reports being converted to unrestricted reports at the request of the victim continues to go up. it went up 14% last year and 19% this year. they did a thorough job not only did they have 57 different focus groups on 10 different involving 650 did survivors of sexual assaultion they also did an anonymous survey of those victimized by sexual assault in the military and this is about the survivor experience. 2/3 in the survivor experience survey agreed that supported them. 82% of the survivors said the commander supported them, address privacy and confidentialallity. professionally. 79% listened without judgment. 78 percent and thoroughly questions 70%.

indicatede survivors they were satisfied with the unit commander response to the sexual assault. survivors also indicated that they felt if they overall experience would recommend others report throughpened to them the military. 90% indicated they were satisfied with the services by the special victims' council, one of the most important reforms that we career agod a whereas only 3% indicated they were dissatisfied. majority of the 89% satisfied and with the services received from likelyt and would recommend other survivors meet with these individuals after experiencing a sectionle with assault. groups.s the participants felt overwhelmingly they had been adequately on sakes

resources and policies. contact theirto sarc and the other people responsible to assist them at crisis and would trust them to handle reports and they also indicated overwhelmingly they recognize a positive shift of defensertment handling of sexual assault as well as leadership encouraging dignity andnt of respect. those are the top lines. not all good news in this report. first of all, we still have too many sakes. secondly, we to do more on retaliation and i will turn it over to my college students to address in now andi'm happy questions at the end. retaliation has not gone up but it is flat. would just mention briefly that the majority of the is peer to peer thatl retaliation and even administrative retaliation cited

if you get into the details of report you realize it is not the commander who has responsibility for determining charges are filed but rather the lower level the units in responsible for some of the administrative row taliation. nothing in the alternate proprosal would change anything in regard to the retaliation reported in the surveys today. over to my friend kelly ayotte and give her a chance to address the have hadod news we today. >> i want to thank senator the reportand produced and released by pentagon today is very, very important. the 12 metrics on nine out of the 12 metrics in the report there is clear, clear evidence of progress. and to put it very simply, the that we have prevalence

isn and reporting up, that so critical as we lock at these types of -- look at these types crimes, too often they have been in the shadows and this is something where we know if their prevalence is down and the reporting is up that we are making progress going forward. wanted to address as we worked on this issue from the beginning, all of us who are today, senator mccaskill and nor levin and senator fisher we understood from the beginning that the reforms put in place way, in they the 2014 defense authorization we put in a provision to make retaliation a crime under the ucmj last year. this we were going to have to measure thenot only progress of the department but thissure that the reforms we have passed are fully being

and that the members of the service understand and are being educated on not only what support services are out there like special victims council which is clearly making difference, but also the fact that even on a peer po peer relationship you have to understand that retaliation is something that is a crime under the ucmy now. ucmj now. is more to be done on retaliation and we plan, i to ensureg forward that not only the provisions this eput in place in the 2014 the ndaa, thein 2015 ndaa which we hope may come floor in the next week there is also a provision authored by senator mccaskill and i that fisher would allow those who have been separated from service who have victims of sakes to actually reopen the separation.

you been retaliated against in some way this provision will give those who they have been treated unfairly a an opportunity to in lighte those issues of the fact that they have been victims of sakes to take into account sometimes the hesitancy and understandable feelings that victims have. and if they previously even with before we had passed the reforms have been retal crated against will have -- retaliated against they will have the opportunity to come forward. importantat is an provision in the 2015 ndaa which we put together. the last twot over years, the progress that has been made, it is very, very and to see this progress. and we will continue to ensure do everything that we can. we are certainly not going to arrest on -- rest on some of the good news we have seen today. we will continue to be vigilant and ensure that we ca cannot ony

reduce the number of sexual assaults, we wasn't to eliminate military, but that every victim understands that they will be support and be respected when they come forward. i think we see positive trends this report. and one of the most already highlighted is that the vast majority of survivors expressed satisfaction with their sexual assault response coordinators, victim advocates and special council. the fact that victims feel when they are asked how was the terms of the people that are responding to support them and how are they treated wee expressed satisfaction want every victim to tea feel tt way. tremendous progress. i want to thank my college leak -- my colleagues this important issue. we will continue to hold the

leadership not only in pentagon each of the service branches -- not only in the in each of the service branches responsible for the 2015g to pass in ndaa and ensure that victims of surviver aret treated with the dignity and respect that they should be. is my oner to introduce the chairman of the armed services inmittee who we will miss the united states senate for his leadership, carl levin. you, senators and all of members of the committee that worked so hard in the area. the report that the department of defense released today hard evidence that we are making progress to end unwanted sexual contact in the military and that the steps have taken in congress and within the military are having an effect. news thatly welcome service members report fewer

sexuales of unwanted sectionle constant. important that more victims are willing to come sexual and report the contacts that are unwanted that have existed. a reduction in the actual number of sexual contacts. increase in the willingness and the numbers of reports of the reduced number of contacts. and also, we have found or they found in this report that information that it not available or hasn't been available to law enforcement is going to be more and more to law enforcement because of the unrestricted of the report and the growing number of unrestricted reports. defense three authorization acts have contained more than 50 sexualons to fight assault. we are held commanders

create a command climate in which victims believe that they can can come forward an assault. and our bills he verducci the last couple of -- o over the of years we have required commanders who are aware of an assault allegation immediately report that to law enforcement. we have provied victims of by another service member with a special victims council and that is one of the most page are refors that we have put in place. them andwho works for not for the commanders or for the court. removed the commander's authority to overturn sectionle with assault convictions. required that every decision which a commander not to prosecute an assault allegation be reviewed by a higher authority and that if the prosecuteot to contradicts advice from a commander's legal advisor that by theiew be performed service secretary himself or

herself. to pass this we hope next week includes another 20 aimed at sakes the goodeliminating soldier defense. giving victims a voice in whether their case is prosecuted military or civilian courts. giving victims right to martial rulings that violate their rights. and to challenge those rulings criminalurt of appeals. to strengthen the psychotherapist-patient privilege. canust simple creaty, though, cannot stop until we totally halted this plague. we made progress but so long as there one sakes and one unwanted sexual contact in the military the cull to action remains strong and i know will be my colleagues in the armed services committee. here andp a coin senator fisher is next.

>> thank you. you all very much. i want to recognize my colleagues who are up here, ayotte are our chairman, carl levin and senator graham especially senator mccaskill. she has been a leader on this issue. she has experience and she had had theledge and she leadership to put ideas forward, to gather information, to bring ideas from all of us on how we can can make progress on this issue. you have heard the chairman and mccaskill and senator ayotte outline steps we taken in previous ndaa bills. you heard the chairman highlight weekwe hope to pass next in the nd and a that comes the senate and we will continue to make progress. this is the way we had to to go i believe -- we need to go and i believe that this report

that came out today highlighted that. one area that i think would eneed to focus on -- that i we need to focus on is the retaliation piece. i know that with the leadership with senator mccasskill and ayotte and senator graham and workf we will continue to on that as well. again, the report had good news. somed -- it showed progress but it also showed a where we need to continue to focus and continue to step forward. i look forward to working with colleagues on that piece and makeas they have said to sure that we eliminate this scurge that is facing our military members. i would like to introduce senator graham. >> thank you. tell carl levin, i cannot

you how responsible he has been as chairman of the armed service is committee. detainees to sexual assault to make sure that the system gets better but we always strike a balance and carl will be missed. hisn't say enough about leadership. as to these three ladies here, it has beene day, tough. i know it has had to be tough for them to be talking about sexual assault and trying to strike a balance understanding military's need to improve but also that the commander is important part of the military. i respect you all. it has been tough politics but thereport tells me that military is listening and beginning to get it. is what i don't want ever to happen. military lawyer for 32 years. this would be devastating to for one dayproblem a commander be told by the first sergeant, sir, ma'am, lat night assault in the

