majority in the you want to pass legislation with your minority, not worry about democrats. he cannot get it in his majority, that is the problem. to say john boehner had on friday. >> president obama has turned a deaf ear to the people. we will not do that. the people will rise to this challenge. we will not stand president the rule of law. we will work with congress and to protect the constitution of the united states. zitner that is what speaker bain had to say on friday. would have said the

wood of passed a bill with the minority of the republican caucus. this really point out the difference between how house election work. house collections work district by district. republican majority is builton white congressional districts. on a national election the chosen by a statewide, so coming out of 2012 the speaker of the house was quite worried about the prison obama won 39% of white ith voters. voters not need white because he won 80% of minority voters. and for the leader of the republican party like john

boehner to position his party to win in a national election he has to do better of getting 20% of the minority vote. this is a real policy and that affects families. >> our sunday table focusing on immigration. what is next for congress now that executive order has been implemented. giving rights for 5 million in the nts who can stay country now. turning us from california, independent line. good morning, joe. >> the president is a president of the american people. he is the much for foreign people than he is doing for his own people.

we need a reform, if you hire one give them a chance. >> we have had a couple of calls in the last few days, -- er americans afro-americans mad with the president. >> visit immigration creates a italy in etition but the more low income level. there is a resistance for more immigrants to come in because of competition. already here e holding jobs, that does not mean it will not create more competition. once people have worked papers executive action gives them a right to know they move freely around economy.

we don't know how this will work. have low paid jobs were poorly used this paper is to try and go up in the income level. >> they say this could be a thing for congressional republicans because they could far more consecutive bill and they would have to pass this. guest: that's an interesting theory. it could be true. one of the president's senior advisers was at a breakfast on friday and this question was raised. how would the president react if he's by piece legislation came over from republicans? he actually refused to say how the president would react. he said, let's just see what comes over. the president would react.

he said, let's just see what comes over. nothing has been ruled out yet. we don't actually know how the president will react. there isis, unless some indication that eventually republicans will find a way to you would be 11 million undocumented workers who are here, the president won't be interested in only punitive measures. host: west palm beach florida, democrats' line. caller: independent. host: you are on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. on last time i called you may 18, you are always very fair. it is a stupid figure. it is not 11 million. a couple of years ago, it was 12 million. how many do you think it is?

caller: posted three times that. we are looking at between 30 million to 40 million illegals in this country. i don't know that personally, but i see it where i work. we have people coming in every day that i know are illegal aliens. they have the mexican consulate regards -- consulary cards. shares thecounty process, helping them get ids. all over the nation, there are mexican centers, guatemala centers, people to help, lawyers they go to court for them so they don't get deported. back in may, when i called you last, there was an article that came out that 36,000 criminal illegal immigrants were released in 2013. there were a few hundred murderers, 400 rate this is, 300 300pists, -- 400 rate

kidnappers. they were in the final process of being deported and they were released. there was another report that 68,000 more criminal illegals -- not just 36, but another 68,000 in ice custody were in the final process in 2013 and they were released. host: how would you frame that into a question? caller: this is the bottom line. he has a goal and agenda. my comment is the goal is to create an under class. the goal is to create democratic voters. i don't care about all this other paraphernalia. i always look at what is the reason why someone is doing this. to me, he is a liar and a fake who needs to be impeached. host: john from west palm beach,

independent. how would you respond? guest: there is no question that latino voters vote, for the most part, democratic, and more legalized latino voters will tend to vote democratic. there is no question about that. and in terms of the politics of it, whether that is the actual motivation, it's a side effect, that's for sure, that latino voters vote democratic and more latino voters will be voting democratic. host: this is pure political speculation. had he done this before the midterm elections, would it have changed races? guest: that's the question, did the democrats make a mistake by running away from obama and the president obama make a mistake

by not doing more to turn out the base. could they have energized the base democratic voters question mark -- the base democratic voters? the republican wave was so high that it overcame this increased democratic turnout. it was 120,000 votes. it made the difference. it is speculation, but something democrats are definitely thinking about. host: go back to your earlier point about where this could put a republican president, rand how would this position them, if nothing happens in the house or senate, how would that put them potentially in 2017? guest: in terms of this particular executive order, that

president would have to decide whether to rescind the order or not. it could be a very high wire act. that's a lot of people, 5 million people who will have had these benefits in the last three years. to suddenly undo that would .ring up huge protests it would not be risk free for a future president. in terms of acting in other areas, a republican president might decide to take executive action on environmental controls, decide not to implement or interpret parts of environmental law the way democrats would like. it is not risk-free, to just say i will rescind this executive order when the next president comes in, if it is a republican. host: republican line, sheila, good morning. caller: good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i just feel like this is completely political. the first two years, he stated that he was going to do something for the illegals and he didn't do it the first two years, whenever he had the chance. i teach at a small school. two children got that do not speak spanish. overcrowded, yet they get one-on-one attention. that's going on all over. i heard our state attorney general say the consequence of this action -- this action affects the state. president obama said they won't get any benefits. they get school benefits. care.et stamps, medical they are getting all that we as american citizens to get free. i certainly don't get it.

i have to pay these taxes for them. i'm afraid. our states are strapped. bankrupton is going to the country eventually. host: you had two students who only spoke spanish? caller: their parents don't even speaking this, sir. host: i appreciate that. i wanted to make sure we had the information correct. do you want to respond? guest: it is a difficult situation. you hear some people saying the first thing we should do is secure the border. ,hat the president would say is look, i don't have infinite resources. congress hasn't given me all the money to find and deport all of the illegal immigrants here, and that would not be good policy anyway. i'm going to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants. he has had a lot of pressure from latinos over this. deportations have been well above the bush era levels.

