them. a lot of proposals is one where we disagree with the way in which they do it. it has to be done in a way that meets the test we just laid out. we don't believe the current proposal does that. >> dan, you you brought up the residential .ibrary -- presidential library don't be alarmed. >> good thing the security people are not here. [laughter] looking at the proposals that obamaere, mrs. [indiscernible] describe a little bit of what is hhe is doing?

>> a vast majority of this is being handled outside the white house. thehis is something that president and first lady lady, this is obviously important to them. people who are very close to them, involved in this process, i do not know if the resident has look at the bids or not. if he is not coming you will of the appropriate time. >> the perfect time is coming up not asked i have him, so i do not know the answer. >> what about giving the museum to dallas? put your politics hat on again.

the 26thering, as uss team field with republicans, do -- who do you see is the most formidable and the most beauatable? >> the caveat i would give here wea stage of the game, if judge the 2016 elections in 2014, it would be like deciding who would win the 2016 super 14th and aon the 20 fell season. two of the smartest political around in june on six wrote a book called the way to win. do not hold me accountable for anything i'm about to say. i think senator cruz is a particularly interesting candidate for democrats. with deeply out of step

the country on a wide array of issues. i have to admit i was rooting a little bit for the convention to be invalid because i thought to be interesting if he ran to austin how he would handle the nominates the of another person -- nominating of another person. i think one of the most intriguing candidates is senator paul. a message -- he is the only republican president equated a message that is not -- appealingpotentially to younger americans. every other republican is just when it comes to younger americans. they come from a different era.

the libertarian bent of senator paul, he bears -- there is a germ of something there. whether he can pull it off, i do not know. he has said some things that could be from 11 in the larger electorate -- problematic in the larger electorate. interesting one. against you rather run cruise or rick perry? >> that is like would you rather have ice cream or cake? speak to theto 2016 beat. and had to just pull themselves on foreign -- discipline themselves on foreign policy, and did not say anything about a second term ukraine and iraq.

have you talked to the president? >> i have a different interpretation of this then i think you do. i think up until the moment when secretary clinton decides she's going to run or not and beyond that, there will be a massive amount of attention to try to divine meaning and everything she says. it would've been an awkward sentence construction to go out of her way when talking about her own experience in the first term to then associate herself with a second term. she is been very supportive of the president on issues like the the -- ind ran around a ronna brown the broader

foreign-policy -- in iran around the broader foreign-policy. i do not think they will all agree 100% on every decision that was made before or since. to thisincredibly loyal president, he is area appreciative of it. all of us who work with are very appreciative of it. i suspect that there will be a lot of criminology into every word she says for a long time. but i'm not concerned about that . it is it going to hurt the president if she starts to [indiscernible] . >> i do not think so. concerns that of i have in my life, political and otherwise, this is pretty low in

my list. i do not use trying to distance herself, i think she would say she is. decisions that were made when she was secretary of state into the things that we have done now, it is a fairly natural thing. what is notable is given the highly charged primary campaign the two ran against each other, only six years ago, it is notable how close the relationship is, how close they have been on core issues and their loyalty to each other. >> thank you for doing this. we appreciate it very much. [laughter] thank you. are you having a good time? did you do anything fun? >> i had dinner with [indiscernible] . >> how fun.

>> here's a look at her primetime schedule on this he's been better -- on our c-span networks. coming up, another chance to see dan pfeiffer talking about the agenda.

on c-span two, virginia congressman scott russell discusses relations with russia. c-span three, a house hearing on the growing number of federal crimes, and the enactment of renal statutes. -- criminal statutes. on the next washington journal, mark jacobson looks at foreign-policy. that, kim stark of roll call talks about the debate over antimissile systems. journal, live at 7 a.m. on c-span. earlier today, house minority

leader nancy pelosi held her weekly briefing with reporters at the capitol. she talked about spending legislation to address the number of immigrant children at the u.s. border. >> the president put forth a supplemental that met the need of emergency situation that we have on the border. it mitigated for some of the harm that could be done to children, it was comprehensive. it was about humanitarian assistance, protect our border, repatriate the children. the senate has less money, less ,esources, and a shorter time so we need to have an even better bill for due process even better representation and more

judges to hear the cases more expeditiously. either one of those two bills is what i would support. again, whatever the bill is that comes forth, we will all review very carefully. will you a question of support this, is this the bill? we do not have any idea what else is in the bill. when i see the bill i will let you know. i very firmly believe that it would be a mistake for us to do immigration law and a supplemental bill -- in a supplemental bill. we're not supposed to be legislating on an appropriations bill. we hear that every day on the floor when we try to include the legislation that they had put on appropriations bills. for them it's okay; for us it is not. but it's not a good place to insert a clause that has such ramifications on a bill that has nothing to do really with the values that are put forth in the wilberforce law. so, again, let's just keep them separate.

immigration? immigration. you want to have a separate bill on 2008? discuss it there. but, again, don't hold the children hostage to the cosmetics of how tough you are on the border, because these are children coming over the border. >> these were some of the remarks from earlier today. you can watch the comments on their entirety any time online . >> 40 years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. >> what you have here are questions about what the framers had in mind. questions about whether the tube these that had been found out

why the committee and by the senate watergate committee were indeed impeachable. and thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorize them? watergate, 40 years later. >> earlier today in a 19-14 partyline vote the house oversight committee approved a the claim rejecting for david simas. was supposed to testify, but did not show up. the house oversight hearing is an hour and a half.

>> the committee will come to order. we are here to continuing hearing that began on july 16, 2014, called the house office of clinical affairs and supporting candidates and campaign fund raising and inappropriate use of government office. hearings toof the gather facts about the white house office of political and strategic outreach. i would like to note for the record mr. david simas, director politicalice of strategy and outreach is in fact not here today.