barracks and the commander say problem,o longer my send it over to the lawyer. that is a devastating outcome in the military. that commander's problem. no problem in the military will be fixed in a sustainable fashion without commander buyin. and if you believe as i do not a perfect place but it is the finest military on the planet today you have to why.stand commanders are held accountable do given the authority to what they need to do to protect this nation and part of that discipline the force. that has to be part of our military tradition for to us be successful. commanders, you are on the right track but you are not there yet. to the unit members who are now more supportive to an assault victim, you are doing the unit andng for

for the country as a whole. retaliate,ho want to you do so at your own peril. as to disposition, reporting is and having the case conclude is another. here is what i think is the mo important re-- is most important reform on the disposition side. the military lawyer tells the commander, sir, ma'am, we have a good case and the commander says i don't think so, that decision will be reviewed of the servicey in question. from a commander's point of i can't think of a better suggestal o to send of how seriously you better take this matter. and when the j.a.g. and commanders say we don't have a decision goes up to the next level of command. those two things in the military are tremendous checks and balances. we are not there yeters as carl assault, one harassment is one too many. but i dare say that when this is over if we continue to do

what we are doing, having the systemnd pushing that the military will be the system inm-friendly america. military will be the system of other systems in america for heldeaders aring if to be accountable for what happens to people under their charge. the rightry is on track. the military will never get commanderss the continue to push. say they will because the consequences of not taking end yourously will career. >> questions? on your point on peer to peer retaliation, doesn't that speak culture under a command and isn't it ultimately a commandquestion and

problem at that point? >> do you agree with point that record or on that point that it was a screaming in the report? >> well, first of all, i think not justortant to look but dig intoation what the surveys and focus groups said about retaliation. majority of it is peer to peer and that that is not peer highestis not at the level of command and importantly in same survey, 73% of the woulds said they encourage others to report. and 82% said they had confidence in the way the commanders were treating them. so we have anish somehow with retaliation. given theen i was brief on this when will we know cases havetaliation opinion filed because it is a crime now. it is prosecutable under the of military

justice. we will get that information in april. there is follow-up work being by the rand corporation and we will get a better look at investigators the and whether or not the command climate is in fact going at acts retaliation. i would be much more concerned if weflat retaliation were getting numbers back saying i don't have confidence in the command, climate has not changed and we are not getting the support and wouldn't recommend forward.ple coming we got just the opposite levels. of satisfaction and hillels of satisfaction with counselscial victims and victim advocates. 73 pestrana of them saying they saying they would recommend that others report is a very important number. if you are undergoing that is debilitating the last thing in the world you somebodys recommend else come forward. yes, we have a problem and yes, we have to work on it. just extract that figure

out of this report, and try to report asze this negative, that is a tortured of this report. >> also announced several initiatives the fact that they were going to be seeking. were you aware that those were coming along with the report and what your response is to those? great.ink they are i wasn't briefed on the details he i will be honest with you was announcing them as i was going to vote and so i haven't yet had an opportunity to look the details. i was just ginnen a cursory top line. announcedct that he two different initiatives to get after the retaliation problem. by the way, let me read you a couple of quotes from the focus groups. steps toy are taking handle that because it is not wouldmething that anybody tolerate because now it is a the article.

from another victim, he is facing actions against him for the action he pulled. i pull those quotes out is because it is telling you are learning, survivors are learning about the tools that are out there. they are learning about the support they have and it that they can get. and they are learning that in crimehis treatment is a and they can report it as such. i'm going tok -- very be impatient about progress on this and i look forward to seeing how many case vs. been filed in april. all of us, listen, there is nobody who wored on this that doesn't have the -- who worked on this that doesn't have the game goal. want to protect victims, hold commanders accountable and put perpetrators in prison. thatink the report shows we are making progress and it is -- as i said before there is changing the commander out, use common sense. how is the victim going to feel commandertted when a has said this case is going

forward or when a lawyer half a con meant aah way said this case is going forward? which is going to give him or her more protection in the unit? obviously the commander second basing off on the case going -- signing off on case going give thating if to survivor a lot more protection than a lawyer nobody knows a half a continent away. we would bewhat looking at if in fact the alternative proposal had been adopted. yes? these. else can answer they all know as much about it as i do. in the25% reduction actual -- >> contact. >> contact. but the line with the 2010 numbers. kind of brings you back to still a high level there. thoughts onyour that. of taking some time, you know, to make a difference? or do you think more is needed the 2015 bill?in

youell, i do think that, inw, by the way, it was down up at but in 2006 it was a higher rate than we have seen since then. 2006, very high in dropped down in 2010, went back down in12 and now back 2014. so obviously next survey will be important. is going tof this be sustained. and a i don't want to get in the weeds too much. now two surveys. we didn't want them to quit doing the survey exactly as they had been doing it because we wanted there to be a trend. on the other hand, this survey is very lacking in terms of specifics. the broad category of unwanted colleaguethink my senator gillebrand talked about this. didn't distinguish between an unwanted slap on the behind and

an actual rape. there is another survey that we this year that they continue with the specifics of the crime. i think that will be much more mostul to track the egregious behaviors. bad.f it is grievous sexual assault with penetration is something we have see a downward trend. the old survey didn't allow us new one will. the they had over 150,000 service people respond to the anonymous surveys. the highest number ever in any of the surveys they have done. remarkable. over 30% of the active military responded to the surveys. so i think we have gotten esche's attention. >> -- gotten everybody's attention. anybody else? okay. much. so

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] >> earlier today, house speaker john boehner held his weekly briefing with reporters at the capital. range of about a issues including recent racial tension following the ferguson death of eriche garner. here is is more. -- >> speaker boehner, there has unrest in theial country in the last few weeks. michael brown in ferguson and eric gar are in yesterday. what is your reaction and do you support d.o.j. doing a civil investigation into mr. garner's death? >> clearly both of these are that we havedies seen in our society and i think

the american people want to when thed more of facts were. a lot of unanswered questions that the americans have and i have. and so, whether it is the justice, whether kevin rogers earlier today suggested there may need to be hearings, i'm not that in or out. but i do think that the american answerseserve more about what really happened here and where -- and was our system of justice handled properly. the speakers comments from earlier today in his weekly briefing. time the entire event any at c-span.org. more about the grand jury decisions in missouri and new york from this morning's washington journal. this is 35 minutes. >> democratic congressman hakim

jeffreys represents brooklyn in the congress and joins us to talk about budget issues and as thehings happening 113th congress winds down. welcome to the program. wanted to start off talking with viewers. reaction to the grand jury decision on staten island. initial reaction when you heard that? guest: good morning, good to be back. of justice.carriage something that should shock the conscience of all americans who equal protection under the law. it is hard to imagine how the brand jury could not have come up with a single charge in the context of the chokehold death eric garner that took place for all of the world to see caught on videotape. unauthorized and has been banned by the new york police department for about 20 years. the medical examiner in case ruled that death of eric garner resulting fromas neck and chest compressionsnd we he pulled for

assistance, said i can't breathe times.erent on 11 different occasions officer pantaleo and the o other officers on the scene ignored him. this is a tragedy and we need to look at our broken criminal justice system in terms of vinability to deliver accountability often when a police officer is accused of using excessive force particularly in the context of african american man. host: you were born and raised city.ucated in new york where does this leave your faith with the new york city justice department,police the grand jury process? guest: i continue to believe in capacity to rise to the occasion when faced with challenges. we have had challenges along ric race inception ofions from the the republic. this is a serious problem. police violence

we have to confront. people across america lost a lot of faith or never of the criminal justice system to provide equal protection under the law. those are not just words. that is the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. we have some real work to do. it will require presidential leadership. it will require the justice department to move forward, as they have indicated, with a full and fair investigation as to whether eric garner's civil rights have been violated. and congress cannot run away from this problem. we have got to run toward this problem and be part of the solution. given that your party is the minority again going into the 114th congress, what does that congressional leadership look like ecco guest: i've already been part of a task force on over criminalization that took place in the last two years of the judiciary level. five democrats, five republicans.

