pass important legislation. and, again, we had a bill. we could have had comprehensive immigration reform that passed the senate in a bipartisan way, but thank you, mr. chair, and i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding, our ranking member on the appropriations committee who from day one knowing of this challenge that we have with the children at the border as reacted in a very wise, humanitarian, yes, practical way as to what the best way is to address the challenge under the values of our country and save the children. i was interested in the back and forth between the distinguished chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, and our ranking member on the subject of the change in

the law that is in the legislative language that is in this supplemental. because i agree with our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer, and others who have said there are two things happening here. one is we need to address the challenge, the humanitarian challenge. we need resources to do that for particular purposes, and we should do that in the supplemental. another is to change the law which we shouldn't do in a supplemental. it is legislative -- legislating on an appropriations bill in a manner in which all kind of statements can be made which may be anecdotally significant but not significant in terms of the difference that they make -- a difference enough to change the law. and so when people talk about witnesses in one context or another, just saying something on the floor of the house, it's

interesting. but there should be hearings, if we're going to change the law, there should be hearings where testimony can come forth, challenged, confirmed, whatever it may be. but a serious discussion worthy of the country that we are, worthy of the congress that passed the wilber force law which was a very bipartisan initiative, and i salute my republican colleagues who played such an important role in passing the bill. and that bill directed agencies of government to incorporate anti-trafficking and protection measures for vulnerable populations, particularly women and children, into whether it's postconflict or humanitarian emergency assistance and program activities, according to the law. there was a purpose for the law . with a phrase in an

appropriations bill we want to undermine that purpose, that's not necessary to do here. why does this belong in a bill where we are allocating resources to meet a humanitarian challenge that we have? now, let's get to what's in the actual supplemental. i had hoped that we could work in a bipartisan way, and i thought that's the path we were on. the republican majority wanted to decrease the amount of resources and the amount of time. well, that's commensurate. it's a lower amount of money in a shorter period of time, that's ok. but when you change what that money is for, then you are doing a disservice to the entire issue. instead of providing adequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs, the immediate humanitarian needs

largely of these children, that is just totally inadequate in this legislation in terms of its proportionality in the bill. whether it does not -- it fails to provide any resources for legal assistance to these children to plead their case. they may have a legitimate cause for asylum refugee status to come into the united states or not. but they should be represented and they should be represented in a way that repatriates them back to their home country if they do not qualify in a way that is safe. this legislation does not do that. . the american people are fair minded, they are wise, they are practical, they want to help but they want to do so in a way that is fair to everyone involved. they want to see the children. there's not enough resources here to do that on the humanitarian side.

they want us to honor who we are with due process for these children. this legislation does not do that. they want to have judges to quickly facilitate giving these people a hearing in addition to the representation that they should have due process. the bill does not. it tramples due process to rush terrified children back to the violence of their home countries. that's not who we are as a country. and it also poses a particular dangetory children victims of gang violence and human -- danger to children victims of gang violence and human trafficking. human trafficking. it's a global crisis. it is happening at our border. we have a bill to stop it. this legislation on the floor today weakens that and then a manner of distribution of funds

and pause it of funds does not -- paucity of funds does not address the challenge. it takes us backward. it's hard to understand. now, what we should be talking about is what mr. tierney suggested, how do we help communities that are receiving these children into their communities and our country? again, how do we help? this bill hurts. so in addition to this, we -- i guess the way you were able to get the votes for this bill, which is even opposed by people who are anti-immigration because it's not bad enough, you had to sweeten the pie by having a follow-up bill that would only be taken up if enough of your members agreed to vote for this bad bill. not hat, again, does address who we are as a country. we are a great country because we are a good country. as long ve said that

ago as 200 years ago or longer. so let us be good and let us be great and let us do something that really was closer to what the republicans were talking about earlier in this discussion . it seems that in order to get more votes you had to make the ill worse. worse the bill, the more votes on the republican side. no, let's find common ground in the middle where we can get the most votes to do the best possible job that we can do. it may not be every good thing that we would ideally like to do, but is a reasonable place to go forward and to honor what the national catholic conference of bishops have talked about, where all the people of faith are urging us to do here in the congress of the united states. and that is, to honosly respect

the dignity and -- honestly respect the diggity and worth of all these children, all of them children of god. i get mobbed for quoting what the bishops have said because it is so generous to the children. but let's give the children a fair shot. let's do wetter -- better than this. you know this bill isn't going anywhere. so once again it is a waste of time. it is not a statement of values. it is a statement of meanness. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 5 1/2 minutes. the gentlewoman from new york has nine minutes -- eight minutes. mr. rogers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i'm

pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. farr, the ranking member of the agricultural subcommittee of appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. farr: thank you, madam ranking chair, for yielding. i rise, madam speaker, on this bill with great concern. i feel bringing a lot of fashions to this debate because i lived in the barrios, like the ones children were coming from, when i was a peace corps volunteer in latin america. this is not a border crisis. this is not a border security issue. this is a humanitarian crisis. it's caused by problems on both sides of the border. our country has a lot at fault here because we have not addressed comprehensive immigration reform, which means we have 11 million people living in the united states undocumented. they are essentially incarcerated in this contry. they are not allowed to go home

because the minute they go home and try to get back to the united states, they get arrested and they are not allowed to ever return. or barred for 10 years to return. what happens? they have been living here for years and years. they have children that they left because there were job opportunities here. and those children are now living in places that are really dangerous. and all of a sudden, yeah, things have changed. they got to get out. these countries are ranked number one, four, and five of the highest murder rates in the world. they're leaving because there are real serious humanitarian crisis and they are showing up on our border and they are not sneaking across the board he -- border. they are throwing themselves, help me, help me find my relative, my dad, my parent, my mom in this country. what does this bill do? it doesn't address the humanitarian problems at either end.

it hires more cops and puts military in there, national guardsmen. if that's such a great idea, why is california, with probably the busiest border in the world with mexico, not putting the national guard down there? our governors and mayors don't think it's necessary. why are we putting more money for -- in for national guard? we don't need national guard we need red cross. humanitarian crisis. money for arms and more money for military and cops. i don't think that's the right answer. we are also doing some something really dumb. we are stripping a law now that says when we give money to these countries -- by the way, before you spend this money on your cops and military, you got to vet them. we have a human rights standard. this bill throws that out. you don't have to do that now. we are going to give you $40 million of american taxpayer money and you don't have to do

anything to abide by human rights. that's really dumb. i don't think american taxpayers want their money spent that way. you know, i'm going to call upon my colleagues here not to come down here and think of themselves in a partisan way or election year way. come to this floor when you have to vote on this bill and think of yourself as a parent, as a neighbor. a kid who's knocked on your door and you go, say, oh, my god, she's crying anne, what's happened? my house, they are raping people and killing people and i'm running away. this bill says, oh, what's your address, i'll take you home. don't vote for it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. cuellar: thank you, madam speaker. i support full comprehensive immigration reform, but today's

vote on this supplemental appropriation bill is to provide funding to i.c.e., border patrol, and other agencies to deal with the humanitarian crisis on the border, an area i represent, an area where i live, an area where 42,000 out of the 58,000 unaccompanied kids have crossed. the policy change in this bill is to get rid of a loophole in the 2008 law that the smugglers in central america and mexico have taken advantage of. all due process and legal protections are left intact under this proposed bill. you will see under a c.r.s. report that compares the current law to today's bill, you will see the same due process, the same legal protections are left intact. in fact, i respectfully ask my colleagues in opposition to show me specifically where there's due process and legal protection is taken away out of the bill. i yet have heard where it does this. i have also asked my colleagues in opposition respectfully to