he was invited to speak to give the american people the chance to hear from the head of an office that has under several s misusedation the funds given to that office. on theled to appear 16th, and he has failed to appear again. has informed my staff for the first time this morning at 7:30 a.m. that mr. simas would not be present at today's hearing. we continue to work with the white house staff on proposed ways to resolve this, however, is days failure to appear noted for the record and is not excused. mr. cummings, do you have any

remarks? >> a brief statement. just one question. i just wanted to highlight the letter, the last correspondence that we just put in the record for the members. the want to draw your attention to it. , delighted july 24 -- dated july 24. my staff has reached out to your us to discuss this in good faith, i am sure they will work with you. and be helpful to review and withdraw the subpoena as we work to reach appropriate combination -- accommodation. the inquiry is very brief. before we proceed any further, i just want to make sure to confirm what we have talked

about already, that we --erstand that we are doing we resumed this morning even though we can you was not coming. special counsel mr. lerner not to come so we will not have testimony. you plan to move next to the business meeting to consider a resolution on mr. simas? non-attendance, yes. questions to be clear, i'm statement that i would like to toe to man it would be happy wait until the business meeting is given, but i want to have that opportunity. >> that is correct. you like to give it, you may. >> i will wait. response, as you know , we have an inherent obligation of oversight. the question before us today is a very straightforward question,

are we doing oversight? is it our right and our obligation to do oversight? i believe it is. there is a long president that when this committee asks for someone appropriately, and they available, and we believe we need that person, and in the case of an office of only four people, the head is not t e calming, that we expect that person to come. the record will show we have negotiated attempted alternatives, including transcribed interviews and other nonpublic ways to get the same information. my subpoena is in opinion appropriate to left, because if it implies, and would mean he would not come. it is the considered opinion of this committee chair that we

have an absolute right and obligation to investigate not wrongdoing, however this is an office that has a past, that passed under both republicans and democrats is questioned, and there has been an odd situation of saying it was wrong but keeping it for three years. shutting it down and then reconstituting it much smaller. the question that came from the briefing which i was appreciative that the white house did you must -- give us is that this office controls only the president and the first lady and it does not control the members of the cabinet. as the earlier preceding made clear, we have an obligation to look at all government officials, whether covered by the hatch act or not, and find out whether or not they are

doing political activity with government money and government time, unless explicitly exempted. opinion atonsidered this time of the committee and the council that the four people whose purpose it is to schedule the president and the first lady who are exempt from the hatch a necessary office. because this office was closed at this president as wrong as and operated for three years without finding out if those four individuals are necessary. and how their use of our text. all is are being used -- taxpayer dollars is being used is in question. we will need to ask the second question. if this office controls only the

president and first lady, and there are hundreds of potential cap than subcabinet financial officers who are then controlled to go to places where participate overtly and lyrical activities, or grow our scheduled to be in districts and states of senators and house , at times what it might be beneficial to the campaign. fund raising, or less literally, g a candidate's reelection. who is scheduling them and how are they scheduling them? oversight in the past controversial office consistent with our requirement to do oversight even without a predicate of wrongdoing. i do want to make sure that the committee understands of both sides of the aisle that we're going to ask the question as to the president and the first lady we believe we will get

satisfactory answers. we must move on to the cabinet. under this president, not you had twoy, we camera officers that committed hatch act violations. we have a control responsibility, with an inherent making sure that the organizational systems for cabinet officers and the like is covered. for theno predicate office of the president, i claim oversight, and i believe he would support me in this sensible. principle. we simply have a history under presidents of both parties this has been an area of concern in past violations. this has been communicated back and forth with the white house, they understand.

this is not about letting scandal at any level, but in fact doing the oversight we are pledged to do and cannot be done by the executive ranks, can only be done by our branch. i did get very serious that we will likely find that the committee believes that mr. simas has a responsibility to be here and find that once again we are going to insist that here in theponse to subpoena. chairman, iall, mr. thank you for what you just stand.nd for that you , so that the public , i have it abundantly clear

realize you're not saying there needs to be, but if i understand it, to your knowledge mr. simas has done nothing wrong? presidentsing iv the nor this quadrant person office of any wrongdoing. there is a past history that you and i are both aware of that a digitn opinion that be closed and a closing of the office. apparently when and offices closed, one might see in scandal is thehen reopened, it most important oversight we can do in saying that in the past is to not work properly, how do we know what will work properly going forward? i think the american people have , and weation yo must make sure that the money is

being spent correctly. i alleged no wrongdoing, but it is more appropriate when he have a history of this to look at it than the average poor person office in the white house -- four person office in the white house. cabinet a couple of members you mentioned. we would agree that those offenses -- hatch act offenses took place long below fore the opening of this office. >> that is correct, but one likely to waste before the closing of the previous office. as we talked about the white house reefing, they told us they are not controlling through this office the activities of members of cabinet which actually raises the concern that i think you and i are going to have to mutually this office,ot then who do we look to to make sure that these inherent calls

from a party office, currently party, who allowst those? coordinates those? the gentleman yield of course. >> as i hear you. in oneing in mr. simas of trying tort preventive, preventing something that could happen in the future based upon what happened under the previous administrations. >> not only that, but in a sense, and i hope we all look at this as we look at this office,

if congress looks to the system and says we see nothing wrong with the system, and then the system is faithfully executed, and something bad happens, then it is not a scandal, it is a need for further reform. i will give a current example. we voted in 2008 for a law on immigration that now is at the center of some problems. are lookingrnment to fix something, but it isn't just scandal that people are taking advantage of in 2008 law. something we looked at, voted for, and now we see. if we look into these various activities, and we see nothing wrong in the system that is the next lane to us, and what we are is happening, then in fact we add to the ease with which the administration and other

administrations can feel this is an upper read way to operate. it is one of the reasons we have been communicating with caroline larner, and one of the reasons we want her input because in the reporte wrote a scathing . the administrations of the previous two presidents were using an office that was inherently flawed. that's is why we're making sure before we look at it. letter thatad the , there weresterday -- two new issues that came up regard to the president going on trips, official trips,

and then doing some campaigning. not seen those allegations before. the reason why i raise this -- >> if you could yield. it is not an allegation, it is an observation. all presidents do both. --s office is coordination office's coordination is a very simple question of it. >> what i'm concerned about is two things. it seems as if you buy just wonder when the questions and. this is a question that was presented yesterday. eagleton's response was we will continue to work with you. i'm just wondering, whether is there a constant movement of the goalpost. our staffly to know

met with the white house for 75 minute, and answer just about every question. i know that things like it , but some point, where does that and? end? and more significantly, your understanding concern of the white house, and not just this white house. there will be those of the republican party, and we may be up in heaven somewhere. what you're implying is that this is not have an? eaven? [laughter] concern, the white house is concerned, there are certain advisors they want to make sure that they have this freedom to

talk -- >> i want to bring this to a close to bring up the next point. the gentleman's point is good and we want to come to an understanding. oversight is ongoing. about not looking to ask on a trip, when did the president say. what is the indication? impact of the advice. organizational questions are how do you decide? what is the system? paido we know that dollars are inral employees fact, even though they are clearly supporting campaign efforts, that they are , and they necessary

people's time and money, because we have a unique situation with the president that we do not want him going down to the democratic national committee for briefings. we do not want the first lady out and about, or having to go back and forth to the residents. these are combinations unique in that we're using taxpayer dollars in support of campaigns, but only because of the unique security considerations. for that reason, the process is in fact important. but we are not using the goalpost -- moving the goalposts. i am absolutely positive that if we go through this process many of your members will have additional questions. we would want to make sure that all levels of questions related to the american taxpayer dollars and the necessity of them are

answered. and recess. -- this committee stands in recess. >> it is estimated that we will come back at 10:15 a.m.