significant ideological diversity. a justice system that has resulted in far too many people in america being incarcerated of all races, far too much prosecutorial discretion is exercised in an inappropriate fashion. and far too many restraints being put on judges in terms of the administration of justice in a fair and equitable fashion. i think that could be a starting place, fixing the criminal justice system through the lens where we can find common ground. host: and your background is as an attorney, correct? guest: absolutely. you could say i'm in it -- i am a recovering attorney at this point, but i practice for nine years. announcingdent obama this week's call for 50,000 body police cameras and the funding to go with it. what impact do you think that will have? in theit's a modest step right direction. certainly, in the ferguson case as to where there was a lack of

clarity as to what happened, and you had witnesses differing in their accounts, as what often occurs, and certainly the police officer communicating a version of events consistent with his desire to be exonerated. but many other witnesses indicating that excessive force seem to be used, body cameras would have provided clarity. but the garner case illustrates is notdeo footage alone significant. because we saw the entire encounter unfold as it relates to the chokehold death of eric garner, yet this grand jury did not indict. host: back to the business of congress, today marks one week before the current budget agreement expires. a budget bill is coming up in the next week or so. what are the challenges there for you? guest: we've got to be able to fund the government and get out of a cycle of constant crisis. -- the full term

funding mechanism has been employed because of congress's unwillingness to simply do our job. i'm hoping that in advance of december 11 will we -- when we run out of the lawful authority to fund the government, we will apply a funding mechanism through the next fiscal year so we can deal with the other problems facing the american people that they have elected us to solve. approving -- be will you be approving the funding of the body cameras echoed guest: i hope that comes up in the next congress. host: our guest is representative hakeem jeffries. we invite you to join the conversation. and you can join us on twitter. you were an instigator behind the effort monday night for

these so-called special order speeches. reacting to the ferguson grand jury decision. how did that come about? guest: the cbc felt it was important to address the issue head-on in criminal justice system and the need to really tackle the issue of how police officers interact with communities of color all across america. we have seen problems in ferguson and problems in staten island. recently in the brooklyn district that i represent, we had an unarmed 28-year-old african-american male who was shot dead by a police officer allegedly by accident, but the bullet went right through this man's chest into his heart. this happens over and over again. it happened in the cleveland case with tamir rice. that wed to make sure took this issue seriously and that we focus on the problem in a manner that would be beyond

words and move toward action. what is your relationship like with the new york city police department? guest: i have a very good relationship with the new york city police department and a great deal of respect for the department. they are there to protect and serve. people want the officers there. we just also want equal protection under the law. and police officers should also want a better relationship my because their best ally in crime-fighting can be areerating citizens who there to commit a gate in terms of the crime-fighting efforts. -- here isentioned a a tweet here indicating that attorney general holder will be aaveling to cleveland where 12-year-old african-american boy was recent shot by a police officer. let's get to a call in fort myers, florida. this is carl. caller: thank you for taking my

call. thented to comment on recent incident in new york -- are you there you go host: we are here. go ahead with your comment. thank you for the by wanted to comment on a recent incident in new york. there is a solution to these problems. i'm almost 70 years old. time, so whenong a cop tells me to do something, i do it. you don't resist cops. if they tell you to walk on the sidewalk, walk on the sidewalk. don't argue with them. if they tell you to put your hands up, they want to handcuff the recent incident, you do what they tell you and there will be no problem. that is the problem with these people that they don't want to obey the cops. that is the simple problem.

i mean, it's simple. i've never had a problem with a cop in my life. host: ok, carl. theghts on that? guest: sentiment that you want to comply with a lawful police order, i think should be obvious. i appreciate you making that -- that observation. but when you look at the video, eric garner is frustrated by the harassment from his perspective that was coming his way with respect to the allegation that he was selling loose cigarettes. that is an administrative violation. it is certainly not a capital offense that should have resulted in his death. but if you actually watch the video, which is the benefit of us having the footage for every american to see, there is a point early on in the encounter where garner throws his hands in the air in a clear position of submission, but he's taken down by the officer and put into a chokehold, which by the way has been unauthorized by the police department for the past 20

years. it was a violation of police procedure. help by sayingor i can't breathe 11 different times. occasions,ifferent this officer and other officers failed to respond. that is the reason eric garner is dead. homicide, according to the medical examiner, and we have got to move forward, understanding those artifacts buried host: bob in west virginia -- those are the facts. bob in west virginia. you are on the air. what i wanted to say is i am a former d.c. homicide detective. it is always a trap whenever law enforcement takes someone's -- a tragedy whenever law enforcement someone's life.

however, i see we keep talking about the medical examiner said it was a homicide. taken, whether a justifiable homicide, or not, is really a homicide by the medical is enters office. -- examiner's office. a police officer, you see we are talking about a chokehold. what the person did was not a chokehold that is taught in law enforcement. so, it was not a chokehold. it was a bar hold across the throat. as a former police officer, would you say there was another way to do use that situation? yes.r: he could have called on the radio for more police officers

to come. the gentleman was extremely large. i am sure, the officer, as you see in the video, is a lot smaller than the person he was trying to arrest. been any there specific discussion yet in new york city about their encounters with the public, and not just this one scenario? us have hadal of conversations at the highest level of police and they have indicated there is some training that needs to take place. with respect to the medical examiner, i appreciate, bob, your perspective here. the medical examiner did determine this was a homicide. the question for the grand jury is, was that justifiable? you just indicated correctly that it could have begun a different way. the chokehold was not a justified tactic and it did result in eric gardner's death.

the morning, catherine. caller: i have a suggestion. my dream budget would include a project that would bring the country together. i will call it "usa power of the planet." a huge top priority project. in the past, we had the manhattan project, going to the , and ihe great society think the u.s. needs to spend put amounts of dollars and our minds together to create fusion energy. nonpolluting,, and there are groups working and if we could focus and have a , not 20 time frame years, to create fusion energy,

it would be good for the world. oil and coal and energy producing companies wouldn't like this. we have to include them by letting them help earn a certain percentage for maintaining or running be the buddies dared we have closed down the cold minds -- the coal mines. >> any sort of -- guest: notion of a big project that could capture the attention and the imagination of the american people in congress, it is important. we have a comparable -- crumbling infrastructure system. we have fallen behind. i agree we have to look for things that bring people together and hopefully, in the

next congress, we will do that. about thell ask you bill on the floor today. your colleagues, it is a bill to stop the president for -- from implementing. what do you think of this legislation? guest: we have got a broken immigration system and for too long, more than 300 days since bipartisanpassed the bill designed to fix our broken immigration system, the house of representatives would refuse to act. it is important for the president to step forward. every president since the white house in 1956 has enacted some form of executive action to deal enforcement. a bill that has been done 39 times. it is an probe etch it is appropriate for the president to do it in this instance, but as the president has said, we

should figure out a legislative solution to the problem. host: how much is immigration and legal status in issue in your district? guest: i have got an incredibly diverse district. african-americans, latinos, south asians, the orthodox , there are more than two dozen languages spoken that i represent. we are a gorgeous mosaic of the country in many ways and that is a wonderful. feedback from your constituents on the president's plan? >> certainly. immigrants build the great big apple, just like they have helped to build the country.

they are supportive of the president's actions. next up, kansas city, nate on our democrat line. in 2014, the u.n. anti-torture panel, that they are investigating indianized suggestive of police brutality, especially against african-americans. more goodbly does than anything. a lot of the things i noticed a going on is identical to what happened in nazi germany. when hitler told the people, they're going to make the middle-class pay taxes for the poor people. that is pretty similar to what is happening now with so-called obamacare. that, he starts putting a lot of money in the

military and things like that to hold onto his power and stuff like that. is, he had to demonize a group and the group he demonized was the juice. we all know how that -- how that worked out and how some of them got out of there but a lot of them got killed and they was killed on the streets and stuff like that. history is kind of repeating itself and the american people have to understand that there it they said, they will not let this happen again. i am glad they are investigating now. not not know why it is being talked about. they could if they wanted to, but the world will not let it happen again. my fathery i'm a fought for this country and now we might have to have another country, here to save lack people. -- black people. nothing can historically be compared to the holocaust and the transatlantic slave trade.

