we go, round the mull berry bush. because we keep going around and around and around. i strongly oppose the bill that is before us, that would make bonus depreciation permanent. yes, i support bonus depreciation. a short term basis to boost is conomy if there is letdown. and to provide some incentives to do things that we might not be doing. $287 cannot support adding billion to our deficit for a permanent corporate give away

while tens of thousands of my constituents and tens of millions of americans experience deep poverty, unemployment, and economic distress. h.r. 4718 is a corporate give away that even the republican tax reform bill repealed. there is a tremendous need to incentivize economically distressed communities like many parts of chicago, other urban as well as rural areas. and those incentives have lapsed . they are threatened. we are not sure they are going to be coming. this bill continues the republican legislative focus on the wrong issues. ignoring the key programs that create jobs, strengthen our

citizens, and grow our economy. just imagine what unemployment insurance does. it gives the person who does not have a job the knowledge that something is going to be coming to go to the grocery store and buy milk or bread. or what happens when there is employment opportunities, if roads and bridges are being repaired. a person gets a sense of confidence that there might be work for them to do. i remember the song several years ago about get a job. the guy said that every day when he reads the paper, he reads it through and through. trying to find out if there is any work for me to do. ut his wife says, get a job.

and individuals who have become because no matter what they seem to do, there is no relief. so how could i vote for this 3.3 when there are still million long-term unemployed individuals who have not been aided? i can't go to church on sunday or walk down the street without when is sking me congress going to do something about our unemployment checks? are they going to come? or they ask when are the repairs going to be made on our roads and bridges?

when are we going to get some new sidewalks? how do you fix the potholes? that are erupting all over our community. when are we going to really take care of the medicare physician, the doctors fix. when are we going to stop irrational budget cuts that strangle education, research, and innovation? when are we going to provide confidence and hope? when are we going to stop the process where the rich continues to get rich and the poor continues to get poor, and the middle class gets squeezed in to where we almost create two groups and two categories of people. those who have much and those who have little. so i would urge that we vote no

on this bill and give confidence to the american people that their needs will be taken care of. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. tiberi: may inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio has 15 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has six minutes remaining. mr. tiberi: before i yield to the gentlelady from kansas, i would like to submit for the record a letter from over 100 associations that represent thousands of employers and job creators, of whom represent hundreds of thousands of employees. in the letter they say, this piece of legislation that we are about to vote on today helps them create jobs and increases productivity. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tiberi: with that i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, distinguished member of the ways and means committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas is ecognized for three minutes.

ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yeelingd and his leadership on this very important issue. i rise today to support this bill to make 50% bonus depreciation permanent, because it grows the economy and creates jobs. short of comprehensive tax reform, a permanent e. tension of bonus depreciation is our best option to grow the economy, create jobs, and lift wages. this bill is important to kansas manufacturers and kansas farmers and ranchers. the tax foundation found that permanent bonus depreciation would grow the economy by 1%, adding $182 billion to the economy, increase wages, and jobs. over $210 thousand the -- 210,000 jobs. the joint committee on tax says this legislation could reduce the debt by as much as $10 billion. most importantly today's bill moves our tax code in the right

direction. it is broad based in that it does not pick winners and losers and does not favor one type investment over another simply it favors investments and the types of capital that create jobs and puts more money in team's pockets. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from kansas yields back. the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized. mr. levin: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts for three minutes, another distinguished member of our committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. neal: we are here for a faulty effort for one reason and one reason only, failure of fundamental tax reform. now, a good faith effort was made in terms of drafting the proposal but it really didn't go anywhere. now,