>> the committee on oversight and government reform will come to order. committee meets today to consider a resolution to reject the claim that david simas, director of the office of political strategy and outreach, and assistant to the president, and federal government employee is immune from being compelled to testify before congress on matters relating to his official duties. the clerk will designate the resolution. >> the resolution on committee oversight and reform. >> it will be considered as fred

read and open for amendment at any time. i will recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> good morning. i must say i opposed the executive branches citizens of absolute immunity. i disagree with them today. one key difference is that in the committee has identified no evidence that was a senior adviser to the president of the united states or anyone else in his office engaged in any inappropriate activity

or violated the hatch act. as a result i from we oppose this resolution. unanimouske to ask consent to enter into the record a letter that we just received last night wrong caroline learner come -- from caroline learner. >> without objection so ordered. unanimous consent that all back-and-forth letters between the white house and either staffs of the house or senate be placed in the record. so ordered. >> thank you. the office is charged with investigating hatch act violations, and investigated white house office political affairs under the bush administration.

this letter, which was just entered into the record, which all the members should now have, the specialt he spen correspondence regarding the new office of local strategy and outreach which was established six months ago, based on that review, the special counsel concluded as follows. it appears to be operating in a manner consistent with had tch act restrictions. acting int seem to be

a manner that violates the hatch act. thate no reason to believe activities exceed those set forth by white house lawyers, oversight, and reform committees. these conclusions are from the top official at the independent ofncy with the core mission enforcing the federal hatch act. originally invited the council to testify on the committee's hearing on july 16. hearing,before that the special counsel submitted a written statement indicating that she planned to testify at her office had identified no

evidence of improprieties. that -- cutsgot that. short and recess until today, she was not able to testify. again, shooting will not -- she will not be testifying this morning. that is why today i'm making a -- making public the letter received last night. raising the concerns of two cabinet secretaries. the actions described with both occurred in 2012, before this new office was established in 2014.

let me say this. house, webers of this should all be concerned with its credibility, and with its authority. i opposed the assertion of absolute immunity, i agreed with the district court judge that concluded that the assertion was invalid. longthough it is based on standing practices of both the ministrations, i respectfully disagree with this white house 's assertion of absolutely immune it -- absolute immunity as well. but this is the worst case try to assert our position.

i'm deeply concerned that our committee actions here today could threaten to reverse those we pursue this case with no foundation, no basis, and no predicate whatsoever. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to support this resolution based on these meager facts. instead let's try to see what the remaining questions are that members may have about this new office, even after all of the letters and the white house

briefing, and documents that we have reviewed. there may be other questions. just as late as last night, the eagleson arend mr. still reaching out, trying to work out accommodations, and left the door open so that those accommodations might be made. let's work together to get answers to those questions, without resorting to these kinds of unnecessary and counterproductive actions. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. i now recognize myself. the white house's decision not to make david simas available has denied the american people the opportunity here from the official in charge of ensuring the white house political activity complies with the hatch act, and in fact the american people's tax dollars are not used to campaign. been hatch act

violations in several administrations, including two by president obama's own cabinet. is mr. -- while mr. simas not in charge of the white house political office when these violations occurred, he is now charge. he has a responsibility to explain on the record what this administration is doing to prevent further reviews. i repeat, to prevent further reviews. future, what he will proactively do. special counsel says it does not appear based on reviewing nd fourthback a between the white house of the does not appear to be a violation. the president had an absolute right under the constitution to have and to dismiss for any reason or no reason u.s.

attorneys. there was no predicate, no but thereredicate, were questions and those questions were asked to be answered by congress. the white house office is in federal taxpayer dollars in support of moving the president and the first lady to and from and coordinating their support for fundraising, for political purposes, and for support of candidates. there's no question that someone must have oversight. appropriated to pay for this office. the ranking member spoke of a

constitutional crisis. gentlemen, there was no constitutional crisis, we ask for oversight pursuant to our specific committee's's ossibilities -- committees' responsibilities which we were denied, and now inherit. immunity is before us today. failing to comply with congressional subpoena is a serious matter. to face the simas consequences i unnecessarily not coming. issue for himn should he ever think a position requiring senate confirmation or to run for elected office. not only does the administration feel it is above the law and claiming inherent immunity, but arrogantly

believes that it should be held to a lesser standard than the bush administration. last night i wrote to the right house counsel -- white house counsel, and offered him an extraordinary combination. after he complained yesterday that our request for mr. simas's public testimony differed from the ocean ministrations thesition, i offered him option for committing to a transcribed uni interview rather than appearing here today. they do not accept the offer, nor recant their claim of inherent community. the white house argues that senior officials who salaries who paid for by taxpayers are from testifying

before congress if the president deems it so. the district court of the district of columbia ruled in decision on a legal legal counsel claiming immunity. the opinion merely states the use of the executive branch. the authority does not outweigh that of the courts, and it does not outweigh history of two centuries plus of this branch questioning every nickel, every dime spent on behalf of the taxpayers. c opinion does not cite any case law in support of its position that residential

advisors are immune. the opinion expressly acknowledges and is not based on precedent. the white house thinks it is immune from congressional can it be any wonder that if we allow that, the american people will not just thistrust in president, but in the body we sit in? i'm going to read to you a quote. the white house must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to congress and the american people. no one, including the president, is above the law. with your indulgence, i will read it again. the white house must stop stonewalling the start being accountable to congress and the american people. no one, including the president, is above the law. is person who said that

senator harry reid, the majority leader of the senate. he was referring to the bush administrations unwillingness to make white house officials available for congressional testimony. the administrations extreme claims to be immune from the oversight process are at arms with our constitutional principles on which this country was founded. i am confident the federal courts will agree. that statement was made by then judiciary chairman john conyers, and he was right. the white house democrats -- democrats senate follow the lawsuit in which they ailed.tely previ unequivocally in support of white house officials

testifying before congress. here is a quote from nancy pelosi. here's a quote from then speaker of the house nancy pelosi. i filing this lawsuit, house -- in order to prevent the exercise of lawmaking responsibility. this action is completely nonpartisan. historically democrats and republicans alike have scrutinized the white house political office. president obama close the office anticipation11, in of a critical report by the office of special counsel released just days later.