nothing can be historically compared to the native american genocide and there is a agile place in hell reserved for those who perpetrated those international horrors. but there clearly is a problem in this country as it relates to our broken criminal justice system and the inability to deliver justice whenever an unarmed afghan american male has been killed far too often by police officers without just nation. a problem we have to tackle. e-mails.welcome your this one is from taylor, who said, i really dislike the fact that the president and mr. mulder are trying to make eric gardner's death about race. --

guest: this is a free country and protests are embedded in our opportunity. i support their right and people all across america who protest. this is america and we are all entitled to inspection -- two expression. host: how concerned were you that might get out of hand? guest: in new york, we have a long history in the aftermath of these types of tragedies, where there is a real or perceived injustice in the context of police brutality and using excessive force, responding ,orcefully yet peacefully engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience or marches on the expressions of outrage among but

doing it in a peaceful fashion. africanone when an immigrant was shot 42 times by four police officers, reaching for his wallet or his keys on his way in to his apartment. there were peaceful responses when sean bell was shot 50 times by police officers on the eve of his wedding day. an unarmed young african-american man. the response was peaceful. in new york, we will continue to be aggressive in expressing our outrage and seeking change. i fully expect that to be done in a peaceful fashion. i was here in washington overnight and i will be back in new york tomorrow at the end of the session. host: back to calls, lawrence, welcome to our republican line. i am a 75-year-old white wobbly. host: what is that? outer: you can figure that

and you can do some research and find it out. the justice system is not broken. it cannot be broken. you as a lawyer know full well how much lawyers and the law are involved in this whole mess. it is a very difficult mess. back to 1937. what happened was the harrison stamp act. the entire war on drugs is the root cause for all of this. is what has to be changed. what is happening in d.c. right now have to be addressed. senator andy harris, boehner, and the rest of the congress that will go against d.c. law, and interfere. thank you very much for your service, and thank you, c-span. host: larry tweets about body

cameras. he says their part of the problem and the increasing cost of policing cause >> separation. separation. guest: is very good point about our failed war on drugs that resulted in the over incarceration of individuals. people behind bars have committed largely nonviolent drug offenses and only 8% of people behind bars actually engaged in violent crime. a stunning statistic, one where i think democrats and republicans can agree we need change. the other area i think we can move forward is to reevaluate the militarization of police apartments. there was a vote in july of this year, an amendment put forth to roll back the military surplus

program. i voted against that amendment at the time, believing military surplus equipment in a post-9/11 environment in new york city, experiencing the horrors of 9/11, was a useful thing. but i think we have all got to reevaluate that program at this instance. ant we saw in ferguson was aggressive, military like response on american soil. that was unfortunate. host: on this bipartisan effort on incarceration, we have seen this with republicans and democrats. is any legislation coming out of that? hope. there is great we still have divided government, even though republicans will control both houses of the united dates congress. we still have a democrat in the white house and two years left. he has got a job to do. we can put partisan politics aside. we're heading into a presidential cycle, but i think americans are tired of the

perpetual campaign where as soon as one and am a the other begins and there is never a -- an opportunity. host: the morning, robert. -- good morning, robert. caller: i agree with the who mentioned the things about the nazis. the comparison with not see germany and with the united to the nazidentical party in germany. education in this country, just like a lot of people in institutions, and a lot of german juice did not believe jews did not -- believe what they saw. thing is happening with extremist republicans in this

country. they're undermining, defunding, holding back, the same things happen. verbalrman joseph perpetuated that stuff and the same thing is happening with fox news. let's go back to the comment in terms of republican reaction. what have you heard republican colleagues in terms of reactions to not only eric garner but the decision last week? >> there has been a lot -- last week? do has been a lot of silence although there have been many who believe we have a broken criminal justice system and an over criminalization problem in america and that we spend too much money incarcerating individuals in an inefficient fashion and that there are threats to liberty and the threat for government overreach and taking away your liberty. point, on an historical

we have to look at the legacy of slavery if we will look at anything. we have overcome a lot in this country, but we still have a long way to go or we move from slavery to jim crow, to the civil rights act in 1964 and 1965, the voting rights act, but we still have to figure out what makeneeds to be done to sure that equal protection under the law is truly a reality for everyone. you mentioned president obama and political is writing a reaction to it yesterday. talking about the second time in two weeks that he is addressing a racial issue and a decision by a grand jury. what do you think the president's role in these situations am a is it important , visit ferguson or new york? guest: i do not think he

.ecessarily needs to visit the attorney general is the appropriate person in that regard and the attorney general and isited ferguson visiting cleveland today as i understand it. we hope to see him in new york sometime soon. the president indicated this is persisted int has america for far too long and a lot of people in america unfortunately believe it will never change. his promise that it will change and it will be different this time and we will have to translate those words into actions. host: a couple more calls. but here from barbara, missouri. what i want to ask this representative of our government is, what is going to be done about the existing abuses, the ones regarding michael brown? something has to be done about those existing conditions. it is obvious, the people in the street, as we are, that we have

gotten to the point where this federal government must take over the policing that is happening at the state level, which is nothing but a continuation of jim crow laws in the body of the police, that we as a country can believe that darren wilson was so afraid of an unarmed black teenager, and andad guns in an automobile the power of the police force behind him and he was so afraid because he is an -- a policeman, that he has the right to murder people. for: is it appropriate federal takeover of the police department? guest: you're right about. gartner and the force was excessive. one of the things to point out about darren wilson that i find interesting is that he himself was 6'4", 210 pound. he had a badge, a gun, and entire police force behind him if necessary, and yet he's -- he chose to fire that weapon more than 10 times, striking michael

brown. that is why we need the benefit of a trial. i agree with the point that there is an inherent conflict of interest between local prosecutors and the police department am a because prosecutors rely on the pulleys order toevery day in move cases forward through the criminal justice system. a symbiotic relationship. it is hard to then turn around and expect the prosecutors will go after law enforcement officials who engage in the excessive use of police force. that is light in this instance, six members of congress, myself, in august, called for a federal justice department investigation of the violation of. gartner's civil rights. but we need to look at a state-by-state level on whether we need independent special s to step in whenever law enforcement officers are

accused of using excessive force. host: robert, good morning. you're on the air. is an interesting problem because the democratic when, they changed the law a black man was running for mayor. governor, hefor step down so governor cuomo could run. representing black people in new which the democratic state, even the union, would like to answer this question. time, they have their men circling around part-time jobs. there aren't number of people working consistently. host: we will get a response. thank you. guest: i appreciate the thoughts

you expressed. thingdressed the broader as far as the economy. the worst economic collapse, since the great depression in 2008. many financial institutions responsible for that collapse. they have rebounded. ceo constant -- compensation is way up. the middle-class and those aspiring to be part of it are struggling. this is actually one of the issues where congress needs to come together in a bipartisan way to help turn the economy around to ensure all americans can benefit from the recovery. host: hakeem jeffries >> and, on tomorrow's "washington journal," we hear ary who looks at white house efforts to reform police departments.