sit down with me and offer their alternative solution or their legislative proposal to this border crisis and have yet to hear those solutions. in this appropriation bill we have to provide the funding for the federal agencies to provide an orderly border. but we cannot no longer afford to play defense from the 1-year-old called the u.s.-mexico border. we need to play defense on the 20-yard line and this is why working with the central american countries, working with mexico to address the core issues and to fix and fight the smugglers is vital. i want to thank the men and women on the border that have defended our homeland, and i want to thank the border communities and churches and nonprofits that have done so much to help this -- folks at the border. in fact, i want to thank the chairman for allowing a provision for the border communities to seek reimbursement for the allowable expenses under this bill. we cannot leave washington today without putting the resources

and the policy changes to address the border crisis. we are sent here to address not the easy problems but to address the hard problems. john f. kennedy -- mr. rogers: i yield another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded another minute. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. we are sent here to washington not to address the easy problems but to address the difficult problem that this nation is facing. when president john f. kennedy was faced with a very difficult crisis, he said, i'm not looking for a republican answer or for a democratic answer, i'm looking for the right answer. and i think today in a bipartisan way we need to look for that right answer. i urge yes on this supplemental appropriation bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california,

ms. lee, a member of the labor, health, and human services and foreign operations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank to our ranking member on approps, mrs. lowey, for yielding and your steadfast leadership. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate republican response to the humantarian crisis along our border. let me start by saying that as an appropriator i am very troubled by the shameful inadequate funding levels and misguided offsets in this bill. i'm also deeply concerned by the dangerous policy riders that strips protections for vulnerable children, protections signed into law by a republican president, mind you. let's be clear. this crisis has nothing to do with the lack of funding for immigration enforcement. we don't do anything to help these children by pouring tax dollars into the further mill tarization of our border.

and -- militarization of our border. that's what this bill does. our response needs to put children first. in a hearing this week we heard first hand from central american children who had fled violence in their home countries and had passed through our broken detention system. these children and thousands like them risk their lives on their way to this country. some have witnessed murders and gang violence in their home countries and suffered freezing conditions and inadequate nutrition while in detention in the united states. these stories were chilling and made clear where we need to direct our resources -- humane care, access to due process, and support to end the violence and poverty plaguing honduras, el salvador, and guatemala. no one disagrees with protecting our borders, but come on, we also have a duty to protect these children who, according to the united nations high commission on refugees, 60% of whom were interviewed, these children need international

protection. my home district makes up alameda county, where over 200 of these children have been reunited with their families locally. their stories are real. their stories are very, very powerful. so i urge a no vote. let's guarantee due process for these children who are fleeing violence. let's have a heart. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the gentlelady from new york if she has further speakers? i'm prepared to close. you have one additional speaker? then i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. madam speaker, , ore i turn to my colleague ms. lofgren from california, the

ranking member, an expert on immigration, the subcommittee of the judiciary committee, i just want to make one statement again. the senate, after months of hearings, passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. it is really very sad that today we can't get together, democrats and republicans, and review the work that had been done by the senate and pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have prevented the emergency that we are trying to address today. the majority of the bill that is included in this supplemental should have been done through a thoughtful committee process. so i'm very pleased to turn the

balance of our time to mississippi lofgren, a member of the immigration judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for the remaining two minutes. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops tells us this bill, quote, would result in the u.s. sending children who have relief available to them back to the conditions they fled and will result in many children being harmed and some being killed on their return. i join the bishops in opposing this bill. with this bill, children who've been trafficked, who've fled persecution, violence and abuse will be stripped of protections that have existed for years. our laws provide that victims of persecution and torture must have a meaningful opportunity to request safe haven. we need not prejudge the outcome of these cases. we need only adhere to these laws that ensure that each child is treated in a fair matter that their case be

individually considered, and if they deserve protection under the law, so be it. if not go home. this is not new. refugees have received protection in america for decades. in 1980, the asylum system that we have today was established. most of the special protections for unaccompanied children were created in 1997. many were codified in 2002, but critics of the anti-slavery law of 2008 claim it has caused the influx of kids to america. but the protections began in 1997, 17 years ago. no. kids are fleeing because of the extreme violence in three countries. children from other countries in the region are not fleeing here, and people were honduras, el salvador and guatemala are fleeing to every other country in the region. a 17 -- a 712% increase in asylum cases in belize, anything rag with a and otherle

-- nicaragua with a and other central american countries. what the bill did, the u.n. review now makes clear that as a consequence, we are sending kids who have been sex trafficked back to their abusers as a consequence. rather than fix this loophole, this bill would subject all kids to that flawed process. i can't help but note that this will be the only bill, immigration bill with an up or down vote, a bill to strip victims of their protections. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. for three minutes. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. madam speaker, we have a crisis on our border with mexico right

now. it can't wait. it's a humanitarian crisis. it's also a failure of our border. 's an open border now unless you fix it. f we don't change the law to treat central american children the same as we treat mexican children at the border, you're going to be flooded. the amount now on the border will pale to incision because homeland security tells us that hey anticipate another 145,000 next year on top of the tens of thousands of adults and families flooding across that open border. we have an immediate crisis today. this bill is an urgently needed

bill. it provides immediate funding for critical border security and these humanitarian needs. the money will be there immediately. if we do not pass this bill today, you're going to risk these resources running out. then your hands will be tied. more and more immigrants will continue to flood across that border if you fail to act. this bill will allow the d.h.s., the department of homeland security, and the national guard to tighten security and restore the border . it will allow the department of justice to process the cases that may be needed more efficiently. it encourages repatriation in the countries from which these immigrants came, and it provides much-needed shelter

and care for the thousands of unaccompanied children who've recently crossed that border. we must act today before we leave town, not only to protect our borders, but to help these unaccompanied children who are being brought here by iminals, no less, on a long, dangerous, arduous journey subject to abuse, injury and death along the way. how can you turn away from these faces? this bill directs responsible levels of resources toward the front line, toward the highest priority needs. the bill puts policy measures into place that keep criminals out of the country and help encourage children not to make that very dangerous life-threatening journey. the president's request would do nothing to enforce our laws and make this nation a safer place. help the problem. stop the crisis.

>> that was at the end of debate 0 eastern, to deal with the influx of immigrants at the border. after that debate, the vote was pulled, postponed, and eventually the bill was old from consideration in the u.s. house. we understand the house rules committee will be beating tortly at about 5:30 eastern consider the next steps for the border funding bill, and we will have live coverage of that meeting. they are about to get underway. when they start, we will have it live. we have been asking for your comment this afternoon. arkey says they are leaving humanitarian crisis hanging in the wind for their vacation. other disaster for the house

leadership. they will pay heavily for this. we welcome your comments at facebook.com cspan. we will have it for you live once it starts. the issue of border security and emergency funding for the border is also on the senate floor, and we will show you comments from jeff sessions about the issue of border security and immigration from today on the senate floor and take you live to house rules once they start. , the people of the united states have truly begged and pleaded with their lawmakers for years to create a lawful system of immigration, one that works, one that's fair, one that serves the national interest, one that we can believe in. they've been justly and rightly

convinced of that fact, and they have demanded that of their elected officeholders to secure their communities and protect the integrity of our national borders. some say that there's something wrong with that. i say there's shewel nothing wrong with that. that is the right thing. that's the moral thing. that's the responsible thing. that's the decent thing. that's what any great nation should have is an immigration policy that serves its national interest and it's fairly and lawfully conducted. but these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. our border is absolutely not sure. it is in -- secure. it is in crisis. our communities are not safe. preventable crimes occur every day because our laws are not being enforced. and our sovereignty at its base level is not being protected. and we have a president planning to issue sweeping executive

amnesty in violation of law in ways he has no power to do and threatens the constitutional separation of powers. congress passes law. the president must execute the law. the president is not entitled to make law, to conduct actions contrary to plain law. the president simply cannot say well, congress didn't act so i have to act. but congress decided not to act in a way he wanted. they considered legislation, rejected it, and now he is going to, it appears from article after article go forward and carry out an action anyway. it would be fundamentally wrong. this cannot stand. this will not stand. my opposition has been and remains that congress should not pass border legislation that does not foreclose the possibility of these unlawful