both democrats and republicans -- commended this decision. president obama decided to reopen the office in january of this year after three years of operating without the office, the committee have some questions. and rightfully so, the ranking member said that he was skeptical about the reopening given the offices history. this once shared skepticism has since turned into an effort that appears to be at odds with our oversight. the white house is going to great strides to criticize this oversight, rather than simply cooperating.

in a recent letter, the white house called the committee's , andts to rush to subpoena exceptionally aggressive. it is six months since the opening, and nearly that long since we began inquiring. despite the committees proactively seeking corporation for month, the white house continues to instruct this investigation. defiance of a his congressional subpoena and fail to appear today. this is a second opportunity today to give esther seen this the ability to come and explain operations. i offered an alternative in response to their request to not be a public hearing. calledsident has maintaining democratic control of the senate top rarity in --

priority. that is his prerogative. of theirts the line hatch act. this is simply oversight. while the white house is made assurance that new structure is in place, no one has provided documentation. the office of special counsel has not been able to evaluate anything but publicly available correspondence. couple that with serious hatch act violations with the hatch act secretaries and it becomes obvious that there are serious and legitimate concerns. what is the white house afraid of? why would you not be proud of changes made to be compliant with the goals of the hatch act? i expect the committee will

ject president obama's assertion that they should be afforded special treatment. democrats and republicans alike have expressed the importance of congressional oversight, and the president's decision to ignore law. nina is a clear attempt to impede what we believe to be our responsibility. my colleagues in the minority can express their opinion that they do not think oversight of this administration is a -- is legitimate. opinionhey express the that they believe oversight is legitimate, then there cannot be anything more basic than the committee charged with overseeing the hatch act asking the questions how do we prevent violations of the hatch act under this administration, not

only at the level of president and the first lady, but the level of cabinet officers? no chairman of either party would do different or less than i'm doing here today, or he or she would be shrinking from the responsibilities, their pledge, and their oath. , strongly, that today's vote is not a vote of , is not a vote of anything more than a rejection of the heritage community because that stands before us today is the reason mr. simas is not here. the reason that mr. simas has not agreed or begun the process to agreeing to alternative means. and here and immunity from oversight is the question before us today. thank you. i will hold the record open until the end of the day so that all members may submit written

statements. does any member wishing to speak on the resolution or offer an amendment? you're recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to speak briefly. i do not think that people disagree with the notion that absolute immunity under all circumstances is that the white house entitled to. we draw distinctions between what happened during the bush administration and what this committee and chairman are purported to do right now. can be done, and was in the process of being done . there is no instance here at all that the insistence of the president or anybody in the office of lyrical strategy and outreach had violated any hatch act or engaged in any inappropriate activity.

they have not received any allegations that assistance to the president has violated the hatch act. the white house went on as i understand the, to provide detailed information on how opso operated with the committee. they sent over a gaggle of people to deal with the question. they exhausted all of the questions got all of their answers, and then left, and then after that a couple of questions were given in writing and answered. during the bush was completely different. that was a total investigation because there were allegations that were serious, above the forest resignations of seven united states attorneys.

here you have someone who's in office advising the president. the distinction is set forth in the d.c. district courts as one nation. they are reacting to a legitimate use of authority. they have been able to -- unable to discover the underlying cause of the forced resignations. there's no evidence that the committee is merely seeking to arrest ms. miers by calling her to testify. allegation of illegal or inappropriate conduct in the situation before us today. there are other avenues to find information. there's an ongoing process, and ,ow most things were worked out and they reached age self-declared, self-imposed impasse.

we have not reached that impasse here. there really to give you the answers of how the operation works. the issue revolves around whether there is an impasse, there is or not, any allegations of some wrongdoing. there is no ongoing investigation on that basis, and every other way for this to be done. we want a pretty -- we won a pretty important victory in the meiers case. it stated that the white house is not entitled to absolute immunity, but then the court had language to move forward. we're not there yet, and we are risking losing ground, or at for a time us up that does not serve the purpose of the american people. and getet these answers the information that the , and at the same

time move on instead of being tied up unnecessarily. that is why i think this is and i just think in this situation we are way ahead of ourselves and we ought to back down and have that prolonged time of negotiation before we reach an impasse, and then if we cannot reach an accommodation of finding information of how the office is operating, then we will talk about it again. as i understand it, all the questions were exhausted at the subsequentng, questions were materialized and answered, and i suspect others can be answered before pressing his opinion. i yield back. >> in the myers case, there was

a referral to the office of special counsel. here there is no referral. for those of you who were not here earlier today, i asked the saying, if i are understand to your knowledge, the office has done nothing wrong. we are accusing either the president nor this office of any wrongdoing. the.thank chairman, and i thank you for bringing this up. it is important that congress stand up for itself. where is this newfound immunity from having to come to congress because you are an advisor to the president? white house does not claim executive privilege. where are the sounds of this newfound immunity? canthey simply say that you

never come up here because i did nothing wrong? is that the standard. that is what i hear. is my colleague trey gowdy and jim jordan like to point out here, can we ask any questions of this person? can we talk about good news? can we talk about appropriations? is an advisor of the present a cabinet-level person? seems to me that secretary defense,e secretary of the others are advisers to the president. they come appear on a routine basis although time. i also find it interesting, mr. chairman, that this person's title is director of political strategy and outreach. what does that mean? it is a new office. what is outreach? can anybody answer that question?

what is outreach? if we are going to do proper oversight, it is not just following some headline because there are some scandal and a whistleblower. we should be doing regular oversight of a whole host of agencies. even when things are going well. this is how we do things. i think it is interesting that the argument that there is no legitimate reason to talk to them -- of course thomas there is, that is what makes the united states america the most unique country on the face of the planet. we are self-critical. we do look under the hood. we do find out what is going on. if there is can executive privilege, then claim that. we will be respectful of that. there's no reason we cannot have a dialogue and discussion with this person. i find it interesting the white house will send five attorneys to brief the safed, but when we want to do that in the light of day, and we want to have it open

and transparent, or member, this is going to be the most transparent president in the history of our nation, but we want to do that in the light of day, they say, oh, no, no, no, we are just going to let the staff see that. isn't there something fundamentally wrong with that? yes i'm a there is, and has trey gowdy pointed out, the same standard, no matter who was in the white house. i was not here during the bush administration. i suspect there were a host of things that were wrong. let's come up with a standard, no matter who is in the white house, that you want to live with. i cannot live with the idea that they are immune from testifying before congress. and will not even come answer a question. they're not pleading the fifth, they are not saying they have executive privilege. care just immune from e ven showing up. it is not something that we should allow to have happened.