he has deported more than 400,000 people per year. focusing on gang members and felons. if we had committed resources, why would we go after a parent who is here working in the fields for a california business who has not broken any laws and who has children here in schools. why put our limited resources to finding that person when we want to find the gang members? host: let's go to the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been watching the conversation between the different guest you've had. there is this common misunderstanding among not only the colors but the guests you but thethe callers, guests you have. these people are poor people being forced out of the countries because there is no hope. if i was a poor latino person, and i have many latino amigos

and amigas, i would do the same thing. if i could get over the border and put my child in school, have free education, get food stamps, and have insurance -- have to earn a wage, i would do that as well. employers are looking away. the reason it happens is money. these people who are here illegally, whether they are on a visa or whether they sneak over the border -- on an overstayed visa or whether they sneak over the border, are buying thi ngs. sales tax purchases on a daily basis. i agree with the guy in florida. this 11 million mantra is a bunch of baloney. there are 30 million to 40 million illegal people in this country. let me back up. bear with me. 1981, the 11 million figure was

used as illegal immigrants, mostly applied to latinos, unfairly. let's say those latinos. they have a birth rate of one per year. half of those 11 million are women. we would have 5 million new illegal children per year from these illegal people. host: i'm going to stop you there. let me go back to two of his points. first the number. it is not 11 million, reaffirming another caller who said it could be as high as 30 million. tost: when he was getting up 30 million, he was counting children born to illegal immigrants but born in the united states. those people are citizens by virtue of being born here. they would not add to the number of illegals. the number is an estimate. it comes from the census department and is backed up by surveys through groups like the pew hispanic center. i cannot vouch for the

methodology behind it, but it is a commonly accepted number. host: he made a point about benefits for these illegals. what do they get and want don't they get -- and what don't they get? guest: there is this common notion these people would be able to qualify for the affordable care act. that is not true. they are not legal citizens. they do not qualify for the affordable care act. host: in this headline from the hill.com -- what specifically are either acute hearing about -- either of you hearing on border security? guest: it is not sure exactly which issues are going to be moving. there are some people who do want to move legislation and border security is one of the first things they want to do. how that will stack up against those who want a budget shutdown, that's the central tension.

showdown,s a budget moving on that legislation would not even be possible. host: our guests are francine kiefer of the "christian science zitner of thearon wall street journal." journal."ll street caller: i have a couple of comments and questions. 3012, which was very bipartisan, like 167 votes from the democrats and then went to die on harry reid's desk. we hear the bipartisan mantra that if something, for reasons unknown to man is forced by a democrat and republican and is somehow good -- this senate bill had their team or 14 republican senators vote for it. this is the new gold entered, it

seems. i don't remember hearing much of the talk of why this isn't going up for the senate vote. but then again, you don't hear much of anything about every read about -- about harry reid's of structuring of our government. h --arry -- harry reid's obstruction of our government. a couple of weeks ago you had someone calling in and use the "n" word in regards to president obama. have you now increased the delay? we appreciate you taking my call. host: no changes. when we get calls like that, we immediately want to first apologize. this is a public discourse. if you cross the line, we are going to hang up on you and we don't let you call back again.

we are glad to hear your comments. we would like to respond. guest: i'm not familiar with the piece of legislation that he mentioned. the house passed a lot of things that the senate did not take up. i'm sure when the house passed them, they knew that the senate was not going to take them up. pass both chambers of congress to get to the president's desk. you can discern pretty quickly what will get there. a lot are passed for messaging purposes. host: either of you could respond to this. "in buffalo during the 1940's, all schools have evening classes for german immigrants. the country just dealt with the influx then." is this any different from what we dealt with in the past? guest: numbers wise, i think it is quite a bit archer. that makes a big difference.

larger. quite a bit that makes a big difference. we will go to the democrats line. caller: insight president obama is doing this more strategically politically. look at the election with mitt romney. he lost badly. one of the things they wanted to correct, the republican party, was that they had lost a lot of the latino votes. when you had that eric cantor, he lost his election to kind of an independent. i think what that did was it hold the republican party -- it the republican party

farther to the right. the mainstream conservatives got elected, but i think in order to get elected -- people got nervous from eric cantor losing, so they went to the right as a majority. i think obama is doing it strategically to point that out. now when he comes up with this says i wantder, he you guys to come up with a bill. host: thanks for the call. this go back to where we will began our conversation. the politics that speaker boehner and mcconnell are dealing with within their own caucus. guest: there is not a lot of appetite to take steps to legalize illegal immigrants within their caucus. the business community wanted that bill. that bill had provisions for

high-tech industries, farmworkers. provisions of the bill were negotiated separately, to the side of congress by the afl-cio and the chamber of commerce. business bought into this. business is a big funder of the republican party. the chamber of commerce helped build this republican majority. -- thist this in pas thing passed. it all goes back to what happened in the last presidential election. republicans got 20% of the minority vote. the minority vote each year except by about -- you cannot be at odds with an ascendant part of the electorate. host: we began by talking about hillary clinton, who tweeted this on reddit on the image -- this on friday on the issue of immigration.