executive orders. as an institution, this congress has a duty to protect this institution and our constituents. currently, the president has issued approximately half a million work permits to individuals unlawfully present in the country up to 30 years of age. now the president wants to issue another five million to six million work permits to illegal immigrants of any age despite clear prohibition in the immigration and nationality act. not entitled to do that. plain law says that you cannot employ someone in the country unlawfully. people think well, it's one thing to say you won't support somebody, but colleagues, what was done previously was to provide under the daca

legislation an i.d. card with the words work permit across the top. work authorization across the top. so the president is providing in violation of plain law the ability of people in the country to work who are not entitled to

it has been repeatedly leaked from the white house. the president has promised to have acted with groups he has been meeting with. it is only a question of time. the latest article yesterday in "the wall street journal" said

it would happen shortly after labor day. this is not something we are making a. as a direct threat -- >> we are here tonight for the express purpose of making sure aat we can be prepared for piece of legislation that i fully anticipate will be available to us. i just do not know when. [laughter] -- there is a strong sense >> [indiscernible] goodll, no, i think it is to measure twice and saw once, and if you get a chance to do that, you do the right thing. we have believed in our conference, that talking to each other goes a long way. ir outieve that if we a the things we agree with, but the difference is that we have, that we get a better sense about

not only what the problem is, but what the solution might be also. and so -- >> [indiscernible] >> we are going through a process reyna, and now we are going to see if we can get there. process, and now we are going to see if we can get there. is -- it may take a few more, but we will take what you got. we are here at the rules committee to pass what we believe was a consideration of a rule that would allow us to be prepared as quickly as we do get an answer. and so that is why we are here, and dr. burgess is now here. he has come out of -- did they take the needles out of you, mike? i'm glad you are here. so that is why we're here, and this is what we are going to do. we are going to get this work

done. the gentlewoman have any statements she would like to make? appreciate you are between a rock and a hard place, and as i look at this, i got to say i'm somewhat surprised to see that this martial law goes to september 5. without anybody seeing anything you could call somebody -- something anytime between now and vote on it. you would not do that, would you? >> i want to provide us with a maximum amount of flexibility. if it is not tonight or tomorrow, or whatever it is, saturday, that we are prepared so we do not have to call you back and we can get this done. the we are trying to just give us the flexibility. there is nothing cute or clever about this flexibility. >> last night we could have done it or today, when we did the other martial law -- >> i'm sorry.

>> that is ok. i am saying if we had done the martial law to cover it tomorrow, which is not unheard of, a couple of days, but five weeks is a bit, and we realize understand. it is pretty astonishing and i really feel that the fact that you could not get votes for this one, basically for the people that -- >> the people that do not think it was, it was not. i have a great fondness for all of you. i really do. >> i knew you did. i you are nice people and enjoyed talking with you, and most of you are southerners -- >> but you're going to hear the word "but" now -- >> i want you to take the advice in a manner is given.

i think you need a better advisor. i do not think the advisor you have got has done a good job. first, the government shut down and now this. just saying that for whatever you can do with that. >> chuck schumer and i are good friends. would give you to a different kind of advice. to knock the senator. i am sure he means well. i just think that his record over here in the house is not that good, it appears to me. and one does wonder if the president of the united states might wonder if he might want to see that house of representatives, what do you think? for malpractice? >> you know what? that might be a good question, but we are going to live up and do our job. >> we were ready to do our job today, but let's go. i do not want to hold this up. do you have anything to say? >> a couple things. theis i am reading

statement by the house gop leaders on this border bill, and i am a little confused. we began the week, when you guys decided to sue the president because he took executive action, and then you brought a border bill to the floor that restricted the executive actions by the president, and it was not tough enough for some on your wing, a toughened it up even more. you did not have the votes. he pulled the bill, in and leadership issues a statement saying there were numerous steps that the president can and should be doing right now without the need for congressional action. i have a little bit of what last year. i am wondering now, if we can get the president to take executive action, are you going to sue him again a second time? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will be happy to you. >> this said the president

should take action by himself? >> i just highlighted it. >> what? >> i appreciate the chairman saying that members of the republican conference are conferring with each other and talking to each other and having conversations with each other. i want to make kind of a radical suggestion here. maybe the republican leader should also confirm that the democratic caucus, because we have some ideas, too, and quite frankly i think we have ideas that i can guarantee you that if they were brought to the floor, if they were allowed to be voted on would pass. thing as the martial law here, it says here that the waivedf the same date is with respect with any resolution

through september 5, 2014, providing them measures relating to the humanitarian crisis on the border related to immigration law. which means anytime between now and then, any bill that has anything to do with this can be brought before the house of representatives. we will not have the customary three days and be able to review the bill. i am not sure how much time we get for we are notified that a bill would be coming up, and assuming you do not bring up something tomorrow or saturday, some of us may go back to our district. at least you could bring something up within an hour's notice. >> i appreciate it. if we go to some reality task and apply what i would say is logic, the logic would tell you that we are going to bring this piece of legislation that allows

rule.have a same-day we have have a piece of legislation. and so you would be notified, you would be given notice -- >> how much? >> are your members here or not here? >> if it is tomorrow, we are here. >> my logic of this, my logic is tomorrow afternoon, i assume, at we have notif -- if made progress, the progress that i would want, we would all want, then i am somebody will engage in a colloquy, probably mr. whip, wouldinority ask the question on the floor, please tell us what we believe the schedule would be. do we would have an idea, people go home, do people say here, and we would get an idea of that schedule, and then that schedule would tend to drive the

behavior about when we believe a bill would be ready. now, you and i both know we would probably have to come back, the rules committee would have to come back early, but we would make sure that we talk about mrs. slaughter and i would talk, my members and i would talk, and we would come back, robert, regular notice will be given. chairman, are you saying that you want to be covered in case any action is not taken tomorrow? >> you know what i'm saying? >> you're saying that by tomorrow afternoon if we did not come to resolution on this -- >> i am not saying -- can you give us some idea of the parameters of the, what you have in mind? say that i would fully expect that it would be a new bill. >> a totally new bill? >> i did not a totally. >> if you want to do a new bill, i would think that you would want to consult with

democrats so you could get to pass it. it would look good. of course, it would have to be , forertainly different democrats to vote for it. but i am saying that the appropriations bill, we may have some other people out there, but i am hoping there would be consultation. i love coming to talk to you about things. >> are we going to consult about things tomorrow? >> i expect so. >> and we would be doing a role? -- a rule? >> we could. >> we would like to express our -- our concern over this process. what some of us have been concerned about as as this process has devolved into adding things to anive appropriations bill is that none of these legislative items have

been the subject of hearings or markups or deliberations, and when you are talking about some of the actions that i heard enunciated yesterday that were not part of the regular appropriations process, but fall under the authorizing committees, i mean, i am not sure we all understand what the impacts of some of this stuff is going to be. some of us are concerned if you new, i assume,d tougher language, tougher on these kids, if you are going to add this language, i assumes that some of us would like to know they would like to talk to experts, talked to those who would be effected -- affected, those who know about how the border process works, how these cases are litigated then quite frankly any of us here know. i am not saying we did not know a lot, but i am saying is that is what you have hearings so you can learn what the applications are going to be.