resolution.is we need to stand up for ourselves, and i yield back. >> i want to thank the gentleman. the ranking member appropriately noted something that i said earlier today in a colloquy, and i think it is important we remind everyone of what he said, because we agree on that. there is no predicate of some criminal act here. this is about inherent oversight. but there are questions, and there is a history. there were acts that have happened during this present's tenure, which violated the hatch act, by individuals, and there is a history under previous presidents. tenure, which violated thedurin, april, may, june, and now most of july, that we have been

seeking answer, the president has gotten into air force 1 time and time again and raised millions of dollars. this office of political affairs has coordinated those trips. undoubtedly people have written to the congressmen, have written to newspapers, to the office of special counsel, concerned about the use of air for the president and other aircraft, for the first lady, the use of aircraft for the vice president, any time officials and add a political event or they simply go out on a political event. we believe strongly that that history is well established. we are not objecting to it, but we have an oversight responsibility, and i ask you to remember that as the question before us today. i think the gentleman for yielding. -- i thank the gentlemen for you yielding. the next person holding up his

hand is mr. lynch. >> thank you. i thank the chair for yielding. i do think recourse to the law is probably a good starting point on this, and we do have a well-plowed area of the law called prior restraint. under the doctrine of prior restraint, which is very firm within our constitutional abide, the law does not prior restraint. and what we are doing here is you are saying that this advisor to the president has engaged in no illegal -- there is no allegation of illegal conduct on the part of the president's advisor. we are not saying that. we just want to haul him in on him,t a subpoena have him sit here, answer questions under oath, ok? balance, thermal

law would look at the balance of interests. the ability of the president to have some advisers to receive counsel. interest is in finding out to basically get inside that counsel, and find out what they are thinking, with no allegation of any wrongdoing. you are trying to cut off and have a chilling effect on that communication between the ntial advisor and the president with no allegation of wrongdoing whatsoever. dois what you're trying to here. and my belief is that is that for any president, not only does president, but every previous president. if they cannot talk to their advisor without congress, with

no allegation of wrongdoing, hauling their advisor before the them with a subpoena or otherwise and demanding answers on that relationship, that communication between the president and his advisor, that is very bad for our government, bad for the executive branch. it is bad for the american people as well. >> will the gentleman yield? >> briefly. >> i appreciate it. if there is executive privilege, they just need to claim it. >> no, no. the president should not have to speak tocase fight to their advisor. there is recourse for the chairman. yet the courts, you have the hatch act. yet legislation. we are lawmakers. we could change the law. we could bring charges. your problem with those stipulating you are

that this man has done nothing wrong. so you do not have a way in. your problem is he has not done anything wrong and you have admitted it. that is why you are having a problem getting answers, because there is no complaint of wrongdoing here. this is just a -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> not right now. let me finish my thought. under the normal procedures, we do not bring charges until there is some wrongdoing. we do not prosecute under the law until there is wrongdoing. you want to skip that part. you want to skip that part. you do not want to wait until he has done wrongdoing. you don't want to think something up. creative minds could come up with the allegation of some point of some wrongdoing some gentlemanrag the

down. >> you believe the only people we should call before the oversight committee are those accused of wrongdoing? >> no, no , no. i think there should be an allegation. believe me, take a look around at this government. >> will the gentleman, for quick, quick question -- >> no. this body, this oversight committee has plenty of work to do. chargers choose -- our jurisdiction is when something is going wrong involving the united states government it is our job to oversee that. get plenty on our plate. we have a target-rich environment, with all the things going on in the world today, and we are shipping mean -- who have donelks no wrong in your impinging on a basic prerogative the president ,as to get free and unfettered

counsel from his advisers and we are trying to interfere with that. it is a prior restraint on communications. i yield. mica is recognized. the gentleman wants 34 seconds. no, he does not. i just heard commentary and i respect the gentleman's opinion from massachusetts, but first of all, all you have to do is look at the history of this. the white house political office was closed in january of 2011. it was closed just days before a scathing report about abuse and misuse of that office occurred. now, look at the history. just january of this year, the beginning of this year, 2014. again, shakespeare said

something was rotten in denmark. well, something smells awfully fishy in washington. i do not know where my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were this week, the president of the united states -- in fact, even the most liberal media, as i went to bed last night, i saw the theydent's air force 1, broke in one of the stations as he arrived, and he had just finished a three-day whirlwind on air force 1, a very valuable federal assets. he had a tour around the united states, running his fishing nets for political purposes. he is not running for office. again, he cannot do that. i think the constitution prohibits that. but he is taking the white house and its asset, which is obvious to anyone on the planet, and

using them for political purposes to the extent, which, again, even the liberal media is having heartburn. >> with the gentleman -- >> no, i will not yield, because this committee has the right to this matter, how these assets are being used. this office has now been reopened, and we have seen a use of this office unparalleled in the history of administrations. yes, president bush, president reagan president clinton, they all use federal assets for political purposes, but this and, again,eopened, thes like the president of united states is spending so much of his time on political matters, using federal assets for that purpose, in an unprecedented manner. again, i get the schedule.

almost every schedule i get from the president -- don't you members get it, too -- he uses it for one little thing in york, colorado, texas. just the last few weeks. yes, we have a right and an obligation as the chief investigative body in the house of representatives to see what is going on with this reopened political office, using assets and taxpayer money. intervs there abuse? we do not know. does he have immunity or executive privilege? there is no way. he is not advising him on policy in the middle east or on federal policy to congress. this is a political office using assets of the taxpayers, in this

committee has every right and obligation to investigate what is going on. i yield back the balance of my time. or yield to you. think the gentleman from florida makes an exceptionally good point. this is a political office. this is not advising the president on substantive policy matters. then another thing i would like to highlight is we do not know what we do not know. and a review of documents may yield nothing or may yield something. it may yield something. winky been given zero documents. if somebody is going to make the case that we should -- if somebody is going to make the case that we should not have documents, that is a new standard. if someone wants to defend the president at all costs, what is the outreach? if they are the office of political strategy and outreach, what does that mean? do? do they

they are using taxpayer dollars to do it, and i think we have a legitimate reason to look at it there may he nothing there. if you may be the most transparent president in the united states -- >> will the gentleman yield -- >> then show us what you got. do it in the light of day. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from the district of columbia is next in seniority. chairman, this is perplexing inasmuch as it involved those members of congress, where some of the root principles of what is basically at stake here seem to be misunderstood. the gentleman from utah said we do not know what we do not know. we are talking an immediate advisor to the president.

