later proved to keep the government-funded -- later approved to keep the government-funded through 2019. next, testimony from minority leader nancy pelosi, the minority with and -- whip and the hispanic caucus chair.

>> i would have this distinguished committee should let us take up the dream act. if the committee a chance to keep the american dream. badges, law enforcement, faith based groups and others all support the dream act. cato institute, supporting the dreamers would cost $60 billion. dreamerson of the

would cost much more than that. hopes toers with their make the future better for the next generation. that is the american value. these dreamers make america more american. they embody the best of our nation. patriotism, hard work and preserverance. a partisan ort be political issue. i was telling the president when i met with him recently at the ourday party -- many of

republican colleagues said how supported they would be of the dream act but many of your spouses told me that as well. there is a spirit of family in all this. addressmany issues to with immigration in our country. congress has a duty and application --obligation to protect these dreamers. honored toes --i am be joined by a distinguished whip who has been a champion of this issue for many years. confer will and i will

with how it is necessary to do this. thell yield to distinguished chairwoman of the spanish caucus to make her presentation. >> thank you, this policy. pelosi. whatever you brought in writing will help. >> i want to join you in thanking nate bank. the children who are going to enjoy sitting there -- during the waking -- seeing their dad during the waking hours. amazingou to your

theersa n and the members in majority. e. have liz cheney down ther she is a firebrand. e. are delighted you are her arehoyer, you recognized. >> well, is that an improvement? perhaps now you hear me and want away.e the mic room of speaking to a

someone said i cannot a person in the front said i can, let's switch. >> do you remember the story about lyndon johnson and bill was giving the prayer and the president said speak up. bill said i wasn't speaking to you, mr. president. i will not get into what he thought. hanukkah just came to a close. from christmass and nine days from the end of the year. much of the work that this congress needs to do has not gotten done.

andl late last night morning,arly this we had no idea of what was going to be proposed. we will doecide what this afternoon. included inbeen the discussion. that is unfortunate. we need to address many issues that leader pelosi has spoken of. we have not passed a single appropriations bill to the president of the united states . we passed them through the

house but the republican onder did not put a single e on the senate floor. we find ourselves at no agreement of the spending caps. we had an agreement four years ina row that we would have parity. reach aneen unable to agreement. with noourselves guidance to the appropriations committee about what level they should fund. an find ourselves with less th

48 hours to go. there was a no drama cr that the issues that confront us. likely, the only thing that was considered was the tax bill, which we think is a disaster. we have a different opinion. that's what we spent our time on. andid not resolve anything that 90 days. we had another cr two weeks ago, we did not vote on it because we thought correctly the only thing it was going to be paid attention to was the tax bill. of which youssues, voted for cr, you got 90 of your people back because they thought it was two weeks and it would not damage defense as much as they voted against it. many of your colleagues, cr

would not have passed, 90 days, we would have had a crisis in september had democrats not stepped up and said ok, let's work together and get the issues resolved. we did not do that. he's been all the time on your tax bill -- you have spent all the time on your tax bill. previously, you spent all of your time in repealing the affordable care act and taking healthways -- health care aware from -- away from the american people. we served on the appropriations committee and came to an agreement. we have come to know agreement. we are ourselves where going to kick the can down the road. we're not going to tell defense what money they will have for the next nine months, eight months.

were not going to tell the department of energy, labor, health and human services, department of state, department of commerce, other departments and agencies, we are not going to tell them how they can plan for the next nine months. any business that that that would go they grabbed a short period of time. it is a terrible way to run the government of the united states or any other enterprise. no closerrselves here to agreement and we have been in the first 11 months. youre had discussions with majority leader, our majority leader, with whom i have dealt with constructively on many issues. i told him there were a number of issues we felt were necessary in order for us to participate in helping the majority party,

which has had extraordinarily -- had extraordinary difficult running the country. you are deeply divided party, we saw that last night on the floor of the house. know if you have resulted those differences in the last 24 hours, it is clear that without our participation in september, you would not have passed the cr and the government would have shut down. we hope during that time, we would have had some ability to work together. , asld the majority leader august that the dream act had to be resolved. the president took an action in september that the speaker urged to not to do. risk somet, it put at