i'm concerned about major changes in the law that have not been fully vetted. that, theing said more you move to the right on this stuff, i think the less likely this process is going anywhere, but you may be a vote on the house floor, and that is it. i willll tell you what do, what i will do is i will try to the best of viability make sure that there is a clear understanding that the implications of this, whatever it might be, that we are able to fully explain it, and i felt like the other day in the there weret whether republicans or democrats here that they would get straightforward answers about the substance of what we were expected to understand. if there are additional changes or changes which i do not know right now exactly what they wouldbe, i would guess, i make sure that i have someone here come as we did the other

day, who can answer all the questions that seem to wish to be asked. and i will have somebody here. >> i am just reading this right now. may i? i got to tell you, as i look at this, i've concerns i have right stepsthere are numerous the president should be taking right now without the need for congressional action, which flies in the face of reality that you have been telling us all along that he should not be doing these things, to secure our borders and ensure these children are turned swiftly and safely to their countries. for the past month the houses been engaged in efforts to pass legislation compelling the president to do his job. the house has not. the majority has. we have not been consulted in any way on this. and through an inclusive process, and i do not know what that means. what is the inclusive process? we were not included in any of

that? >> with the gentlewoman mind if i saw that sheet of paper? >> not at all. i think it is pretty damning, inflammatory. the president of the unites is, that you can get the votes devote to do anything here -- >> that is the speaker's website. >> i want that on the record here that -- about thatuch upset because there has been no inclusion. process."s "inclusive no such thing. we are members. nobody listens to us. baguettes the support of the majority ash a border will that gets the support of the majority of the majority. the rest of us do not count. got a million more votes in the last election for the democrats on this side?

i think asly resent, much as anything else come on the i got a lot to resent here, i being shut out all the time. but this is really an insult. >> look -- >> you ought to be ashamed to put that up there. apologies for not seeing it before it went. let me say this, it is much as this is concerned, what we want to do is come back, acknowledge that we are rethinking this, that we are going to read talk it over, that i will a 10th as best as possible when i see what the changes are going to be to not only, and talk with you, but have any experts that are necessary to meet the standard of explaining the ramifications of what we are doing. >> we have gone through four years of this shut out. we know obviously on this committee, we understand it was the same thing when i was a chair.

we do not have much to say, but to cut -- between the two of us, 1.4 million citizens in our district who cannot express what they want on the for, that is really pretty -- we do not being left out and we like to be part of this, too. >> the same thing can be said about the united states senate with their numbers and what they are trying -- >> [indiscernible] like the highway bill. >> they come up with a border built in a bipartisan way. makeat i want to do is sure -- i have always tried to run this committee fairly, i have always tried consult, we make sure that all the witnesses feel comfortable -- >> and you do. but it is absolutely insulting the, though, to read something

like the speaker put out, " inclusive," " consult tive."\ enoughe been humiliated that you would want to go home, so the people are watching pretty closely what is going on. pass a we want to do is bill that represents the viewpoint of this body to where we can pass it with 218 votes. >> a majority of the majority. >> there you go. i think you need a new senate advisor. >> i failed to make that meeting. , any further discussion of the -- the chair will now be in receipt of emotion from this is foxx? >> i move the committee grant a touire --r

the legislative day of september 5, 2014, relating to the ongoing humanitarian crisis on the u.s. southern border, border security, and related immigration law. it shall be in order at any time to the legislative day of september 5, 2014, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules for measures leading to the ongoing crisis on the u.s. southern border, border security, and related immigration law. motion fromeard the the gentlewoman from north carolina. any discussion or amendment? seeing none, the vote will now be on the motion from the gentlewoman from north carolina. for the motion signify by saying aye. ayes have it. >> aye. aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> no. >> aye. nine yeas, two nays. >> the motion is agreed to. the gentleman from oklahoma will be handling this for republicans. tbd. determined, we are through with our work for today. thank you very much. yes, ma'am? >> [indiscernible]

>> at the end of a very long legislative day, the rules committee meeting and what they did there was approved a rule that grants what is called same-day authority to allow for bills to be debated, a particular. as would be the emergency order funding bill to be debated through september 5. the house had been scheduled to go into their august recess as of tomorrow, but it is likely that the house will be back in session tomorrow. we know that we understand the republican conference will be meeting tomorrow to discuss a way forward. this is the republican earlierip pulling in the bill dealing with the crisis on the mexico border. more details on that. more of your thoughts as well.

we open up your facebook page for your comments. createdting that obama a border crisis. let him enjoy the border crisis he created for five more weeks. norman says republicans would rather complain about a problem rather than doing anything that might help solve a problem. looking over to the senate side, the senate just a short while ago has approved moving forward with their immigration -- with their border security bill. $3.6 billion bill. they adopted a voice vote to proceed. a reporter says it looks like p.m.e votes at 6:45 you can follow that at cs pan2. number of been a

hearings and meetings across capitol hill on this what was it was the final day of legislative work for the house. earlier today the president's nominee to be the next social security commissioner outlined her goals for the agency and her vision at her confirmation hearing. she was before the senate finance committee. she is already the acting commissioner and has been in the role since february, 2013. >> the finance committee will come to order. the finance committee is here today to consider the nomination coleman to fill the role of importance to millions of americans, and that is the position of commissioner of the social security administration. will bermed, she managing the nuts and bolts of the social security progress, a vital task given that more than

62 million americans depend on social security as an economic lifeline. in, i justght ms. colv hold up a social security am,ement, and the reason i it is my view that when americans get this document that demonstrates the amount that they have paid for their social security insurance and what the benefits are that they have earned, this is a document people hang on to, and they hang on to it because it is a testament to just how important this program is. areif confirmed, americans going to depend on you to ensure that social security is operating efficiently and providing the right amount to the right person at the right

time. and we all know that this is not for you, because you have been the acting commissioner since february 2013. for that you served as the deputy commissioner for more than two years, going out of a well-deserved retirement to engage in this critical public service. and as we begin consideration of the nominee, i would like to know for the record that the finance committee approved the nomination for that position by a vote of 23-0. and sometimes i will tell you i am not sure i could have gotten a 23-0 vote. yeah very strong support. >> i am not so sure either. [laughter] >> i was leading with my chin on that when. -- that one. >> i think so. years ofe of her

experience, she is well-versed with the challenges running the social security administration. one of the challenges is working with an a tight budget and fiscal constraints. feeling theity is same fiscal squeeze that other agencies have in recent years, and social security has worked hard to maintain critical services. that is required -- that has required making tough decisions, including reducing field office hours. colvin has been working on ways that social security can effectively manage its programs, integrity workload. as acting commissioner of social has made ms. colvin improvements. she has made a strong push to make social security information more user-friendly and accessible to a broader swath of americans. she has made social security work more efficiently with other federal partners. and she has devoted significant

time and resources to addressing the needs of the many disabled americans the agency serves. and i am very pleased that that colvin,case, ms. because a few weeks ago we had a hearing that the at those with chronic disease, and right next to ms. mikulski was a person from georgia who had done everything right in america and had been pounded with one illness after another in the table was almost overflowing with medications she had to take every day because she depends on that disability program that you have focused on. so i have no doubt that you are going to continue that important work, that advocacy work for disabled americans once confirmed. the hearing today is an opportunity for the committee and ms. colvin to guarantee

the association -- guaranteed the social security promise for future generations. i hope this moves to the committee and the full senate leader in place senator hatch will be speaking on that and then we'll have an introduction from chair mikulski. senator hatch? >> thank you. welcome, ms. colvin and i think it's a little unfair for you to bring barbara mikulski here to speak for you. we're all a little scared of her. we do whatever she tells us to do. we learned that a long time ago. i've enjoyed meeting with you in the past. today we have an opportunity to learn more about your past

management performance and how you would, if confirmed, face challenges of the future. over the past 10 years, the social security stritive bunt has increased by 32% to a level of almost 11.7 billion. the budget has grown on an average annual pace of more than 3.5% above the average growth of nominal g.d.p. the administrative funding continues to take up greater share of the labor h.h.s. aapproach races bill. we -- all we seem to hear from s.s.a. is the need for more and that any problems in administering programs can be solved over if h.f.a. receives more fund. that's true of almost every agency today in a hearing of this committee last week that was supposed to be a fresh look