and a look at the u.s. prison system. plus we will be taking phone calls and tweets. the house wrapped up work for the week earlier today, approving a defense bill that gives the white house the authority to expand the u.s. mission against militants in iraq in syria. we'll bring you some of that work in just a moment. ssed a votelso pa to block the administration's immigration action. the white house says they will veto the bill but the senate is not expected to take up the bill . also, a pentagon report on sexual assaults in the military. from the national journal today, military sexual assault increased over the last year but the pentagon says that reflect soldiers feeling more comfortable reporting. the pentagon unveiled a four -- unveiledtoday

four initiatives today. they say they have been taking aggressive action to stop sexual assault. we'll have that announcement tonight at 9:35 p.m. eastern time. a the debate on the defense bill from the chair of the senate defense committee. anderson mckeon retires at the end of this term. >> this is his last time as chairman and as a member of congress. our committee has tried to have two basic core principles. one, we get our bill done. two, we work in a bipartisan fashion. and when you look around this body today, you have a greater appreciation for how difficult those two things are. we are not naturally bipartisan, and we are not naturally inclined to pass legislation because there is always something about any piece of legislation that

somebody would prefer to be just a little bit different. and then that's not any less true in our bill, but we recognized the necessity of getting it done. and the ability to do those two things starts with the chair of the committee. when i arrived here, floyd spence was the chairman of the committee, and he and everyone right up through ike skelton who was mr. mckeon's predecessor, had made it a priority to, number one, work with the other side. buck, from the very moment he was elected and the moment i was elected as ranking, reached out to me and made sure that bipartisanship started at the top and flowed down throughout the entire committee. the second piece of it is, the absolute commitment to getting the bill done no matter what. again, chairman mckeon has just been outstanding in that regard. it's been a tough, tough four years. many challenges have cropped up but we have met every one of them and been able to get the bill done. i thank him for his leadership. i also want to thank chairman

levin on the senate side. he's retiring. last year as chairman. he showed a similar commitment and he had an even more difficult time over there. he and senator inhofe were having a conversation couple days ago as we were trying to figure out how to do this which they were trying to explain to us the senate rules. look, i'm never going to understand them. don't explain them. nothing i can do about it. that's up to you. so senator levin has shown outstanding leadership as well. on the whole, i think this is a very good piece of legislation. we have to remember that we fwace a wide variety of national -- face a wide variety of national security threats at this point. we still have troops in afghanistan. we now again have troops in iraq. we have north korea, which is very unpredictable. we have the challenge of dealing with iran and all of its levels. we have russia and vladimir putin that are messing around in the ukraine in a variety different other areas. this is probably as dangerous a time that we had since the end

of the cold war. our national security strategy, the funding and the decisions we make could not possibly be more important. at the same time, we have a huge budget challenge. we have sequestration, and we have this rampant desire to cut, cut, cut, cut everything from government, not contemplate any new revenue, not contemplate of any possibility of spending more money, international security strategy has to try to wrestle with that so that makes it very, very difficult. i will say again what i think is going to be most important in the next few years, i don't think sequestration is going away. i'm going to continue to argue that it should. but given the majorities in the house and given the last -- house and senate, given the last election, it's unlikely to go away which means the military is going to have to live with a dramatically lower amount of money than they thought they were going to have. and they're also going to have to live with all those national security challenges that i mentioned and undoubtedly a few

that i didn't. so how do we do that? right now unfortunately congress is doing it the old way which is parochial. we all have an interest. we don't want our base closed. we have an airplane or a ship that's stationed in our district or a particular defense contractor that's invested in a particular piece of equipment so whenever the pentagon comes up and says we need to cut this, you have a predictable group of people who will rally and say here's why we shouldn't and by and large the rest of congress has gone along with that group of people. i'm here to tell you that's just not going to continue to work. it's not. the very small, minor personnel cuts that are in this bill are things that none of us would have liked to do. we'd love to have more money but we don't. on the a-10, on the retirement of the cruisers and the amphid vehicles -- not the retirement but refurbishment.

on the change of the guard and reserve that have been proposed, i mean, all of these are things we prefer not to do but we have the money that we have. until this congress decides to change that and provide more, it is the absolute worse thing we can do to reject every single change. i mean, we've had things as minor as, you know, a guard unit wanting to move five c-130's from a base in one state to a base in another and proposals in our bill to disallow them from doing that. because, you know, the people in that state don't want them to be moved and i understand that, but that is not a sustainable defense strategy in this environment. we are going to have to make some difficult choices that we don't want to make if we're going to properly protect our military because, again, what happens and we don't make those choices, money doesn't magically appear to pay for these things. the pentagon has to reshuffle the deck and make cuts elsewhere to try to figure out how to make it work and the cuts always come from

readiness. we've always said, you know, that the worse thing that we can do is create a hallow force, a force that does not have the training and the equipment to do the missions that we asked them to do. well, that is precisely what we do when we reject reasonable cuts, we don't do a brac, for instance, and leave the military with no choice but to reduce training and equipping because that's all that's left. that's the last thing on the table. so i hope we start making those tough decisions in the coming year. again, i thank the chairman and thank the staff. i wish senator levin the best in his retirement as well. i urge passage of the bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mckeon: i would at the outset like to thank mr. smith. i agree with probably about everything he said. he has been a tremendous partner to work with and, you

know, he just had hip surgery a few weeks ago and these last few weeks when all these meetings and all the time and all the effort he's had to put forth in great pain, i really commend you for your integrity, for your steadfastness in your commitment to serving your district, the members of our armed services and this nation. it's been great experience working with you, and i've enjoyed just about every minute of it. there are times when we disagreed, but we've really done that at a high level and tried to keep it always on the issue, never personal. it's been great. i want to join him in thanking our staff. we get all the credit, they do all the work. both sides of the aisle.

i -- frankly, most of the staff -- i don't know if they're on the minority or the majority side because they work so closely together and we -- that's just the culture of the committee and i'm sure it will continue. as you've heard through other debate, this legislation addresses a wide variety of policy issues, including supporting operations in afghanistan, funding the war against isil in iraq and syria, reinforcing our capabilities in the pacific and maintaining the nation's nuclear deterrent, but many challenges remain. next year the armed services committee will be in excellent hands. mr. thornberry and i have sat next to each other now for 20 years on the committee. he will be the chairman next year. mr. smith will continue to be the ranking member. they will have their work cut out for them, but they're more

than up to the task and i wish them all the best because our security of our nation lies in their hands along with all of the members of the committee and all of the members of this body. i hope sometime next year a compromise can come to the floor that will end sequestration. there isn't a magical solution that republicans can support and the president can sign without sacrifice on both sides. when that solution comes, it will be a tough vote on both sides. i pray that our colleagues will hold this one thought in their heart when that vote comes -- remember the great sacrifice that our troops and their families and loved ones at home are making around the world. right now they're walking in the mountains of afghanistan,

they're at sea within missile range of iran, they're flying wing tip to wing tip against russia -- against russian bombers over the north sea, they're nose to nose with the north koreans, they're sweating in the he can with a torial -- equitorial heat of africa, they're standing in the sands of iraq against a brutal enemy. they take those risks. they make those sacrifices because of you. me do it for -- they do it for you. they do it for us, for their families, for their flag, for our freedom. and how have we repaid them? with equipment that's falling apart, by laying them off while they're off in war zones, by docking their pay and their medical benefits, by throwing them out of the service and onto a broken economy. i met our forces on the battlefields of iraq and

afghanistan dirty and sweating from fighting. i've watched too many families, as have all of you, spend long months waiting for those returning from deployment. i've seen too many heroes put into the ground. they never failed us, not once. . so shame on us if we're unwilling to pay back what we owe them. shame on all of us, from the white house down, if we cannot make far less sacrifices than we ask of them on their behalf. my road in congress is coming to an end. it will be in the next congress and the president to make these injustices right. so please show our troops the respect they deserve. give them the tools they need, help keep them safe. honor their sacrifice with your

service. i know that you'll do the right thing. i'm in the twilight of a 22-year career here in congress. it's been mentioned that we passed this bill 53 times. i want to tell you, i was not here for all 53 of those. nor was adam. he's much younger than i am. you might think that i've been here 53. but it's been the history of the committee to get this done every year because it is so important. i've come to know many of you as friends and many of you as family. arm aed services committee staff, once again, that's minority and majority, you're all veterans, you're professionals, you're tireless. but i just think of you as the best. -- oh, boy. taff

i did not want to do this. i did not want to give this speech. not because i have any regrets, i just have this problem, you know, thankfully the speaker has it a lot worse than i do and he gets all the attention. but i have the same problem. you know, we hear a lot about government workers and we spend money on government workers and they don't do anything. i just want to tell people of america that all of these people that work here spend

countless hours and they do so much for so many people. i have some constituent workers at home that have helped thousands of people. and every one of these overnment workers here deserve our gratitude, our thanks for all that they do. i want to thank all my colleagues for their many wonderful things they've said. i made a comment the other day that my funeral is going to be somewhat anticlimactic. i've heard speeches saying what a wonderful person i am. fortunately i'm old enough that i don't take any of that personally or too seriously. this is a d that responsibility that was given to me by colleagues. i've enjoyed it. it's been a great experience. but i know it's not about me.