when you say you do not know what you do not know, you're really talking the classic language of a fishing expedition. we do not know what we did not know, but if we fished around, we are sure about to find out -- >> with the gentleman yield? >> i have not finished. >> but i have agreed with the generally the. earlier we were very clear. this has taught or did off as oversight -- this has started off as oversight -- >> you're using my time, chairman, because i want to make a fundamental point. to be sure, this is not about executive privilege. it is not about the kind of language we throw around in this committee. it is about something far more and that is separation of powers itself. why republican colleagues are about to file suit -- my republican colleagues are about to file suit against the president of the united states based on this notion of the

separation of powers. they want separation of powers of observed when -- powers observed when it comes to the congress, but when the president essentially -- that is what he -- under a constitutional separation of powers government, i do not have to send my immediate advisers to and theth you, analogies that have gone back and forth on the other side, as if this were an investigation of an agency, show that there is no understanding about the separation of powers itself. immediateent's advisor is not an agency, and this is not a matter of policy. expedition,shing has comehe president

to allow the committee to understand the fundamentals of the office. you want to understand whay we set up this office? over herebeen time and again. pkus,you call mr. sim you are calling the advisor of the president himself. you need a predicate to or a subpoena. you need more than a fishing expedition. knowo not have a right to everything in a separation of powers government, my friend. that is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation of powers government. this is an immediate advisor to the president. if you want separation of powers so deeply that you are

about to file suit against the president, it seems to me that at the very least you ought to be willing to continue in this process until you have exhausted all other remedies still available to you to find out as much as you can about this office before doing a showcase fishing expedition subpoena designed clearly more to get the attention of the press than to get the attention of the president. i yield -- >> will the gentlelady yield? >> i yield to the ranking member. > i want to thank the gentlelady. so theng i want to add, public will be clear, the office of special counsel has reviewed

various communications. givenides have been thermation showing that 2008, anom back in investigation by the waxman then a morend recent report by the office of special counsel, all of that has been given to folks in this office, and they are adhering to that, and the office of special counsel has said that. and i think that they have bent over backwards trying to accommodate, as you said, and i think there is clearly a question of separation of powers. i think the gentlelady for yielding. the gentleman. i think the gentlelady. i am informed there are two more people who seek recognition, perhaps sharing that time on your side.

is that correct? i would like to try to just organize -- us sixhe chair will give minutes display, we will do that. >> if is fine with the ranking member, i ask unanimous consent that we split six minutes per side to bring this to conclusion. -if that is acceptable that is acceptable- >. >> the gentleman is recognized. and be kind to your friend next to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the original title of confirms thehardly assertion that we are just trying to get at the truth, that we recognize there is nothing on towards that has happened, but something might happen, and so preemptively we need to pursue this matter. that is a thin read legally, a

really thin read, and i have no confidence it would be upheld in the courts. in sharp contrast to the previous administration, which was described -- their office of political affairs was described as the political boiler room. this one, according to carolyn learner, who was sure to test mike, but not allowed to, she found no violations of the hatch act. and by the way, what is ironic is, in the advertisement of the title of this hearing, the majority staff got the title wrong. they cited the white house office of political affairs. that is the title of the bush administration office. it is not the title of the current administration's office. maybe that was a 40 and slip, although if they want to go active the bush administration

to examine in great oversight detail, knowing their commitment oversight, about the many, many violations that occurred in that administration, unlike this admission, which is been found clean, by the office of special counsel, they will have full democratic support. this is a sad day because i think i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, especially those with leaning -- legal training, i think they're going to do damage to our institution. we are going to get greater -- inlity in the djibouti legitimate oversight and in legitimate assertion of the rights of the executive branch, because we are abusing that we have no foundation for this action. we are going to take it because you get the votes. but should we take it is a different matter. i now yield to my friend from california. and thank my good friend

colleague, and i will make sure i have some time left over for my good friend, mr. lynch. i will be very brief. this is a patently political action. and i agree with my colleague when he says that we are placing this institution in great harm, and doing great damage to it. said,colleague ms. norton this is a fishing expedition. we are talking about an office million of taxpayer funds. that is it. $1 million. if they are so concerned they are making sure that they are for preciselyey the right purposes, then call in the general accounting office which is available to us night and day and have them go and audit the office. 2 months ago i sent to the chairman of this committee a letter asking him to start an investigation, hold a hearing on

health management associates, which has already ripped off the taxpayers of this country by $600 million in medicare and medicaid fraud. are we doing anything to look at something as important as that issue? oh, no, we want to investigate the president's $1 million political office to see if the funds are being used for political or governmental purpose. this is a mockery, and i stand with my colleagues objective should. i go back. >> i now yield the balance of my time to mr. lynch. >> i think the gentlelady for yielding. a number of times i've heard the assertion that we do not know what we did not know, but we do know what we do know, and the republican staff at the white house and asked a whole lot of questions that you just asked. they asked, what are the functions of this office? who say you do not know. your staff went over there, and

they got the answers, and the white house explained that the new office is set up for two primary functions. one is to obtain information to help form the president policy agenda and make sure that his visits are being effected, and politicalnd medications on that half of parties to determine whether invitation should be accepted. before when this happened, all different officers of the white house would get invitations, which led to potential violations of the hatch act. so they are concentrated in this one office. if you take the time, your staff did a very good job. they asked some very pointed questions of the white house when they went over there, and the white house, in fairness to them, did answer those

questions, and all without a subpoena and without a public show and all without it appearing -- without interfering with the right of the president counsel's to advise him. i think the white house has been very cooperative in this e respect, and the fact you cannot find anything wrong is no reason subpoena.a i go back. control the will last six. >> i want to thank my college. i've learned a lot this morning. i've learned that you can have a firmly-rooted right to assert -- i was previously not a rerun of that. what i would like us to lead with today is some consistent on what the standard is. understand, because i honestly think there is a hunger in this country for any group to

apply the same standards, the same roles, and us of politics -- rules, regardless of politics, regardless of our. recess appointments should not depend on which jersey the president has on. we should all agree on that. so too the power to summon someone for the people's house should not depend on which party is in power, and what i have heard from colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning cannot possibly be the standard. the standard cannot simply be that you have to have done something wrong. we do not have the power to investigate criminal conduct. you all know that. remind us of that all the time. he did not have the time to investigate or prosecute criminal wrongdoing. that is another branch. so that cannot possibly be the standard. someone before congress to discuss good news? what if they have done a good job?