at the disability program, a representative of f.s.a. devoted significant time to repeating talking points, demanding more fund for the agency. s.s.a. officials have been marching to the hill repeatedly to decry staffing reductions that s.s.a. itself decided to make, just as the agency decided to pay $244 million in bonuses between fiscal years 2008 and 2013. what i'd like to learn more about today is what you have done in managing the administrative funding provided to s.s.a., which has accumulated to more than $104 billion over the past 10 years and what you would do moving forward. i think nose are fair questions and hopefully we can enjoy working together on these things. i hope that your answers will not simply be that s.s.a. needs more funds. i hope to learn more today and in follow-up questions about what you have done and what you

would do if confirmed to increase sufficient -- efficiency in the srment s.a. to reduce billions in administrative wastes and overspending in terms of social security programs and, of course, the effort to fight fraud. while there are many concerns, let me each a few items. the figures is fraud and overpayments. uncleekted -- uncollected overpaints in the disability program have recently gronal to over $10 billion. that's almost equal to the social security administration's entire annual administrative budget. there is an unacceptably high overpayment rate in the s.s.i. program and there have been disturbing discoveries of fraud, as in the puerto rico cases, the new york city cases and the west virginia cases. as for fraud, a bipartisan investigation led by senators mccain, cobourne, carper and

levin have presented compelling evidence of fraud in the d.i. program in west virginia. it is my understanding that an alleged rogue disability insurance company involved in the west virginia cases is still representing claimants in social security eat d.i. program. as i understand it. administrative crufment d.r. law judges have retired with full retirement benefits from s.s. air. . it's hard to see how that is an adequate response and how we can effectively provide deterrents against future fraud. i hope today we'll hear from you about your plans to address fraud and overpayments in the social security programs. a second item of concern is waste. there have been recent revelation that is social security spent nearly $300 million over six years on a computer processing system for disability cases that has been identified by an outside evaluator as having "delivered

deliberate function nallty." the chairman of the house ways and means on social security has called for you to stop further spending on the system and has called for an investigation into the failed implementation of the is that's just another example of waste that has been uncovered. there are other exampleles i could mention. indeed, it is not hard to find questionable wasteful spending and payments when you read thoroughly the numerous reports by social security's office of inspector general. during today's hair -- hearing i hope to get a better sense from you what your plans are to eliminate the obvious instances of wasteful spending we've been seeing at s.s. tamplet. we have a lot to discuss today and i'm pleased that you're here today and i honor you and expect a great deal from you as we go into the future but naturally, today we want to learn more

about your stewardship of a staggeringly large administrative budget and what your plans would be to improve s.s.a.'s management and stop the enormous amount of fraud and waste should you be confirmed. these are matters that concern me greatly. >> thank you, senator hatch. arolyn watts colvin has been nominated to be the administrator of the social security administration. give you an opportunity to introduce your family. >> i'd like to introduce my sister, a resident of maryland -- maryland who's here. and a colleague, long-term state employee and his wife stacy. thank you. >> we're balad that you all are here and i would only say, as i reflect on chairman -- chair

mikulski being with us. we served together both in the senate and the other body, you are running with the right crowd hen you are with chair mikulski. chair mikulski. we're pleased to have you do the opening introductions. please proceed. >> thank you very much, senator wyden. i want to thank you for expediting this hearing on our last day in session before the august break, when there ask much on you, particularly in matters related to moving the highway trust fund. we thank you for this courtesy. to both you and senator hatch, it's an honor to be here in the finance committee. your committee, the finance committee, my committee, the appropriations committee, are the only two committees in the constitution. it is the only two committees that the founders of the united states of america felt important enough to put into the

constitution because it is the revenue committee and the spending committee working hand the nd in order to provide checks and balances to ensure the functions -- functioning of a democracy, not an elected monarchy. i think when we look at this, your job is to be looking at really the significant issues. the solvency of the social security trust fund. what do we do to ensure the future of viability of medicare and medicaid, but there's also the administration of these agencies. often overlooked in today's media-driven congress where the headlines are not in the nuts and bolts of management. but the leadership of you two, working with senator shelby and i, let's look at how social security is run. does it have the right staff, the right technology?

and the right way to do that, both with the social security administration and also at c.m.s. so hands across the aisle, hands across the committee, shoulder to shoulder. but no matter what we do, every agency needs a good leader and this is why i'm so pleased to join with senator cordon today in bringing carolyn colvin to be to you to be nominated as the permanent head of the social security commissioner. i first met carolyn colvin which she came into government under the legendy william donald shave schaffer and worked hands on with carolyn. as both the mayor, she in the health department, i in the council, he as governor. i had moved to the senate. schaffer was known for many things. one was his passion for making sure that government worked.

he was a legendary figure with his spoken do it now and do it right so he recruited people that are intelligently brilliant, had enormous competency in terms of management skills and a sense of urgency about solving problems of do it now and do it right. but he also did something else. he reached out to people of color to make sure that they were actually coming into government and for all of their previous service were actually promoted in government. carolyn colvin was over there at the health department. bishop robinson with us our police commissioner. it was a new day, a new profile, a new demographic and a new buzz in baltimore. carolyn was part of that reform movement. that buzz that do it now and do it right she has carried with her in the many positions that she's had in government. after william donald schaffer

moved on, he was -- she was the director of human services in the district of columbia. helped run the montgomery county health and human services department. a special assistant in the maryland department of transportation and then became the deputy commissioner of social security and in february also then was appointed the acting commissioner so you know her resume and each way it was the nuts and bolts of government. fix problems, do it now, do it right. she has inherited many significant issues at social security. back logs. techno boondoggles, some of the issues that senator hatch has enumerated but i think she's up for the job and i think and i'm not the only one, the national committee to preserve social security has supported her nomination, the aarp has submitted a letter. >> without objection --

>> to the record. so i bring this to your attention and also, she's been recognized by many of the women's groups and leadership groups in maryland. a private group called leadership maryland to -- who actually train people in working together in bipartisan relationships. also, she's part of the maryland 100. she and i joined. we're now part of the maryland 1,000 of people who've achieved prominence but what i so admire about carolyn is she's ready to do the job. and i'm just going to close with one example. when i became the chair of the appropriations committee, one of the perplexing issues was the disability backlog at the veterans administration and as we talked then with general shin secretary can i, -- shinseki, it's because social security and i.r.s. were dragging their ant, their response, to the information v.a. needed from

both of those agencies. working with senators tim johnson and mark kirk, i convened an all hand on deck hearing with these agencies. social security immediately responded under carolyn's leadership to make sure that the v.a. gets on a biweekly basis. biweekly, am i correct? biweekly basis the information it needs so that the veterans administration can deal with its backlog. but she's got her own backlog with the disability benefits, this techno boon doggle. once again, before she took over. no one in charge. everybody in charge. everybody indictering and moving their microchips around. you know that deal. and we saw it in the health exchange, we see it over here but i think she's the person to fix it so mr. chairman and senator hatch, i really hope, as

you can see my enthusiasm for her, and if you want william donald schaffer smiling on you today about do it now and do it right, confirm carolyn volume vin. >> ms. colvin, that is some kind of sendoff and thank you very much, chair mikulski. your passion, your commitment to these programs is renowned and i especially appreciate you bringing up mr. schaffer because i remember meeting him and i saw to how you could have your head in your heart. you said it very well. now senator cordon has the challenging job of trying to match that. senator? >> thank you, chairman. i agree with senator mikulski. >> you're not going to get away quite that easily, senator hatch, but let me first con occur completely in the senator's comments.

she's an extraordinary person. we've only had 15 permanent members of the social security administration. it's interesting franklin delano roosevelt announced he wanted to send to congress the law creating the social security administration. he announced that in june of 1934, 80 years ago. he then by executive order set up a commission that reported back to him. by the independence of the year he introduced legislation, congress took it up and by august it was signed into law, 19 35. that's a model i think for us in taking up and resolving issues. of course, it's a critically important program to millions of american. the only inflation proof guaranteed lifetime resource for millions of america. the important of commissioner is an extremely important position. not only millions of americans depend on its services.