potus for taking action on immigration in the face of inaction. now let's turn to permanent bipartisan reform." how likely is that? guest: i think this has made permanent reform unlikely. republicans are so incensed about this move. i don't think they are in any mood to deal. there are some who would like to deal, people like john mccain eventually or lindsey graham in the senate. mccain was talking to reporters before the end of the week last week and he said, a, he doesn't think that anything would happen he sayster, and b, whatever happens has to start in the house. at senate has taken its shot this. if you're looking for the house to start, good luck for that. that's where the division is strongest. host: people have been looking at past president and the use of

-- past presidents and the use of executive orders. holmesme -- eleanor norton tweeted out that people forget that the emancipation proclamation was an executive order. guest: it is technically not white the same. every president in the last half-century, republican and democrat, has done something in this space. under president george h w bush, he legalized 1.5 million illegal immigrants or at least allowed 1.5 million additional immigrants to come in absent explicit congressional approval. what's happening here is different in scope him a larger, and -- scope, larger, and different in political impact. by not acting, congress made a decision. the president is going there

right afterwards, much larger than any prior president. carried onprogram is c-span radio. 90.1lcome our listeners on here in washington, d.c. we have the "christian science monitor" and "wall street journal" represented. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i'm talking about immigration. utah, who speaks spanish, who has a lot of amigos, i have to inform him to read about what a latin is. it's five countries in europe that are latin, not the people of south america. i'm one of them.

i was born in spain. i am latin. the french are latin. the italians are latin. the portuguese are latin. and the romanians are latin. so, that's a lesson. now about the jobs that so-called latins have taken. how about nobody is talking about the companies who send the jobs overseas. if we had them here, we did not have any problems. i have two granddaughters. one will have to pay $600 a month or more in her student loans. she doesn't have a job. she is well-educated. year.cond one is next we don't know how much it's going to be. my daughter is a single mother,

year. $8,000 per the jobs are overseas. i'm sorry to interrupt. to call others this and that. but the 30 million or 50 million that are here -- don't tell me all of them are from south of the border. host: a couple of points. not really a question. do you want to respond to the sentiment? guest: there's a question on the table about immigration. which is more true? are immigrants taking jobs that other natural americans want and are they displacing american workers? or are they taking jobs that american workers don't want? businesses will tell you they are largely taking businesses -- taking jobs that they cannot fill through other means. low-wage jobs and high skill

jobs for which there aren't enough trained americans. americans do want these jobs. in a broader environment, where there is still economic and zaidi pretty deeply, immigrants are a point of tension -- pretty deeply,y immigrants are a point of tension. guest: i can point out the people who could be troublemakers am a steve king, who wants to have a budget showdown on this. on the senate side, senator sessions from alabama, who also wants a budget showdown -- i think the key players are the leaders. senator mcconnell has promised action, but he wants to prove that republicans can govern. how much can he bring discipline to his own caucus on this in the senate? , who hasame to boehner

a more difficult problem leading on this issue, i would think. past thatven in the he cannot make this caucus do something that they don't want to do. he has often said if no one is following you, you are just a guy out going for a walk. i think that is much more problematic in the house. watch mitch mcconnell. he's determined to show that republicans can govern. host: we will go to mario in new jersey. the democrats line. with francine kiefer, "christian science monitor," and aaron zitner "wall street journal." caller: i would like to talk about the revisionist history going on here. everybody is saying obama didn't you any in the first -- didn't do anything in the first term. he passed the dream act. it wasn't passed by republicans.

if they couldn't get the dream act, how were they going to get comprehensive immigration reform? during the senate negotiations, republicans asked obama not to be involved. after it passed, he did stump for it, he negotiated with boehner for nine months, and boehner could not move his caucus. they could not move on the undocumented workers that are here now. the other point is, everybody seems to be missing net migration in this country is zero. there are more people leaving than are coming. that seems to be a big part of it. also, mr. zitner mentioned that george h.w. bush was in a different circumstance. actually, he wasn't. the senate passed the legislation that he wanted to do, but the house failed to act, exactly the same situation obama is in now. he took executive action without the house passing legislation. host: thank you for the call. guest: that's a fair rendition of the legislative history as i

understand it. president didn't get the legislation. it was the precipitating event to what we saw this week, by taking the dream act that did not pass and putting it into effect through executive action. host: the speech the president gave on friday in las vegas. there was a key strategy behind delivering his remarks out there. guest: the highest latino population in the country, lots of potential votes to be had. host: potential swing votes in 2016. harry reid says he is running for another term in 2016. here is the president on friday. [video clip] caller: a lot of -- >> a lot of people focus on the latino community, but the truth is that they're not just --

[indistinct chanting] spanish] si, se puede! >> but the truth is -- [shouting] the -- that's right, not everybody will qualify under this provision. that's the truth. that's the truth. that's why we are still going to have to pass a bill. that's why we are going to have to pass a bill. [applause] so, let this -- and what i'm saying is, we are still going to have to pass a bill. this is a first step, it is not the only step. we are still going to have to do more work. so, let's -- i've heard you.

i've heard you, young man. but what i'm saying is, this is just the first step. i'm talking to a lot of people here. i've been respectful to you. i want you to be respectful to me. ok. from dale's mill high school in las vegas, the president's comments =-- dales ville high school in las vegas, the president's comments on friday. caller: i finally got on after six months. i hope you won't cut me off. i would like to make a few comments. i don't know if a lot of american people realize the disgrace on the border. the mexicans are good, hard workers. i give them credit for that. they do show up for work. one thing people don't realize, i get so tired of hearing about low income, low adding jobs -- low-paying jobs.