it's about what we do here. my -- my family . people say, boy, we love your christmas card. we have six children. 0 grandchildren -- 30 grandchildren. and now one great-grandchild. and they are all great. and i'm going to spend a little bit more time with them. i think i'd like to teach some of my grandchildren how to fish , if somebody will teach me how to fish. and my wife has stood by my she's r 52 years now and

-- she's a tremendous person ho i look up to so much. now, i'm a mckeon, so that means i'm of irish heritage. o i'd like to part with an irish blessing for all of you. may the road rise up to meet you and the wind be ever at your back. may the sunshine upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. and until we meet again, may god hold you in the hollow of his hand. to this great body and to our troops, wherever you may be, may god bless you and keep you, may god bless america. and now for hopefully the last time, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the

balance of his time. [applause] >> the house passing a a 580 $5 billion defense authorization, giving the white house the authority to expanding mission against isis. an attempt tooved block the executive order on immigration. the boat was mostly along party lines. -- vote was mostly along party lines. the senate is not expected to take it up. here is some of the debate. mr. yoho's important bill, the preventing executive overreach on immigration act of 2014. president obama has just announced one of the biggest constitutional power grabs ever by a president. he has declared unilaterally

that by his own estimation more than four million unlawful immigrants will be free from the legal consequences of their lawless actions. not only that, he will in addition bestow upon them gifts such as work authorization and other immigration benefits. this, despite the fact that president obama has stated over 20 times in the past that he does not have the constitutional power to take such steps on his own and has repeatedly stated that, quote, i am not a king, end quote. pursuant to article 1, section 8 of the constitution, only congress has the power to write immigration laws. our founding fathers established this separation of powers to prevent tyranny. as james madison wrote, no political truth is greater -- is certainly of greater intrinsic value or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and a judiciary a, in

the same hand, whether of one, few or many, and whether her edtary, self-appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. yet president obama is in effect rewriting our immigration laws by granting deferred action to more than four million unlawful aliens. pursuant to article 2, section 3 of the constitution, the president is required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. yet president obama is refusing to enforce our immigration laws for these millions of unlawful alienle -- aliens. president obama justifies his actions by claiming that his administration is merely exercising the power of prosecutorial discretion. yet as clinton administration i.n.s. commissioner told her agency, exercising prosecutorial discretion does not lessen the i.n.s.'s commitment to enforce the immigration laws to the best of our ability.

while previous presidents have provided immigration relief to groups of aliens, usually their actions were based on emergencies in foreign countries. thereby relying upon the broad constitutional power given to a president to conduct foreign affairs. without any such foreign crisis and in granting deferred action to a totally unprecedented number of aliens, president obama has clearly exceeded his constitutional authority. i commend mr. yoho for introducing his bill which undoes the damage to our constitutional system that president obama's action as are causing. the bill reaffirms the constitutional principles that only congress has the power to write immigration laws and that the president must enforce those lalls. mr. yoho's bill preventing president obama or any future president from exempting or deferring the removal of categories of unlawful aliens except to the extent that the president is relying on his

constitutional powers over foreign affairs or utilizing exceptions provided for in the bill for exceptional humanitarian and law enforcement circumstances. the bill prevents president obama or any future president from considering such aliens to be lawfully present in the united states and thus ineligible for the rights and privileges available to lawfully present aliens. it prevents president obama or any future president from granting work authorization to such aliens. finally, the bill takes effect as if enact aed on november 20, -- enact aed on november 20, -- enacted on november 20, 2014. i again urge my colleagues to vote for this necessary bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the secretary: the senate has

passed s. 229, cited as the corporal michael j. clems act of 2014 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. conyers: thank you. members of the house, in one week this 113th congress will expire without having considered a single piece of legislation to fix our nation's broken immigration system. it's been 525 days since the senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation that would have made meaningful and long overdue reforms, but our

chamber here has still steadfastly refused to allow an up or down vote on that measure. no one questions that our immigration system is broken. it's failing our economy and millions of families and our businesses and yet rather than deal with these critical issues we are here today to vote on yet another symbolic anti-immigrant measure that has absolutely no chance of consideration in the senate. i want to be clear. politically motivated, hastily drafted, an attempt, once again, to attack our president as well as immigrant families who

contribute to our communities and our economy. by blocking the protections offered by the president's actions, the legislation would deprive nearly five million immigrants and their families of the hope that they might finally live without constant fear of separation and deportation and it would undermine the administration's efforts to devote greater resources towards securing our borders and deporting felons and not families. and this would mean millions of undocumented immigrants, not to e asked to pass national security and criminal background checks and pay their fair share of taxes in order to register for temporary protection from deportation. 579 -- 5759, the

president's executive order is recognized by both liberal and conservative legal experts, and in a letter written last month, 11 prominent scholars explained that the president's actions are within the power of the executive branch and that they represent a lawful exercise of a president's authority. and this letter was signed -- i was amazed at the list of constitutional authorities. strouse llinger, david -- david strauss, formerly in the solicitor general's office, laurence tribe, and even conservative professors like

eric posner. and 135 immigration law professors echoed that and provided constitutional, statutory and regulatory authority for these actions. not to mention that the president himself was a professor of constitutional law. nd finally, this measure, h.r. 5759, goes well beyond preventing the president from expanding deferred action -- expanding deferred action for childhood arrivals or creating a program to protect the parents of u.s. citizens and lawful permanent residents from deportation. it would not only prevent this president but any future president from protecting discreet categories of individuals facing unique

dangers and challenges. this means that no future administration would be able to parole in place the undocumented parents or spouses and children of military personnel and veterans or facilitate enlistment in our armed services by american citizens who have undocumented family members or grant deferred action to victims of crime or serious forms of human trafficking. for these and other reasons, this legislation is opposed by many organizations that care about our immigration system and are working to protect the vulnerable among us, including the united states conference of catholic bishops, the afl-cio, the service workers international union, the national task force to end

sexual and domestic violence against women. let's think this through carefully, and i urge you to oppose this very dangerous anti-immigrant measure. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. goodlatte: to clarify a couple things. first of all, it's not true that house of representatives has not acted to fix our broken immigration system. first of all, last summer we passed two bills, one from the appropriations committee and e -- the jurisdiction of the judiciary committee, that did just that, to provide resources to secure our borders to stop the surge illegal immigrants coming into our country and to make sure that similarly unconstitutional daca program that the president implemented earlier was frozen and could

not proceed further. so to me that's simply not true. second, to say that president's going to require people who -- the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself an additional 15 seconds to say that fact of the matter is that en you talk about taxes, there's no requirement in the president's executive order that anyone who qualifies as an unlawful alien to get this administrative legalization to pay back taxes. there's none. they pay taxes moving forward. one of the benefits they qualify for the earned income tax credit. this could cost the taxpayers more. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i now yield five minutes to the chief sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the work that you've done on this, and i appreciate the attention that this has brought. there's a lot of consternation about this bill. i stand here today obviously in

support of my bill, h.r. 5759, preventing the executive overreach on immigration act of 2014. it's a simple bill. it's four pages. but yet it's caused a lot of debate. it just simply says that the -- it states that the president, mr. obama, does not have the constitutional authority to grant amnesty by issuing work visas to five million people here illegally. i've got a list of scholars, claim at back up the this bill is not unconstitutional. this does not talk about deporting -- it will deport nine million people. it doesn't talk about that. it doesn't talk about granting amnesty. it just stops an unconstitutional action by our president who has taken an oath to defend, protect the constitution of the united states, just like the rest of us in this body has. to vote no against this bill is

to vote no against the constitution. harry reid has already said he will not bring up this bill for a vote. the president says he will veto this if it makes it to his desk. my question is, to not bring up this bill or to not sign it, is that not a vote against our constitution? it is important that we address the true debate here, and that is the separation of powers. this bill's not about border security, work visas, e-verify or immigration reform. this is about the administrative overstepping its bounds and unilaterally challenging the laws of this great nation of ours. article 2, section 3 of our constitution makes very clear that the duty of the president is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. despite this straightforward charge, the administration is refusing to enforce our existing immigration laws for millions of unlawful aliens.