can we send him a summons? can we invite them to come share with us the progress and the success they have? not under your standard. can we invite someone to come discuss how to take their department from good to great? you're doing a good job, lets you a great job? can we summon them before the people's house? not according to your standard. can we invite them to discuss appropriations? discussummon them to policy? not according to your standard. your standard is you have to have done something wrong or you have to have broken the law, and you all know that cannot be right. you got a really brought lawyer over there. you know that we have no power to investigate criminal wrongdoing. so how can that possibly be the standard? what is the standard going forward after today? when can this branch, when can the people's house summon people

to come? can we discuss policy? appropriations? good news? can we bring them to say you are doing a great job, or is it only when it verges on criminal wrongdoing where you can see that we have the power? this is what is most vexing for me, and this is what i really oft, i really want some their reasonable folks on his side to think about. are you willing to concede that this site has the power to summon, or the judicial branch the powernly have to summon people on an allegation of wrongdoing. the executive branch does not only have the power to summon people. some of you who have done criminal work, you can send a grand jury subpoena to someone who is totally innocent.

they just happen to have facts that you are interested in. a circuit court judge, a district court judge can serve in a civil case a subpoena someone. there's no allegation of criminal wrongdoing. you all know that. many of you have practiced that. so why are you telling us that we have less power than the other two branches under the constitution? what is the standard going forward after today? can somebody explain to me, because we all believe in bright lies, but i may live long enough to see a republican president. so what is the standard going to be? what is the standard going to be? i will tell you what i would like to do. gentlemen -- >> i will.

me i do want someone to tell if there is a republican president, are you willing to apply the same standard, are we willing to apply the same standard? the country you're well and say at the end of this debate, it is a standard we can live with regardless of who is in power? can only bring witnesses? i am not talking about testimony. that is executive privilege. as nothing to do with what we are talking about. it is the power to summon someone before the people's house. is the new standard only if you have done something wrong and only if we have a hint of criminal impropriety? if that is the new standard, then let's live with it going forward. i just think you are giving short trip to the people's house. the reality that we cannot bring someone here to talk about good things a are doing or policy improvements, that we cannot

bring the secretary of agriculture before committee of congress to discuss something that is wrong and not criminal -- really, you need to think about what we are doing today and whether or not you are in shortening your own constitutional prerogative, because honestly, after all the morning's worth of debate, i cannot tell you what the standard is going forward. i cannot do it. with that, i will your back. >> i ask unanimous consent the gentleman have an additional 30 seconds. without objection, so ordered. >> i would be delighted to you my friend from massachusetts. >> thank you, and we wish you a long and healthy life during which no republican president serves. [laughter] thank you for yielding. ofs is all in the context the hatch act investigation. i think we went off the line on that basis.

under your theory that we would be able to subpoena the chief of staff, that is not where we want to go on this. the standard set forth by the miers case,e it is about bringing in an authority and exhausting of getting the information you're seeking or just oversight in some other way. if the standard for a limited legitimate investigation that you have to have an impasse and have an investigation where you cannot get the answers any other work, is something we require a lot more on that basis, and there has been no showing of the white house not cooperating. i all-time having expired, move that the committee on oversight and government reform approved the revolution -- the resolution of my rejecting the claim that -- is immune from

being compelled to testify before this congress on matters relating to his official duties. the question is on approving the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. any post say no? >> no. >> the ayes havfe it. >> aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye. aye.

aye. aye. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. i would like to associate myself with the words of ranking member, and i vote no. >> no. >> absolutely not. >> no. no. no. no. no.

>> all members voted? the clerk -- >> on that vote, 19 ayes, 14 nos . the resolution, rejecting the claim that -- is immune to being compelled to testify before congress on matters relating to his official duties is approved, and we stand adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

a >> earlier today, president obama senior adviser dan pfeiffer spoke at the "christian science monitor" about republicans pursuing the impeachment of the president, if he takes executive action on immigration reform. here is more. two issues.e have we have a specific talents and one portion of the border in the

real ground phallic -- rio grande valley. --ond, we have to deal with we were talking about executive hadon around long before we the specific challenge of the border, so what is happening in the board is part of the back drop for the decision for the thinking behind this decision will make. i think it will probably the angry reaction from republicans. you already have senator cruz threats saying that he will not allow there to be a vote on the immigration bill unless we agree to deport all of the dreamers who have received deferred action under the president's executive action in 2012. i think that speaks to both the tremendous cross currents in the republican party on immigration reform where you have people

like john mccain and lindsey graham, others in the republican house who have been very open about immigration reform and a nativist tendency that has been very damaging to the republican party politically. we talk about the lawsuit and then you have sarah palin out there talking about impeachment. i saw a poll today that had a huge portion of the republican party base saying they support impeaching the president. a lot of people in this town laugh that off. i think it is, i would not discount that possibility. i think that speaker boehner by going down the path of this lawsuit has opened the door to republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future. i think that the president acting on immigration reform will certainly up the likelihood that they would contemplate impeachment at some point.

mark jacobson speaks about president obama's foreign journal,"ashington live at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. --this weekend >> i thought it would a compelling to tell the story of a white family and a black , whoy with the same name come from the same place, and follow them from slavery through the civil war, eight inch --

reconstruction, jim crow, civil rights movement up until today him a and compare and contrast. how the legacy of slavery still affects american society. a person about their family lineage, saturday night on c-span2. flournoy is our guest. >> you are focused on the crisis of the day. was of my responsibility representing the secretary of defense on the so-called deputy's committee, the senior level group that is working to the issues, developing hoppers -- developing options for the president. a lot of crisis management is.

a think tank,n your real readability is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day, lookaise their over their verizon to see what are the issues that i'm going to confront a year from now,, how do i think more strategically about america's role in the world? cofounder of center for national american security michele flournoy. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. congress has one week left until the august recess, and without the house gop conference met friday morning to undertake a look at the funding requests, the emergency border funding request it after that meeting, here's what boehner pleaded out. democrats want a blank check so

they can spend no means more. joining us is a political reporter for the washington post. out of that meeting, what did we hear from republicans in terms of their plan? from the republicans this morning that they are likely to pursue a build is much smaller. .7e president requested $3 billion. this bill would be less than $1 billion. this is something that would have specific controls on how the money could be spent and how it could be used. what we are seeing a lot of space between republicans and democrats on this issue, republicans want to see the money used to speed up deportations of as many of these children. amicus has been adverse to anything that they described is inhumane, anything that ships these children back. towant more due process

figure out whether they should be figured out to sent out are not. >> what are some of the politics behind the much smaller number by republicans? >> the president requested money larger than what he was going to get, which was a political play to begin with. that, boehner and the other leadership has to try to craft some type of bill where they can keep the republican me s in line, so there are mbers in the house that will not support any kind of appropriation to the president. by limiting the amount of money they will give this the president or appropriate to the president and adding controls to it, i think the speaker and the leadership think they might be able to keep their republicans e, because some believe that additional