for every dollar they make the united states, that is $13.61 in their country. they are making $98 per hour. now that this bill has gone through or he has allowed them to stay, if i'm not mistaken, they will be able to get earned income credit, because they will be filing taxes. some of them will still be getting food stamps. host: is she correct? guest: i think she is about the earned income credit. there are certain tax benefits. host: continue, judy. caller: ok. they are hard workers. there are a lot of americans who sit on their butts and collect food stamps, eat popcorn and potato chips and don't work. they do show up for work. they are there. they are hard workers. i think we should do what reagan

did when he was governor of california. it doesn't matter if you are an american citizen or not. if you're collecting money from the government, you get a job doing something to get that money earned. i also feel that obama said at the convention in vegas about washing the car and the dog -- i don't think he said that to boehner. give me a break. that's disrespectful. i think the pettiness needs to stop. i don't think when people are running for office there should be a d or are in front of their in front of their name. people should run for the person. host: how would you respond? guest: the last point she made, the pettiness between these leaders, i think americans just want the problem solved, just as the caller said. if there is a government shutdown, that will just infuriate the american public is my sense.

americans are not wild about the affordable care act. they are even more unhappy when the government cannot all the problem. case.t this particular polls show that more americans are opposed to the president doing an executive action of this sort than are against -- than are for it. even though they like the content of what he's doing, they don't like the way he's doing it . but if there is a government shutdown about this, they will be even more unhappy about that. they may not like what is being done, but if there is a big brouhaha, they will be even more unhappy about that. please just solve this. that's what americans want. host: from maryland, bonnie is on the phone for the republican line. caller: my question is, then i have a comment, what is going to happen when companies are required, which they are, that's what he's saying, to hire these

five ilium? if they don't hire them, what's going to be the ramification? if these people don't find jobs, then what is he going to do? take to the pen again and pardon all of them is to mark before he leaves office, he is going to pardon these 5 million people. i guarantee it. and it is just -- i can remember years ago, when we did have -- when we had it with the blacks. i have run a company, construction. we already had a black guy and the mexican working there. they would come on the job to make sure that we had a black person working there. the aclu did it. the naacp. now what are they going to do? send somebody to each company to make sure that these 5 million people are working? they are getting benefits.

they are lying. host: required? guest: no requirement. these people are already in the country. they are already here and most of them are already working. this action will allow them to have -- the term is a lawful presence in the country and to have working papers so they can work legally. host: is any company required to hire these illegals? not: not that i -- guest: that i hear of. businesses want to hire them. in addition to legalizing the folks we have been talking about, the president's action allows entrepreneurs, who can show the ability to start companies, the ability to come into the country. several tens of thousands of people will come in in the higher skilled sector as entrepreneurs. it has provisions for students who are here from abroad, who are getting technical and

scientific degrees and want to stay in the country to work in technical jobs. these are provisions that businesses have been fighting for on the high-end. we know that foreign groups have been fighting for more workers on the low end. it's not that businesses have to hire workers, if that they want to. -- it is that they want to. host: have any republicans articulated up -- a coherent strategy of how you would deport the current 11 million in the country illegally? self: the famous one is deportation, making it so uncomfortable that illegal immigrants actually go back home , which has happened to a degree during the great recession. the coherent strategy to actually get them all to leave -- the only one i can think of .s either if i -- is e-verify it would make it mandatory for businesses to use the government

system that shows whether somebody is here illegally or not. right now, that is a voluntary requirement. host: jerry from georgia on the democrats line. caller: i just wanted to say, i live in an area where it is -- many immigrants were brought in to work in the carpet industry. the democrats always have to come in and clean up the mess that republicans made. once they have the workers here and use them, they have no humanity towards them. they don't care whether they get educated. they don't care whether they have health care. it is just not right. went to a thanksgiving celebration at the episcopal church here. we had those children that walked across the border, and i don't see how anybody could be frustrated with that. host: thank you for the comment. that thewould say caller is saying something you would hear from the white house,

that it is acting partly because there is an urgent humanitarian needs year. these people are in the country. they need to be part of society if they are going to live here, and further, there are many latino families, where some members are here legally and some are here illegally. as long as they have deportation threats hanging over them, you have the prospect of writing up families. theanic groups are saying president is breaking up families by aggressively deporting people already. this removes the threat of breaking up families, where you have legal children and a legal parents. -- and illegal parents. host: many look at the anniversary of the voting rights act as a key part of the democratic coalition in the last half-century. will this be part of the coalition moving forward? guest: in many ways, yes. time, if white voters, particularly working feel whites continue to

resentment and field competition from immigrants, they will turn increasingly away from the democratic already. it could in some ways build the democratic coalition and in some ways undermine parts of it. host: let's go to washington. good morning to you. >> good morning. thank you. i have --caller: good morning. and a question. i see that the president decision was calculated. i think it was a counter to the gerrymandering and the systematic voter disenfranchisement being done in our country. it's the only way the democrats can try to counterbalance that. my question is, when you listen to republicans talk, they all of a likelch out robots, the same point. their primary concern is border security. my question is what does a secure border look like, how many decades and billions of dollars will it take to realize