article 1, section 8 of the constitution clearly states, only congress has the power to write immigration laws, and our founding fathers established this separation of powers to prevent an overreaching executive. mr. speaker, the supreme court found in galvin vs. perez that the formulation of policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here is entrusted exclusively to congress and it has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body of politics as any aspect of our government. preserving article 1, the legislative powers, this is not a partisan issue. it's not republican or democrat. it's allowing executive action like this to slide simply because we are frustrated with a system establishing -- and it establishes a dangerous precedent that could be abused by presidents of both parties for any area of law they disagree with.

i'd like to point out to my colleagues on the other side that if we continue to surrender from this body, our legislative powers to the executive branch, then we could easily be standing here in two, five or 10 years discussing a republican president who refuses to enforce the employer mandate of the affordable care act or uphold portions of the voting rights act and it could go on and on and it could open up a dangerous precedent. just because one disagrees with the outcome, doesn't mean they need to violate. the congress has the power to create and write laws and the president has the duty to faithfully execute those laws, not to pick and choose, like he does or doesn't like them and that's according to, again, article 2, section 3. i ask members to support h.r. 5759, restore constitutional powers to congress and stand on the side of the constitution to protect this great nation of

ours. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 seconds. mr. conyers br before calling on our -- mr. conyers: before calling on our distinguished colleague from california. i want everyone, particularly the author of this bill, to know as the senior member of the house judiciary committee, i firmly believe and support the constitution, the amendments and the precedence. i'm now pleased to yield to a senior member of judiciary who's worked on this issue for a number of years, the gentlelady from california, ms. lofgren, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for four minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, the legal authority for the president's immigration actions derives in part from his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. in heckler v. cheney, the

supreme court explained this duty does not require the president to act against every technical violation of the law. the court said, quote, an agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to the agency's absolute discretion. two years ago, the supreme court in arizona vs. the united states, struck down most of arizona's sb-1070 law. the court said then the broad discretion exercised by federal immigration officials extends to -- and here's a quote -- whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. the arizona courts said discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns and can turn on factors including whether the alien has children born in the united states, long ties to the community or a record of distinguished military service. when we created the department of homeland security in 2002, we charged the secretary with

the duty to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. that's 6 u.s. code 202. congress delegated that authority to the executive branch and they are now using this authority. we enacted a law that permits the issuance of employment authorization. they are now implementing that part of the law. this bill would block some portions of the president's recent action to keep young people from facing deportation and to prevent parents of u.s. citizen kids from being deported, but the bill harms others too. immigrant victims of domestic violence who seek a green card through the violence against women act are not protected from deportation while they wait for a visa. with this bill they would face deportation. victims of serious crimes approved for u-visas get deferred action while they wait is insufficient because victims may assist law enforcement without appearing

at trial. victims of severe forms of human trafficking eligible for statutorily can'tee visas could face deportation. the bill would end the ability to parole in place the undocumented families of american military personnel and veterans. deporting the mothers of american soldiers could be the result. . there are precedents for the president's actions. prior presidents were not met with such instructionism. president ronald reagan created the family fairness program. once expanded by president george h.w. bush, that program is expected to protect 1.5 million people. the reason was to keep families together. one of the key motivations for the president's actions last month. some wrongly claim the reagan program was to carry out congressional intent in the 6 -- 1986 act, that is false. when the senate judiciary committee reported the bill, they said, quote, it is the intent of the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of

the legalization. they will be required to wait in line in the same manner as immediate family members of other new resident aliens. but president reagan decided otherwise. some wrongly argue the scope of the reagan family fairness program was smaller, that it was not intended to provide relief to 1.5 million people, about 40% of the undocumented population at time. again, that is false. the i.n.s. commissioner then testified before congress that it covered 1.5 million people. an internal decision memo at the time states, family policies provide voluntary departure and employment authorization to potentially millions of individuals. the draft processing plan at the time said current estimates are that greater than one million eligible family members will file for this benefit. many m.e.p. members on the other side -- many members op the other side of the aisle want to prevent the president's actions from going into effect. but the president has strong constitutional and statutory

authority to take these actions. i would ask an additional 20 seconds. mr. conyers: i'd like to grant her an additional half minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. lofgren: he cannot change the law and he has not done. so he has the authority to grant temporary relief to some. we need broad reform and to do that we need to legislation. it's shameful that the house has failed in its duty to legislate, to fix our broken immigration system. the judiciary committee has reported out four bills. we've yet to see them on the floor and i would ask unanimous consent to put in the record the testimony by the commissioner before the judiciary committee in 1990, the draft processing plan from 1990, and the decision memo from 1990 that prove the elements of the reagan fairness plan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, that will be part of the record. ms. lofgren: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds.

to point out that the supreme court decision in heckler vs. cheney in no way in no way justifies the claim that the president of the united states has this authority to issue this enormous order. i quote from the decision. nor do we have a situation where it could justifiably be found that the agency a has consciously and expressly adopted a general policy that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities. that's what's happened here. the president has abdicated his statutory responsibilities in enforcing the law and changed the law and that's why it cannot be upheld. the chair now is pleased to recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. smith, a member of the judiciary committee, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for bringing this legislation to the floor. mr. speaker, president obama just last week made the action

and said, i quote, change the law, closed quote, on immigration granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. the president should not be allowed to do this. in fact, article 2, section 3, of the constitution requires the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. on march 2, 2011, -- 28, 2011, president obama said he would not use an executive order for amnesty. explaining that, and again i quote, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances, closed quote. those are his words. more than 20 times the president said, executive action on immigration would not be appropriate. nothing has changed in our constitution but now the administration is now singing a different tune. mr. speaker, i'm from the show-me state. i would love for any of my colleagues in this body to show me in this document the constitution of the united

states where it grants the president the authority to change the laws. article 1 of the constitution says, congress will change the laws. not the president. the president will execute the laws. faithfully execute the laws. mr. speaker, i proudly support this legislation and i ask all my colleagues to do so to stop this action. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm ms. pelosi, eld to our leader, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california, the minority leader, is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i commend him for his leadership as chairman and now ranking member of the judiciary committee. and his important work for comprehensive immigration reform. i also salute the ranking member of the subcommittee on

immigration, congresswoman lofgren of california, who has not only chaired the immigration committee, she has taught immigration law. she has been an immigration lawyer. she represents a very diverse district in california blessed with strong immigrant population. mr. speaker, more than 520 days ago the senate passed bold bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform by an overwhelming majority, it was bipartisan, it was overwhelming, 520 days ago. more than that. time and again the republican leadership in the house has promised productive action to fix our clearly broken immigration system. yet time and again republicans have refused to give the american people a vote on this critical issue. they have ignored law enforcement, the badges, faith leaders, the bibles, and business groups, the three b's, denied our countries billions

of dollars in economic benefits and $1 trillion in deficit reduction. turned their backs on millions of hardworking immigrant families forced to live in daily dread of separation and deportation. in the face of republicans' failure to act, president obama has used his well-established legal and constitutional authority to bring our immigration system back into line with our needs as a nation and our values as a people. the president's executive actions will restore accountability to our immigration enforcement, securing our borders, deporting felons, not families, requiring undocumented immigrants to pass a criminal background check and pay taxes. presidents have had broad authority to defer removal when it is in the national interest

and past presidents have regularly used this authority. president ronald reagan understood that immigration was a constant reinvigration of our nation. s a new president in 1981, president reagan said, our nation is a nation of immigrants. more than any other country our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. in the lead up to the immigration control and reform act, president reagan again called out our nation to action when he said, we're also going to have compassion and legalize those who came here some time ago and have legitimately put roots down and are living as legal residents of our country. even though illegal. we're going to make them legal. in a signing statement of the immigration control and a reform act, president reagan

said, we have consistently supported a legalization program which is both generous to the alien and fair to the countless thousands of people throughout the world who seek legally to come to america. he went on to say, the legalization provisions in this act will go far to improve the lives of a class of individuals who now must hide in the shadows without access to many of the benefits of a free and open society. does that sound familiar? he went on to say, very soon many of these men and women will be able to step into the sunlight and ultimately if they choose they may become americans. in the years immediately following the enactment of the 1986 immigration reform and control act, president reagan and president george h.w. bush took both actions to protect the spouses of children and children of people who received status under the law.