it administers 60,000 employees. we are very proud that the headquarters of the social security administration is in woodlawn in baltimore county, maryland. the dedicated work force that is dedicated to the mission and to public service and 1/5 of americans depend upon its services directly. carolyn colvin i've known for 30 years and i concur completely in senator mikulski's evaluation. when i think of carolyn colvin i think of a person who's debt indicated, has commit and integrity. she's dedicated to public service. throughout her career she's carried an unmatched level of commitment. through ore -- her country -- current position, she's brought the integrity needed to make sure the applicants are treated fairly and the benefits administered according to the

law. senator mikulsqi brought out many of the parts of carolyn colvin's career. but she began in s.s.a. in august of 19 3 when she was hired as a clerk stenographer and now she's acting commissioner. this really is the american story of a person who's worked hard, has ha dedicated to public service for the right reasons and has accomplished so very much. she has experienced working for municipalities, for counties, for state and the federal government. she's also worked in the private sector so she brings all of that to this commitment -- to the disposition. -- this position. i may also say that she was the director of field operations for my predecessors. senator paul sarbanes. she brings a great deal of experience and she knows how to deal with challenges. whether it's the budget

challenges, modernizing the claims system or constructing a positive relationship between labor and management at s.s.a., carolyn colvin has never shied away from a challenge and i know that she will give her best. i know she has the talent, i know she's there for the right reasons and i strongly support her nomination and hope that we will confirm it shortly. >> thank you, senator kohl vin. with the ringing endorsement of 100% of maryland senators, are you now going to have the opportunity to make a statement. your prepared statement is automatically going to be made part of the record. if you could perhaps take five minutes or so to summarize, we'd like you to proceed. chair mikulski, you're welcome to stay. we know you have a very hectic day so we appreciate your coming. >> general wyden, senator hatch and members of the committee -- >> speak right into the

microphone. great. >> chairman wyden, senator hatch, members of the committee. my name is carolyn colvin and i'm the acting administrator of the social security administration. i want to thank senator mikulski and senator cordon for their very, very kind introductions. i would like to thank the senators and staff for taking time out of their busy schedules to meet with me during this confirmation process. it is a privilege to have the opportunity to lead the social security administration as the commissioner. the scope of what we do is truly enormous and it is both a humbling and rewarding experience to go to work every day knowing what my colleagues and i do for family, helping our fellow citizens. e serve in the same scope of compassion nat service that

president roosevelt envisioned. i am so proud to lead human health organizations that provide critical safety net services to those most in need. quite often i have led these organizations -- >> back to this in a moment. we'll take you live now to the u.s. house. >> privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 700, resolution waiving a requirement with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the committee on rules and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek speaker? >> as chair, i'm directed by the republican conference to notify the house officially that the

republican members has selected asthma the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. leader the gentleman from california, the honorable kevin mccarthy, effective august 1, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> as chair of the house republican conference i'm directed by that conference to notify the house officially that the republican members have selected asthma the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. whip, the gentleman from louisiana, the honorable steve scalise effective august 1, 2014. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: house of representatives, madam, pursuant to house concurrent resolution 1 and also for purposes of such con certainty resolution of the current congress as macon template my designations of members to act in similar circumstances i hereby designate

kevin mccarthy of california or his designee in the event of my death or ability to notify the members of the house and the senate respectively of any reassembly under any such concurrent resolution. in the event of the death or inability of that designee, the alternate members of the house listed in the letter bearing this date that i have placed with the clerk are designated for the same purposes. signed sincerely, john a. boehner, speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker has delivered to the clerk a letter dated july 31, 2014, listing members in the order in which each shall act as speaker pro tempore under clause 8-b-3 of rule 1. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: sir, unged clause 2-g

of the rules of the house of representatives, i designate robert reeves, deputy clerk and kirk boyle to sign any and all papers to act as the clerk of the house which they would be authorized to do by virtue of this designation except such as as provided by statute in the case of my temporary absence or zibblet. this designation shall remain in effect for the 113th congress or modified by me. with best wishes, i am signed sincerely, karen l. haas, clerk of the haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. cole: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns to meet today it meets at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cole: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to

adjourn. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted, accordingly the house stands allow bills mainly that concerns boarder legislation for the border emergency. the house is coming in tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern. we will have live coverage here

on c-span for you in terms of that bill, a tweet is big question in the house is now what? meetings tonight, republican conference tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. if no deal, the same-day authority to do so through september 5. here on c-span we'll take you back to today's senate finance committee for the come nation of the social security commissioner. >> start by reflecting on your plans after confirmation and i'm particularly struck by how the agency has changed over the years. you were there between 1994 and 2001. you were -- rejoined the agency as deputy commissioner 2010 so obviously you've seen a lot and you've learned a lot and particularly in terms of your plans for the next two years, i have been struck by the comments that you've made about new

technologies and how you would apply new technologies. i note that the recent report from the national committee of public administration addresses that as well. let's start with that. what are your thoughts about how, given the report, you can use new technologies, again, to better serve people and make better use of scarce resources? >> thank you, mr. chairman. social security is a wonderful organization and we have known for some time that our rolls would increase. right now we have about 10,000 individuals per week who are turning 65 so it's not surprising that our rolls are increasing as a result of the demographics. in order to be able to keep up with those increasing workloads and get the efficiencies we need, technology is the solution. we've begun to make great strides in online services.

we have the my social security accounts where individuals can sign up for an account and go online and transacts much of their business. well over 1 -- 12 million individuals have signed up in the shorts time we've had that. e also have disabilities and unemployment applications and about 50% of those now apply online. but we realize we have to expand in that area. our population is not homogeneous. they're people who must come into the office to be personally served. their situation may be complex, they may not be comfortable with the internet or they may prefer face-to-face services so we'll always have a field presence. on the other hand my goal is to develop systems that will be easy to use, convenient, to that those who prefer to handle their

business in the privacy on their home can. that allows us then to free up people in the office to handle those people who have those special needs. we have been very successful in developing applications, for example. we know that s.s.i., people's inability to unwillingness to report their wages. we now have both a telephone process where they can call in their wages but we also have a mobile application where they can report their wages. this is already seeing well over 80,000 people in the short time we've had this. my goal is to get most people in need of reporting their wages using their system. we also want to have a process where individuals would be able to go online and be able to get the service they need -- need online in real time. service chalts where this end be able to complete their business

and not have to come back another time. for us, technology is extremely important. >> that's helpful and i appreciate it. let me ask you about one other aspects of this whole i.t. issue. it's no surprise that we're focusing on that and this has been a special priority of mine since coming to the senate. my state was always about wood products and forestry and always will be but we've also put a major focus on information technology and that's what i wanted to ask you about in regards to social security. i've been informed that the agency has nearly 3,000 data exchange agreements with federal, state, and private entities and processes an average daily volume of 150 million individual transactions. >> yes. >> and we compared that to amazon and amazon has only 27 million transactions. that was the case back on

cybermonday in 2012. now, we understand that much of corps, . is, at its cobalt based. the computer language developed in 1959, certainly before colored television. and many of the i.t. manages acknowledge that a kobalt-based system works but they've also indicateed that it's less efficient and agile then more modern commuter languages so what can the agent ski do to update the technology that it has to be -- to have to manage this eye-popping amount of data you're dealing with every day. >> one of the underlying challenges you just mentioned is the tremendous volume of data we process. we recognize we have to move away from kobalt to some extent. but note fully. in some instances it's the best