it and how will we know when it is actually secure? host: thanks for those comments and questions. how will we know it is secure? i'm not even sure that is answerable. republicans care about border security, but one of the things that isn't mentioned very often is internal enforcement of the laws. while the president has been able to point to more resources on the border than ever, it goes up every year. we now spend more on border security than ever before. he can point to record numbers of deportations. what has been happening in the interior of the country is a reduction in enforcement. that has republicans very upset. host: has the president was and the wealth -- has the president poisoned the well? guest: yes, i think he has. guest: i think that is up for

question. john boehner did not just mean he would act to defund the president's action. i think he was suggesting we look forward to move forward in an affirmative way -- we will look to move forward in an affirmative way on immigration. host: final western, both of you. both of you.tion, what can we expect the first two weeks of december? guest: there will be much more intense discussion about this. you will see it come to a head right away in the budget process. we are covering the federal budget only through december 11. decisions could be made on whether the budget goes through the rest of the fiscal year or just do a short-term budget to take us into the early winter. if there is a short-term budget, which a lot of the strong conservatives would like to see conservatives would like to see, it gives the republicans more leverage to try

to force the president's hand on immigration. host: francine kiefer, who covers capitol hill for the "christian science monitor." and aaron zitner of "wall street journal." >> we will talk more about immigration policy tomorrow with american university professor paul kraut. the state ofat homelessness in the u.s. with jerry jones, the director of the coalition for the homeless. in we will talk about issues the tribal nations. "washington journal" airs every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. death of former d.c. mayor marion barry announced this

morning. president obama announced a statement. >> mr. president, the honeymoon is over. >> the honeymoon is over. what heno longer get wants just by being president. >> we are going to take the president had on. the honeymoon is over. those clichés,of you might say, that goes back at least decades, the whole notion of a "honeymoon" for a new presidential administration. this goes back 80 years or so, probably when it e.r. took office, franklin roosevelt.

got his 100 days. of course, he was working with an overwhelmingly democratic congress. it was a lot easier to push through his proposals. but there has been this notion that when a new president takes office, they get the honeymoon. >> the world of political terminology, tonight at 8:00 eastern and pacific on "q&a." this past week, senators debated whether to move forward on a bill introduced by senator patrick leahy, and to privatize the collection of phone records. this is information in phone company computers, to be accessed by the government only if it can be demonstrated it would stop terrorism. the bill fell 2 short of the 60 needed to pass. on the senate floor, this is 30 minutes. the government, specifically the n.s.a., had been collecting and storing enormous amounts of

information about american citizens and that the data collection at issue was not limited to those who were actually suspected of terrorist activity, or even necessarily to those who were connected to those suspended of engaging in terrorist activity. many were, understandably, very concerned about how much and what kind of data was being collected and whether or not this information could be or had been abused by government officials. to date, proponents of the metadata program claim that it cannot be used to identify ordinary american citizens. but earlier this year researchers at stanford university proved that the very time of meta data collected under section 215 of the patriot act could be used to uncover a lot of information, including information about a persons's politics, about what kind of medication they might be taking,

about where they go to church, and so on and so forth. this u.s.a. freedom act is a bipartisan piece of legislation that would end bulk data collection of the metadata currently gathered by n.s.a. and it would help address the problem of the american government spying on its own citizens without cause. it also would improve transparency for the data that n.s.a. does collect. it has the support of leaders in our intelligence community, the department of justice, civil liberties groups, the national rifle association, and a whole bunch of tech companies. opponents say it will impair our national security. they say this bill will keep our intelligence community from protecting us. but what opponents of this bill fail fully to appreciate is that most americans are deeply, deeply concerned about the collection of their own personal

information. and this bill is an opportunity to strike a reasonable commonsense balance between protecting americans' privacy and, at the same time, protecting our national security. well, i believe that there are honest, decent people working in our intelligence community, and well, i think this is the norm, the overwhelming norm. i think it's always important to heed a warning given to us. james madison wrote "if men were angels, no government would be necessary. if angels were to govern, neither extern ole nor internal controls on government would be necessary. in frame ago government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed and in the next place oblige it to control itself." congress should address this issue now. the provision of the patriot act authorizing this kind of data

collection expires just after memorial day this coming year, and it's important to adopt a compromise well ahead of this deadline that all interested parties can accept. thank you, madam president. a senator: mr. president? mr. leahy: mr. president, thank the distinguished senator from utah. he's worked so hard on this. you know, it's been more than a year since americans first learned the government had been secretly screepg up the -- sweeping up the telephone records of innocent americans, whether there was any connection to terrorism or criminal activity. i introduced the original u.s.a. freedom act last october with republican congressman jim sensenbrenner. the judiciary committee held six hearings, public hearings, to address these issues. we learned that the bulk phone records had not, as previously authorized, thwarted 54 terrorist plots or even dozens

or even a few. in fact, we learned through our public hearings, after all the talk about we needed this because it thwarted 54 terrorist acts, it may have possibly helped on one. now, that is an important fact for those who now argue that the n.s.a.'s bulk phone records program is somehow essential to our fight against isil. it did nothing to stop isil from starting in the first place. but our bill protects americans, enhances privacy protections, it ends indiscriminate data collection, but it keeps the tools our intelligence community needs to protect our nation. that's important to remember, and that's why our intelligence community strongly supports this bill. i worked in law enforcement. i am a native of vermont where the right of privacy is quher ieshed. i know we shall have both liberty and security. the u.s.a. freedom act provides