although congress in that immigration bill explicitly chose not to grant status to these people. presidents reagan and bush recognized that it was not in the national interest to separate families. using their authority to establish a family fairness program by executive action. they offered spouses and children indefinite protection from deportation and work authorization -- gave them work authorization. every president since president dwight david eisenhower has used this same broad authority. republicans and democrats alike fpblgt dating back more man -- alike. dating back more than 50 years, presidents have granted extended voluntary departure to nationals of more than a dozen countries, including cuba, vietnam, laos, cambodia, chile, poland, afghanistan, ethiopia

and uganda. president bush granted deferred enforcement departure to chinese nationals after the tiananmen square massacre, even though he vetoed a similar bill passed by congress. i remember that well, it was my bill. he vetoed the bill because he didn't want to sign the bill and then he issued the executive order, doing exactly what the bill would do. several years later he granted e same status to 200,000 salvadorans. thanks to president obama's immigration accountability executive actions in the same vain, millions of hardworking, law-abiding families will be able to celebrate the holidays with a renewed hope in the future. in response to this presidential action of common sense and compassion, republicans are asking today on this floor a radical bill of appalling callousness and cruelty. with this bill republicans are demanding that we deport hundreds of thousands of young

dreamers who know no country but the united states. with this bill, republicans would tear apart millions of thousands throw upon thousands of american children into foster care with this bill republicans would deport the family members of our heroes in uniform serving oversales. deny release and respite to victims of human trafficking and domestic violence, reject the values that are the at the heart of our heritage and our history. this legalization -- excuse me, this legislation is unworthy of our nation. don't take it from me. that is why this bill is opposed by groups including the united states catholic conference of bishops who wrote, instead of traumatizing these children and young adults, the future leaders of our country, we should invest in them by ensuring that their families remain in tact.

mr. speaker, i hope our colleagues will take the advice of the catholic conference of bishops and vote against this legislation. democrats in the house will continue to demand comprehensive immigration reform that honors our heritage, giving certainty to families, fueling innovation, creating jobs and reducing the deficit. we know that the president's steps cannot be a substitute for legislation. they must be a sum ons to action. -- summons to action. here in congress and across the country, we will keep up the drum beat for progress, of advancing comprehensive immigration reform. we will do so, heeding the advice of president george w. bush who told us, as we dealt with this issue, to treat the people who are affected by it with respect. republicans should reject this

cold-hearted bill and give the american people a vote on immigration reform that they deserve. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the majority whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from virginia for yielding, for his leadership on immigration issues, i especially want to thank my colleague and friend, congressman yoho for bringing forward this piece of legislation which just goes back and re-establishes the rule of law, mr. speaker. you've got a president who's consistently gone out time and time again and shown disregard for the constitution and the rule of law of this nation. . we just had an election in november. the president said himself this was going to be a referendum on his agenda, and the american

people were crystal clear about their dislike of this failed agenda from this president. and they've told him, get back to work. go work with congress to solve problems. and what's the first response? the president has to poke his finger in the eye of the american people who spoke loud and clear to him is to say he's going to disregard what they said and he's going to ignore the rule of law and in fact ignore what our constitutional framework of checks and balances is and he thinks he can sit in the oval office and write his own laws. and then he comes forward with this proposal to literally disregard enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. this isn't going to stand, mr. speaker. this legislation says you can't do that, mr. president. there is a rule of law. you need to start enforcing that law. we came together as a house just a few months ago and passed a border security bill. let's actually get back to the rule of law and protecting our

nation's borders. it's not just an immigration issue, it's a national security issue. and so what is the president's response to this legislation? he threatens a veto. again, the president thinks he can sit in the oval office and make up his own laws. that's not the way our system of government works, mr. speaker. so we bring this legislation forward today to get us back to that rule of law and to remind the president it's time for him to heed the message that millions of americans across the country set just a few weeks ago and said you need to start working with congress and solve real problems. in fact, this weekend in my home state of louisiana, there are three more elections on that ballot. pay close attention, mr. president. pay close attention to yet another referendum on your agenda that's going to occur this saturday with a senate election and two more house races. the american people want you to get out of the cocoon of the

oval office and start working with congress to solve real problems. we've passed legislation to solve those problems. you can try to ignore them, issue veto threats, but it's time for you to roll up your sleeves and get to work with us and solve those problems together. pull back your executive action. this legislation ensures that happens. i urge approval and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair reminds members to address their remarks to the chair. mr. conyers: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm proud to recognize a dedicated member of the judiciary committee, judy chu of california, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: mr. speaker, it seems the republicans will do anything other than put a bill on the floor to pass immigration reform. so far they've refused to allow for a vote on the bipartisan h.r. 15. they are threatening another government shutdown and they suggest impeaching the

president for doing what's right. when they did put a bill on the floor it was to repeal daca. it's been more than a year and a half to allow a vote on h.r. 15. even if it were put on the floor today it would pass. instead we have this bill to undo the president's executive action, a step he wouldn't have had to take had congress done its job. this is just another distraction when what we need are real solutions. there are real families at stake who need real immigration reform. american businesses need it. our communities need it. if republicans are unhappy that president acted, there is still an option for them. legislate. join us in crafting and voting on a bill that will fix our broken immigration system. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for

yielding. i rise in support of this very reasonable legislation which really simply requires that our present immigration laws be fully enforced or at least not be violated. i commend the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, for bringing this legislation to the floor. the president has said he's been forced to act because the congress has not done so. that is not correct. as chairman goodlatte pointed out a few minutes ago, congress can write a new law, changing an old law or leaving present law in effect. the administration is glossing over or is ignoring the fact that we have very detailed immigration laws on the books now. they may not like present law, but no one has the right or the power or the authority to pick and choose and enforce some laws but not others. presidential executive orders have traditionally been used almost entirely for noncontroversial, administrative-type actions. they were not meant to be a way for a president to bypass the congress. we do not live or not supposed to live under a system where

all the power is vested in the executive. we have a constitution and it should be followed. mr. speaker, all of us admire those who have immigrated here legally and have contributed so much to this nation. we have allowed many millions here legally. since the law of 1986, far more than any other country. but with 58% of the people in the world having to get by on $4 or less a day, that means that almost four billion people are hoping to get one good meal today and probably aren't. we are blessed beyond belief to live in this nation, but our entire infrastructure, our schools, our hospitals, our jails, our roads, our sewers simply could not deal with the rapid influx of millions who would come here in a relatively short time if we opened our borders. we have to have a legal, orderly system of immigration and it must be enforced. i urge my colleagues to support this very commonsense legislation, and i yield back

the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, a distinguished member of judiciary, 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. i rise with a sense of moral indignation that we would want to block parents from loving their children, children from loving their parents and deporting persons who have no reason to criminally act in this nation. i join with the president in saying, let us keep families and deport felons, and that is a discretion that is given by the law to allow presidents to take care and ensure that laws are enforced properly. this legislation is wrong headed and misdirected. allow me to say this november 20 executive order is now being retroactively judged by this congress. that is not the congress' responsibility. the congress, if they desire to

do so as they've done on many occasions is to bring this to the judicial courts. but if they do so they will find that law has dictated that courts read without much interest in deciding whether or not an administrative decision has been made with fault. the president, through executive order, is making an administrative decision in terms of how laws are prosecuted. just yesterday, the state of texas and a number of other states, filed a lawsuit against executive actions announced by the president on november 20. much to my surprise and, of course, with great joy, the fifth circuit court of appeals appears to have already issued a decision dismissing such a complaint. it did so in 1997 when governor george w. bush arguing that the federal government's failure to enforce our immigration laws violated article 1. the court rejected the texas argument that the federal government had b