language. it's a challenge to modernize our systems. one is how quickly we can do that because there are still other times of i.t. projects that we must also develop at the same time to make our system useful and efficient but there is an i.t. plan that will move some of that kobalt language and replace it with other types of language but not fully replace is. -- it. >> my time's expired. senator hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. colvin, social security has long been criticized for not formulated long-term plans. last year the government accountability office identified that s.s.a. faces four key areas of management challenge. these are s.s.a.'s lack of an updated secession plan, even though the agency faces a

retirement wave. disability issues, including the need to put in a "more modern cop concept of disabilities." internal weaknesses in formation security and infrastructure. i would note that the lack of funding was not identified as a key anywhere of -- area of management challenge. "they have ongoing challenges but they do not address these challenges." how will you confront those challenges in human capital, disability modernization, information technology and fiscal frain structure? >> we have recognized that the agency does need to have a long-term vision. we are in the process of doing that right now. we have the national association of public administrators that were commissioned by congress to

help in this process. they have submitted their report. we will use some of that report to inform decisions as we finish our own planning process. we expect to have a long-term vision plan around the first of the year. we need to make sure that we've got extensive engagement with our stakeholders, with congress, and our advocates and customers, etc. we're looking at making sure that all of that has been done but we do expect to have a long-term vision documents completed by the beginning of the new fiscal year. the last vision document was done in 2000 when i was here, which was for the years up to 2010 so we recognize the need there. we are in the process of also developing a human capital plan which will look at the session planning, will look at the gaps we need to fill. we probably have about half of

our employees who are now eligible for retirement. fact that our program is very complex means that this will be we'rer problem for us and looking at skilled gap training and we are modernizing our system. those areas we are currently addressing. >> all right, thank you. in our hearing last week about the disability program, views were expressed tra d.i. trust fund exhaustion has been foreseen for 20 years and that decrease in the -- increase in the disability rolls has been expected for some time. this means that s.s.a. is has had ample time to make changes. however, i understand they utilized tens of thousands of pages to decide who should get benefits, including 37-year-old medical criteria, 35-year-old vocational criteria and

23-year-old guidelines to determine what limits exist for disabilities. disability programs managed by s.s.a. "rely on out of date criteria to a great extent in making disability decisions." so i have two questions about this. the first is whether 2013 was the first time that g.a.o. identified high risks in s.s.a.'s disability programs and the second is why it is taking so long for s.s.a. to update its criteria and guidelines, especially since you've had so much time and foresight about troubles with finances. >> senator hatch, it is my understanding that there have been other earlier recommendations relative to the need to updapet some of the medical or the vehicles or tools that we use in determining disability. this program, as you know, is a

very complex program. any change is going to have significant discussions, both here in congress and inspect community. so any change that is made has to be evidence-based, has to be based on research and medical advancements. we are in the process right now in working with the department of labor to update the occupational list that we use and that has been happening for some time. it's not something that -- in fact, the occupational standards that we currently use are not going to be updated but we are working with the department of labor to develop a tool that will will helpful for us in determining our disability decisions and we are in the process of that. we don't have a timeline for that but we've been working aggressively on that. our medical listings were updating on an ongoing basis. this is the cry treea used in

making the disability determinations. they're on a cycle now to be updated every three years. with s.s.a. we don't really make medical decisions we want follow the medicine so if, in fact, there are new developments in science that make disability decisions different then we use that information, but this is something that's ongoing and is always going to be in teed of review but there is tremendous progress going on within the agency so i don't want to leave the impression that we are not making advances there. the changes that we're making, though, will note have a significant impact on the trust fund. it is our hope that congress will find a bipartisan way to address the need to have additional funding there. you're aware that congress, many times in the past, has reallocated between the two trust funds. the president has indicateed

that he homed they will do this again so we'll have at adequate time to make long-term decisions and whatever is decided to have -- will have to be a bipartisan decision. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hatchell. senator? >> it's good to see you, ms. colvin. thank you for joining us. first of all i gt awayed to exhort you to work hard in terms of expanding s.s.a.'s general communication with the public. i do hundreds of round tables and calls with senior groups and various kinds of town halls and i here so many of the same myths about social security, about disability, that it's not going to always be there and all the things that people say and i want you to do what you can to help you stop those myths.

let me talk to you other administrative things. my office got a copy from the hearing office of the chief separateive judge in the office of new york. i ask unanimous consent that that with entered in the record. >> without objection. >> and submit a record to the chief administrative judge. >> without objection, so ordered. >> the first i mentioned contains a number of fairly mundane details but also says an a.o.l. judge should be straiting 500 sufficient and first timely -- timely decisions each year. not, the agency may exert disciplinary action against you. can you talk about quoteas for administrative lue judges? >> senator, we do not have quotas.

the agency has had targets of those who would wish to see the work. nose are targets by chief judges who have held cases. they have about seven years' experience now. he motor -- majority of or a.l.j. court do reach that target, somewhere between 5 lurks and 700. no one gets disciplined because of their failure to reach that number. it's just a goal that we work toward. we are a production agency. our first priority is accuracy, quality, to make sure the decision is legally defensible. we know it's a high-volume business. when we train a.l.j.'s we mention that to them. and we have some who meet them and some who go above and it some who don't meet it, but it's not a quota. >> thank you for that.

it seems talking to them that many of them it feels lining i guess a quota. i-hope you'll -- like a quota. i hope you'll sit down and find a way to open up communications with them and reinforce what you just said to this committee right now that it's not a quota, that's -- that it's a recommendation and not a quota. i think they need to hear that. let me shift to labor management relations. even with the presidential executive order calling for labor managements partnerships throughout the frat -- federal government, it seems from our reports that it's only gotten worse to the point where some labor organizations tell us it's as bad as it gets in the entire federal government. what explains this, why is this and can i have a commitment to you to provide in office with a detailed update on progress you're making towards implementing your office to improve labor relations as

specify -- specified in the executive order. >> every organization that i've worked in we have had very strong and effective relationships with the union. i think it's very important when union and management work together because it benefits the agency and the employees that we both represent and i believe that the unions have the same goals that we have, which is to do the best we can for our employees and for the american public. there's always a very acrimonious relationship with the agency. i worked with the union when i was here under president clinton and we had what we tall called a partnership. in fact, i was the one who signed that contract at that time and i felt that relationships had improved. when i returned i was amazed to see the deterioration. but i meet with them on a regular basis. i have lunch with them without management staff so we can get to know one another.

i was relationship training given by the federal relation is board to have managers and the union come together to look at how we can build trust, communicate better, etc. you have my commitment that i will continues to do that. i will say that when you have a huge organization like s. is a. with 62,000 employees, it takes a long time to change the culture and the relationships but you have my commitment to continue to try to -- >> thank you. >> move that quap a little bit closer so that we can work better together. >> and also a commitment to report to my office and to our committee of this progress, labor progress. ok, thank you very much. good luck in your confirmation. thanks. >> thank you, senator brown. senator carper? >> thank you, chairman. for example, i was pleased to meet with you earlier in month and thank you for your leadership in the social security administration for these many months as our acting

leader --er. my hope is that you'll be concerned. >> can you, serve. >> i got invited back to the navy shipmen last year. spoke to 400 young men between the ages of 18 and 22. some from ohio state and some from other states in the midwest. i talked to them about leadership, values and to the other challenges that we face. among the questions were questions, do our future as a country, the economy, the ability to get jobs and so forth. the -- i asked them a question too. i asked them a couple of questions. i said how many of you think that some day you'll receive a social security check. raise your hand. not one person out of 500 guys. i said how many of you think you'll ever benefit from social security, rather from medicare. not one. not one. our job here is to make sure if

you ever need a social security check when you're 65 or 70, 75, it will be there and if you ever need medicare or health care and you probably will, that that will be there for you as well. i think we have a moral imperative to the least of those in our society to look out for our needs. we have a fiscal responsibility to make sure we're meeting that sponl responsibly way. there was an in-depth analysis on disability insurance fraud and hundredsing on the, west virginia -- huntington, west virginia and they found one judge that was taking all the cases from one attorney, from one law firm and approving about 99% of them and almost magically a cash mate -- payment was

deposited into the bank account of the judge every month year after year after year. we have to be smart enough to detect that find it and do something about it. in the private sector they have the ability to use a technique called predictive analytics and this is just an area that's right for this the average disability, it's about 40%. when it's 50%, 0%, 70. 90%, 95%? 90% especially when the bulk of a judge's cases are coming from one lawyer, we should be able to pick this stuff up. they do it in the private sector all the time. talk to us about how you plan to use the same tools and techniques in order to defend a fund that i think is going to run out of money in 2016 or so the disability insurance fund.