for commonsense re-for the purposes to government solves. it promotes greater accountability and transparency in the government's surveillance programs and improves thefy is a courts. it is a carefully crafted bill. it builds on what the house of representatives did. it has the support of the director of national intelligence, the attorney general, the director of n.s.a., american technology companies, the privacy and civil liberty groups across the political spectrum ranging from the n.r.a. to the aclu an to protect freed. lawmakers from the right to the left support this bill. they know it's a reasonable and responsible compromise. no reason why we shouldn't continue on it. now, there are some members who want votes on parts of it, and that's fine. let's have the votes. let's not block this bill and say, well, we wanted something

better. that means you don't vote "yes," you don't vote "no," you vote "maybe." let's have some relevant votes and let's vote on them. don't let this get bogged down in procedural flimflam that the american public hates. have germane amendments. vote them up or down. and don't wait until next year on this. as both the aclu and the n.r.a. pointed out, every day the senate fails to vote on these reforms is a day in which law-abiding citizens have reason to fear that the constitutional protections so dear to the founders and so crucial to the functioning of our free society no longer apply. echoing actually the words we just heard from the senator from utah. every day we fail to act is another day american businesses are harmed. one conservative think tank says

the mistrust engenders by the n.s.a.'s programs could cost the u.s. technology company between $35 billion and $180 billion over the next three years. that's a staggering amount. so let's listen to the intelligence community. ask the director of national intelligence. h he'll tell you it's far better for our national security and for our fight against terrorism if we pass this. so i thank those senators for their support. i thank the majority leader for bringing this to the floor. i thanks senators dean heller and dick durbin and al franken and richard blumenthal for his help. and i ask unanimous consent that the statement of administration policy in support of this u.s.a. freedom act as well as other items in support be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president, i would yield three minutes to the senator from florida, senator rubio. mr. rubio: thank you, mr. president. god forbid we wake up tomorrow morning and wake up to the news that a member of isil is in the united states and federal agents need to determine who this person is coordinating with. and one of the tools they use is a tool that allows them to see the people they've been calling and interacting with so we can disrupt that cell before they carry out a horrifying attack that could kill millions of peoplement today we are able to do that because of a program that -- that collects those records and keeps them not in the hands of anyone who's looking at them on a regular basis but keeps them readily available to the government so the government can access those records and disrupt that plot. what this bill would do is take that apart. it would, in essence, ask the companies to keep those records in the hopes that they would but under this plan if this were to pass, if suddenly we were to go target these members of isil and find out who they are coordinating with, those records may not be there and that plot

may, indeed, go forward. and that would be a horrifying result. and here's why this doesn't make sense. first of all, we are rushing this to the floor of the senate in the lame-duck session on an issue that doesn't even expire until next year, on a bill that wasn't even listened to or heard in a committee and they cannot cite a single example of this program ever being abused. not one simple example of this specific program being abused by anybody intentionally. not one. so we are dealing with a theoretical threat. the second thing is, that even as we speak, law enforcement agencies investigating a common crime don't even need to go to a court to access these very same records. they could just issue an administrative subpoena and get ahold of them. so we are actually making it hard to her go after a terrorist than it will be to go after a common criminal. and this is happening at a time when homegrown violent extremism is the single fastest-growing threat to the united states. people here at home that have been radicalized even on the internet and people that have

traveled to the middle east and been radicalized in the hopes of returning and carrying out attacks here. i would hope that this body would take more time to study an issue of this magnitude because this program was specifically designed to address what the intelligence gaps that existed after the 9/11 attacks. because i promise you, if god, forbid, any horrifying event like that were to happen, the first question we will be asked is, why didn't we know about it and why didn't we prevent it. and if this program is gutted, we will not be able potentially to know about it and we will not be able to prevent it. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, of course this program does not gut it. it actually enhances it. secondly, if this was important to stop isil, isil never would have started. the fact is, we had this program way beyond anything anybody's talking about today. it didn't -- it didn't slow up or eliminate one iota isil. that is -- that's a strawman

that we shouldn't even have here. it has no affect on that. everybody who's read the intelligence knows that. i'd yield three minutes to the senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i want to begin by thanking our very esteemed colleague, the chairman of the judiciary committee, senator leahy, for his leadership on this issue and my colleagues whom he has named who have helped in drafting and crafting this very important piece of legislation and to my friends and colleagues across the aisle, like the senator from utah, who have supported and helped to make clear that this bill advances the cause of safeguarding our nation without in many way detracting from its essential operational intelligence capabilities. in fact, national intelligence

director clapper has said -- and i'm quoting -- "the bill will retain the essential operational capabilities of the existing bulk telephone meta data program while eliminating bulk collection." this bill increases trust and confidence and credibility of our intelligence system. it advances that trust and confidence in the capability of government surveillance to do its job but at the same time protect our vital privacy interests. it advances the cause of constitutional liberty and the appearance and perception of trust in that system. and it does so by making the foreign intelligence surveillance court look like and function like the courts that we are accustomed to seeing issue search warrants in the criminal

process and protect essential liberties. it does it by strengthening, in fact, installing an adversarial process so that more than just the government's version of the facts and law are presented to the foreign intelligence surveillance court. it does it by providing for appellate review, just like we have in normal civilian courts. and it does it by increasing the transparency and accountability of the fisa court system. our founders would have been astonished and appalled to learn that we permit warrants to be issued by a secret court, operating in secret, issuing secret opinions, making secret law, much like the star chamber did. and that's why this reform is so profoundly and historically