appropriations are needed, but the issue is many republican lawmakers feel uneasy about eating that much money to the present that they distressed. -- distrust. >> you treated after pelosi's briefing that she said it would immigration to do law and an appropriations bill. seems like no chance to deal a law. to the 2008 >> a lot of this has dependent on the issue of the 2008 law, which says that children coming from central american countries are treated differently than those coming from mexico or canada. what republicans are arguing is we should immediately ship these children to south america, and with eliminate the question to the southern border. encrypt have called this inhumane. packaged we should not

a change of law into an appropriations bill. hadweeks ago, leader pelosi made it seem like she would be open to a change in now, but that idea, the cold water was dumped on that day, and she said that would be a mistake to pack up that type of change into an appropriations bill. what i took that to mean was any little semblance of a chance of then passing something soon on this i thought kind of went out the window. democratic votes are not going to be there on a package that changes at all. it is unlikely we will see the senate agreed to anything the republicans in the house passed. they areher issues, likely to vote on the confirmation of the new v.a. second day. how did the two bills stand? to bey are very likely passed very easily. there has never been a secretary

that has not been confirmed unanimously. we all thought it was then moving on a little bit, but mr. we that yesterday mr. sanders upset.t wit it seemed there was a lot of discord there. the theme on the hill has been do not expect anything to get done. issues, v.a., highway trust fund, so right now we see these versions of their bills working their way through committee, but there's so much distance on how exactly you address these issues that no one seems optimistic that we will see them, and we will certainly not see this done before the recess, and there are questions when you get back in september whether anything will get them. >> let's go back to the house. on the lawsuit republicans cannot house speaker, wants to bring against obama. where does that stand? >> it could very likely get a vote next week.

out ofmoved on committee. it could very well get a vote next week. the question will be how well how theident -- republicans want to set it on the calendar. it is a question of whether they it before the recess or after. we are not sure exactly when we will see the vote. boehner's caucus is in line on this. >> are they doing this because they have no vote on impeachment effort? >> there's no indication. have not me that there been serious calls from many serious politicians about this. most of the ideas and discussion of impeachment have come from former lawmakers or other conservative talking heads and not members of the gop congressional allegation. that is worth noting.

i do not believe the speaker is interested in pursuing impeachment for the president of the united states, at least not right now. there's an argument in the debate about whether this lawsuit is a stand-in. republicans in the leadership would argue it is not and it is something that have elizabeth concern about the use of authority, and thought this was the right way to do it. one interesting to note it is both impeachment and the lawsuit tools forzing democrats. they've been raising money and had been polling battleground states that the lawsuit encourages voters that are likely to vote and that turnout. democrats are very happy to talk about these because they think it will help them in to 2014. >> thanks for the update. >> thank you. >> yesterday the foreign minister in el salvador all the u.s. to respect the rights of immigrant children who have crossed the border illegally.

these comments came in an event byd by the business -- held the wilson center. this is a little more than an hour. >> good morning. it is a pleasure to have all of you here. a special welcome to our distinguished guests. we will be joined by the other two foreign ministers. welcome to the ambassador of hon doris and his colleagues who will join us. [speaking foreign language] >> welcome everyone. >> the wilson center is proud to host the ministers of el salvador and honduras. they will be discussing this situation of young people who have been migrating an unprecedented numbers into the united states.

this situation is a human tragedy and aroused well-deserved concern in all of our countries. push and pull factors are involved. there is the lure of a better life in the united states, and in many cases, the opportunity to be reunited with family members who already live here. there is the personal safety fear because of high levels of violence in these communities that drive young people away. to be certain, there are no simple solutions to the problem. a number of measures can be taken to dissuade young people for making the trek north. the governments of the countries represented have already taken a number of these steps. a longer-term challenge that has to do with poverty and violence are going to require sustained efforts. to invest in education, jobs, and rule of law. these are things that primarily

have to be done in each country and led by their government and their societies. there is also, since this is an issue that binds us together, opportunities to do things together across the region am central america to north america. our colleagues at the wilson center have been covering this issue extensively. chris wilson, they testify in congress among convening discussions with civil society leaders and others. this is a strong commitment to central america, and also migration is a major concern for many of us at the wilson center. a few months ago we did a report with the migration policy institute where we look specifically at central america, the three countries here. what we should be doing together in terms of managing migration. in terms of regional competitiveness so we can manage

migration but also deal with the long-term concerns. it was a report that came out that actually was -- had people from all five countries involved. we did this before the major flow started, but there are some ideas in terms of longterm security in the five countries and what binds us together, and why we benefit by working together that would be worth looking at. the wilson center president is not with us. she is at the aspen institute co-chairing an advisory group. she let me know she spoke with the secretary last night. one thing that he pointed out is the fact that migration flows are decreasing noticeably. the foreign ministers pointed this out from the numbers they have.

we are seen a 50% drop over the past 15 days. what this should allow us to do is focus on the positives, on the root causes. it is something in the interest not only of el salvador, honduras, guatemala, but the united states. welcome to the foreign ministers of el salvador and guatemala. good to have you here. the wilson center's latin america program is proud to be a trusted space where this can be discussed. i'm very pleased to turn this over to the director of the latin american program at the wilson center. [applause] much.welcome to everyone. -- >> thank you very much. welcome to everyone.

thank you for your patience. thank you to the ambassadors of el salvador, honduras, and the three distinguished ministers of el salvador, guatemala. as you notice, the crisis has given rise to a roiling debate in the united states, not only in the congress where there are divergent opinions over how to respond, but in the cities and towns across the united states that have been asked to shelter large numbers of children pending the review of their cases. for all the hardships that have been suffered by these young people and the divisions here about how to respond, i see one thin silver lining in this crisis. it has focused renewed attention on the insecurity and lack of opportunity that affect millions in central america. i can recall, and there's some veterans of previous eras in u.s. relations with the region, i can recall no time since the

wars of the 1980's when so much u.s. media and policy attention has been paid to the region. we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the surgeon these miners, but there can be little dispute over the objective conditions from which they come. according to our own department of homeland security, seven dorian children come from extremely violent regions where they perceive the risk of traveling alone to the u.s. is preferable to remaining at home. poverty levels in this northern triangle of three countries have gone down since the 1990's. it is still the case that approximately 45% of seven dorian's -- salvadorians are poor. there is no magic bullet to address these problems. the of taken decades, if not centuries to develop. progress is possible with the right leadership, sufficient resources, active civic