i don't believe so. i think the social security trust fund will start having to chop down the benefits in early 20 20's. talk to us about how you're going to get at this problem. >> thank you. we are using data analytics. we're working internally and also going to be using external groups so we can maximize this we're seeing third-party fraud and that is why data analytics is going to be so important because it will show us trends that are happening and we can identify things we would not be able to identify without that. so we are working on that. let me mention that we have a zero tolerance for fraud in the agency and even though the

inspector general has indicated we have less than 1%, even one case is too many. evident we have a case we look at lessons learned. most of our fraud is identified by our frontline workers who tend to be our best defense against fraud. i don't know if you're familiar with our continuing disability investigatea -- investigative units, these are partnered with the inspector general and with local law enforcement. i initiated the first one in 1998 when i was here. we now have 25. as a result of the increased funding we got in year i'm opening up another seven. these units identify fraud before we pay out the first check and this is important because it's so much easier to then get the money than it is to get it once we've bhealed the benefit. we're aggressive in that air. a -- areaful our frontline workers probably prefer refer

a year.00 we've been working with justice to get them more aggressive in prosecuting the cases. in some cases we have to defer anything until a criminal action has been taken. if criminal action is taken we can get restitution. if we do administrative action, with you don't know how much of the money we can get back. >> that's encouraging. thanks to you. i want to thank senator hatch and your staffs for working with colvin and me. a lot of them can be fixed. we have a situation where social security has a death master file that pretty much keeps track of who's alive and who's dead.

we don't pay benefits to those who are dead and we need to make that available to other agencies. senator wyden, mr. chairman and senator hatch, thank you very much for working in concert with us to make sure we can address this issue. 106 billion in fraud payments. we can do better but we can do better still and this bill will help us so thank you. > thank you, senator cobourne, excuse me, senator carper. >> i've been called woss worse, even this week. >> thank you, senator carper. we had a hearing on disability insurance. where there is fraud we are going to find and it we are going to fight it. and the reason we are is because this program is so important for ms. ind of person like stephanie dempsey. i talked about her before you

came. she was really the face of the disability insurance program whether she came for our discussion of chronic conditions and she did everything right. she just got clobbered by one disease after another and she was sitting there at the end of the table where chair mikulski was with medications piled up. one box after another, that she takes every day. so we owe it to her. he owe it to terps. i -- taxpayers. i also have this document with respect to social security about the question of improper payments and i'm going to put that into the record, which would indicate that in the overwhelming number of instances the agency gets it right but your point is when they don't and whether there's particular fraud we're going to find it, root it out and in a bipartisan

way. would you like to say anything else, senator hatch? >> just welcome and happy to have you testify here today. i enjoyed our meeting in our office together and look forward to working with you. >> thank you. >> only the thing i would say in closing, ms. colvin, you could see this from the remarks of the senators, that sometimes government ask kind of an abstraction. i mean, there's some agency and the office of acoustics and ventilation and the citizen tries to figure out well, what does that exactly have to do with me? that is not the case with social security. that's why i talked about when somebody gets one of those earnings statements. i know there have been changes in the policy as well. people hold on to it because it talks about what they've earned, what they've paid, in what they've got coming to them. so i support your nomination and

i think you've addressed the concerns of the senators here and i'm doing it because i think you've got the experience. you really have several stints at the agency so you've seen the changes over time and i think you'll work with us and particularly in an area i'm very interested, in to make sure that we're using modern technology. because i think with 21st-century challenges and then we have things that were in sort of re color tv, 20th-century technologies, that's why we have to play some catch-up and we have to work together and move quickly and we have to do it given the challenge with constrained resources and i feel you're going to work closely with us and i intend to support your nomination. with that, the finance committee

is adjourned. >> thank you, sir. >> and i would also -- before we -- formally adjourn, let me note the committee record will be open for questions until 5:00 p.m. on monday, august 4 and now we are officially adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> the associated press reporting on a rather unusual day in the u.s. house. short on votes, house republicans abruptly abandoned a bill thursday to address the immigration crisis on the u.s.-mexico border after

last-minute maneuvering failed to lock down conservative support. an hour later they called an urgent meeting to plot their next moves. a story by ericka warner continues, the surprise developments coming on congress's final day of action were an embarrassing setback for speaker john boehner and his leadership team as a small group of tea party lawmakers once again upset their plans. that from a.p. reporting today. today, as mentioned, was supposed to be the last day in session before the august recess. the house has now adjourned for the day but will return for slatesive session tomorrow. friday morning at 1:00 -- 10:00 eastern. we'll have live coverage on c-span. the sflat is still in session. in fact, a series of votes just got under way on the senate floor on emergency spending for border security, v.a. health care and highway funding.

you can watch live coverage of the senate on our companion network c-span 2. most of the funding for the emergency spending bill to deal with the issue of unaccompanied children crossing the southern border. we show you some of that debates now from the floor of the senate earlier beginning with jeff sessions followed by aapproach races chair bar remikulski. >> the people of the united states have frule begged and pleaded with their lawmakers for ars to create a lawful immigration. one that's fair and serves the national interests, one that we can believe in they've been justly and rightly convinced of that fact and they've demanded of their elected office holder to secure their communities and protect the integrity of our

national boarders. some say there's something wrong with that. i say there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. that is the right thing. that's the moral thing, that's the responsible -- thing, that's the decent thing. that's what any great nation should have is an immigration policy that serves its national interests and is fairly and lawfully conducted. but these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. our border is lull -- absolutely not sure. it's insecure, in crisis. our communities are not safe. preventable crimes are committed every day because our laws are not being enforced and our sovereignty at its base level is not being protected and we have a president planning to issue sweeping amnesty in violation of law in ways he has no power to do and threatens the

constitutional separation of power. the congress passes law. the president must execute the law. the president is not entitled to make law, to conduct actions contemporary to plain law. the president simply cannot say well, congress didn't act so i have to act. well, congress decided not to act in a way he wanted. they considered legislation, rejected it and now he's going to, it appears from article after article, go guard and carry out an action anyway. it would be fundamentally wrong. this cannot stand. it will not stand. my position has been and remains that congress should not pass border legislation that does not foreclose the possibility of these unlawful executive orders. as an institution, this congress has a duty to frequent this

institution and our constituents. currently the president has issued approximately half a million work permits to individuals unlawfully present in the country up to 30 years of age. now the president wants to issue another five million or six million work permits to illegal mmigrants of any age despite prohibition in the internationalty act. plain law says you cannot employee someone in the country unlawfully. people think well,s, it's one thing to say you ought to deport somebody. but what was done previously was to provide under the legislation, an i.d. card with e words "work permit" across -- across the top. "work,000" across the top.

so the path is in violation of plain law, the ability of people in the jobsll be able to take from americans today and we have a lot of americans struggling for work. the present plan is a direct affront to every single unemployed american, two people around the world who have applied to come to the united states and have not been admitted. what do we say to them when this happens? it is particularly damaging to those in the poorest and most vulnerable communities in america. who is speaking for them? in will give them a bargain congress? will we hear there please? i have been shocked that we have not seen a willingness in congress to resist more