important, because we make the fisa court one that we can more aptly and abundantly trust, one that will have credibility and confidence. i support this bill. i thank my colleagues for showing that we can work together in a bipartisan way to safeguard the essential rights of americans at the same time that we protect and preserve our national security. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much, mr. president. i'd like to speak to this bill and i'd like to say that this is one of the few times that my vice chairman, the distinguished senator from georgia, and i have a disagreement. i very much support this 215 program. the intelligence committee i think in a year has had maybe 12 hearings on the subject. many people think, wow, we're

using this program all the time. in fact, in year 2013, it was used 288 queries and those queries went -- 12 of them went for a probable cause warrant. in fact, you cannot collect content in a query. it is just the metadata. then the next problem has been, well, the government shouldn't hold the metadate aadata. and this essentially is the big change that this bill makes. we voted out of our committee by a vote of 12-3 a fisa reform act. however, that bill is not going to pass, in my judgment. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. feinstein: may i ask that my time be extended, please. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. we -- i talked with the house and here's what i got. if we didn't pass the house bi

bill, there were members that wanted to end the whole program. i do not want to end the progr program. i'm prepared to make the compromise which is that the metadata will be kept by the telecoms. senator chambliss and i wrote a letter to the four big telecoms and we asked them if they would hold the data. the answer came back from two, "yes" and the answer came back from two "no." since that time, the situation has changed, not in writing but by personal testament from two of the companies that they will hold the data for at least two years for business reasons. now, here's the problem. the mandate that was inherent in the 215 act is gone but the fact is that the telecoms have agreed to hold the date a. the data. the president himself has assured me of this. if we do not pass this bill, we

will lose this program. senator rubio sits on our committee. i listened to him with interest. i agree with him in what he has said about isil and others that will come after us if they can and the only protection we have is essentially to disrupt a plot before it becomes a reality in this country. and the program is not widely used, as the 288 queries in a given year would -- would indicate. additionally, in this bill -- and this should i think be of satisfaction to a number of people -- the fisa court would have to approve a query before that query takes place rather than after the query. so i'm prepared to support the bill and i do so for very practical reasons, because without it, i believe we will

not have a program. so this is hard for me because i have a great committee and i've tried to be supportive of those things that come out of our committee. i've talked to senator leahy. i've said, the one big problem i have is the foreign intelligence surveillance court is upset with the language. he has said, we will change the blank wage. senator blumenthal has an amendment which i assume will pass which does change the language and the major objection of the court i believe is ended by this language. if that's the case and the telecoms agree to hold the data and the data is not held by the government but is held by the telecoms, i believe that solves what is a very practical probl problem. so in any event, i've agreed to support it and i thank the chair, and i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: mr. president, how much of the time on the other side has been used? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont has 30 seconds remaining. mr. chambliss: and how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: 6 1/2 minutes. mr. chambliss: i've only had one speaker and i had 15 minutes. did he use 7 1/2 minutes, 8 1/2? the presiding officer: the chair was instructed that the senator from california spoke on the senator from georgia's time. mr. chambliss: well, i would ask unanimous consent that the time that the senator from california used be added to my time, plea please. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. leahy: mr. president? mr. president, reserving the right to object. i will not object. but i was going to yield the remainder of my time to the senator from texas, senator cr

cruz. and i ask that he be allowed up to four minutes. mr. chambliss: i would object to that. he can have your 30 seconds. mr. leahy: then i will object to the request. i will not object to the request and i will yield the remainder of my time to the senator from texas. and i'm sorry the senator from georgia would not offer me the courtesy. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia, without objection. mr. chambliss: i would recognize the senator from maine for two minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president? thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we need reform of the n.s.a. programs but not in this manner. let's remember why this intelligence tool was put into place. it was enacted in the wake of the worst terrorist attack in

our country that took the lives of nearly 3,000 people. and we have testimony from the former director of the f.b.i., from the former deputy director of the c.i.a. telling us that had this tool been in place, it is likely, most likely that the plot that killed nearly 3,000 people would have been uncovered. why would we weaken the ability of our intelligence community at a time when the threats against this country have never been greater? and let me address to my colleagues the privacy issue that has been raised. an issue that all of us care about. this data, these data are far

more safe, far more subject to privacy protections if they are held by the federal government where only 22 vetted and trained government employees have access to them, instead of nearly 150 telecommunications companies that employ thousands of workers, and the government is going to have to go to those companies and ask for the data. that greatly exposes the privacy of the individual americans, far more than the current system. so for both of those reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the distinguished senator from vermont's bill. it is a mistake, it would make us less safe, and we have expert testimony telling us that. thank you, mr. president.

mr. chambliss: mr. president, i yield two minutes to the senator from indiana, senator coats. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: mr. president, i regret i just have two minutes. it's unfortunate something that has this consequence for americans is being debated in alimented time session here. we have two bills, one produced by the intelligence committee, written and supported by the chairman, a democrat from california, and by the vice chairman, the republican from georgia. and it passed on a bipartisan measure with more than a 3-1 ratio. and here we are trying to go forward, allowing only one vote on one bill. why do we have to rush this through in a lame-duck session when it has such consequences? and when the director the agency that oversees us, when asked in a public session by me what are the ultimate consequences of this, his answer was, a

compromise of our ability to detect terrorist attacks and the consequence will be americans will die. and when that happens and those of us who go every day into the intelligence committee to know what the threat is and it's greater than it's ever been, understand that eventually something will happen here and people will turn to us and say did you have every possible tool in place to stop try to stop this from happening and if you didn't, why didn't you? let's have another repeat of 9/11 where the commission comes to us and says get the tools that you need. it has been so mischaracterized in terms of what it does and doesn't do, even as i talk to my colleagues they don't have a full understanding of what it doesn't do. it has more oversight than any other program in the federal government. we have enhanced it through our committee with hours and hours and hours of discussion and here we have something coming out of the judiciary committee that wasn't even taken up in the committee. just brought here to the floor.

so i would urge my colleagues to think this through before we come to a conclusion that we're going to regret later and i thank the chairman -- the vice chairman for giving me this time. mr. chambliss: the --. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. the senator has 5 1/2 minutes left. mr. chambliss: mr. president, in closing let me just say that there are any number of reasons why the substance of this bill is totally flawed. we live in a dangerous world today. we all know and understand that. and while this bill, the provisions in this bill wouldn't have prohibited isil from being formed, it didn't, but what it does do, the provisions in the underlying fisa bill gives our intelligence community all the tools they need to make sure that when isil recruits individuals to go to syria to fight, if it's americans there trying to recruit, we can find out about that and we have under surveillance today any number of

individuals who we think have been committed to jihad who live in america. secondly, there's another part of their recruiting that is even more dangerous than asking young men and women to come to syria to fight for isil. they want people to go into the parliament in canada and start killing people. they want people to walk the streets of new york and pull out a gun or a hatchet or whatever it may be and start killing people. if we eliminate this program, and that's basically what the leahy amendment does, then we're going to take a tool away from our intelligence committee -- community that's not going to allow them to be able to interrupt and disrupt those types of terrorist attacks. now, with respect to our privacy, folks, and gosh, we need to be really protective of privacy issues in this country. we live under a constitution that has survived nor in excess

of 200 years, it has lots of privacy protections in it and all of us want to see that happen. let me just tell you what's going to happen if this amendment comes to the floor and should happen to pass. today. the metadata that is collected by the n.s.a. can be accessed by 22 individuals. 22. that means there's an opportunity for leaks to occur or for individual privacy rights to be breached by 22 people. if this amendment ever became law, all of a sudden all of the telecoms are going to be holding this metadata information as opposed to the n.s.a. holding it. all of those telecoms have thousands of employees, lots of whom have access -- will have access to this metadata. so instead of having the potential for 22 people to breach the privacy rights of american citizens, all of a sudden you're going to have thousands of opportunities for

the privacy rights of americans to be breached. and let me just close by saying that this program has been criticized an awful lot simply because of the leaks that mr. snowden made because of his theft of government property. but the fact is there cannot be one single case pointed to by anybody who can show that as a result of collection of metadata under 215 any american has had their privacy rights breached. it simply has not happened, it will not happen if we keep this program in place. do we need to modify it? you bet. and senator feinstein and i did a good job of that considering 10 amendments within our committee, voting on all 10 of them, some of them passed, some of them didn't, and the bill came out of our committee on a bipartisan vote -- bipartisan vote.

this amendment of mr. leahy has not even gone to the judiciary committee to give the members of the judiciary committee the opportunity to review it, to file amendments on it, to debate it in committee, and vote on it. that's not the way this institution has ever worked and it's not the way it should work here in a lame-duck session with time running out and particularly on this controversial and sensitive and important program as the 215 fisa amendment program. and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, --. a senator: mr. president, how much time is remaining on our side? the presiding officer: one minute. mr. coats: thank you, mr. president. mr. cruz: mr. president, many months ago the american people were astonished to learn that the federal government was collecting bulk metadata of personal cell phones from

millions of law-abiding citizens. this legislation protects the constitutional rights of privacy under the fourth amendment while maintaining important tools to protect national security and law enforcement. this is bipartisan legislation that enjoys the support of the intelligence community and also the tech community. the bill is not perfect, but in my view we should take it up and consider reasonable amendments on the floor to make it better but it is imperative that we stand together united protecting the bill of right >> incoming house members posed on the steps of the capitol for the traditional class photo.

[applause]

>> the 114th congress will officially convene in january. in recess for are the thanksgiving holiday until the beginning of december. they are expecting to work on spending government past december 11. expected to work on immigration after the unexpected announcement by the president. the house is live on c-span, and the senate on c-span two. c-span is featuring

interviews with retiring members of congress. them at 8 p.m. eastern time. these people were struggling desperately to try to work out compromises to give the union of float -- keep the union of afloat in the 1800s. she has been a great leader and good at raising money. it is not my forte. i was never good at that. but they need to start training

younger people and bring younger people into the caucus to become the future leaders shared . something or believe with all of my heart and soul, you have to know when to leave. >> on thanksgiving, we'll take in american history to her of - tribes.rious native in the breaking ground ceremony withe new diplomacy center various heads of state. that is this thanksgiving week on c-span. go to c-span.org for our complete schedule. clyburn talked about the democratic agenda, including the recent action on immigration.

from the national press club, this is 20 minutes. >> what happened? [indiscernible] >> not going to compare to when i knocked the sign down. ok, let's do it. ok, so we're going to start now. hi, i'm bob wiener, i'm the news makers committee of the national press club's event coordinator for this wonderful event today. welcome to the national press club, the world's leading organization for journalists and where news happens. today, we welcome an old friend, congressman jim clyburn, the house assistant minority leader who will discuss governing and the issues in the post-midterm's environment.