800,000, really 1.6 million, young people who of cordoba and america and believe it is their country and gone to elementary school, junior high school and high school, have worked in jobs, gone to school, served in aremilitary, and they twisting in the wind. rush limbaugh said we are not going to send those kids home. we have said we are not going to send those kids home. the president says he loves the dreamers. there is no excuse for us not aving put it on for -- put bill on the floor to resolve this issue. over 300 members of congress will vote on that when you put it on the floor. the only reason it is not on the floor is because the leadership has refused to do so. that was very important to us. to the leader over and over again, i have raised in colloquy over and over again. opioids, as the leader has

spoken of, we should have resolved that bill, the perkins loan program, we should have resolved that issue, community health centers, we should have resolved that issue come up medicare extenders, we should have resolved that issue, fire grants, in the dreamers as well. here we find ourselves less than 48 hours before the end of the cr,, the end of the current and nothing has been resolved. no discussions have led to resolution of these issues. reading their phones. perhaps what i am saying is not relevant. we feel it is relevant. you have needed our votes on almost every fiscal issue that has passed this house, because so many of you are members, you

could pass anything on your own, and you have passed the tax bill on your own. when you want to pass things on your own, you create consensus to do so. but on most every fiscal issue -- on one fiscal issue, the john scully's -- i think it was mr. mccarthy, you have 84 joey -- 84 votes to keep the government open. over 125 of your members voted no. omb voted no.f i come before the committee saying, if you are going to offer a rule that is going to amendmentser, some or some alternatives, if you expect our help, you ought to put in things we think are

numbernt and will have a of republicans voting with us. including, i presume, many of you. i don't know that. youme before you saying have 36 hours to keep the government open. we don't have the votes to keep the government open, we don't have the votes to shut it down. the american people have given you the responsibility to do that. if you have the votes, you don't have to talk to us. , weou don't have the votes really need to come together in a bipartisan way to be the responsible stewards of this government. i would urge you to include initially an amendment which says that those dreamers will no longer be twisting in the wind.

and we will give them the assurances that the president says he will find to give them. -- he will find to give them. he said he would sign the bill. he set it to leader pelosi in leadership are and the world. we think that needs to be in their. -- in there. --need to deal with pfizer fisa in a bipartisan way. but don't look for us for help if we are not included and shut out, as the tax bill. no hearings, no witnesses and a conference that was a fraud. the only thing democrats did in that text conference was the able to make a statement. .o amendments, no suggestions that is not regular order. more than that, it is not fair.

it's not what the american people expect of us. i come to you asking you certainly for that amendment, i ask as well because i understand you are considering a supplemental. your tax bill and the supplemental bill undermines puerto rico. as million americans as well the virgin islands. they still have 35% of people in puerto rico without electricity. in houstonhe people were without electricity, it would be a national scandal, you would all be outraged, you would not allow it to happen. treats puerto rico as a foreign government. , a part americans fully of the united states of america, if they want to come to florida are anywhere else, they can come because they are americans.

we believe the supplemental also needs to be revised in a way that treats puerto rico and the virgin islands as full partners of united states of america, not as foreign governments. i thank you, mr. chairman, for this opportunity. i would ask to submit a dear , expressing his deep concern about the extension of the v.a. choice act, which he thinks will undermine the v.a. because it is not a full bill dealing with the needs of the ccess to veterans' a health care. doctors, bets, etc. i ask if you included in the record at this time. in closing, i would say that i really do believe we can do some

very good work if we do it in a bipartisan way. will i have to give something? yes. will you have to give something? yes. that is the democratic process. we are not pursuing that and that is what we find ourselves in this conundrum 36 hours before the government is going to shut down. thank you, mr. chairman. >> without exception, that will be entered into the record. i appreciate his comments and not only -- not only his, but his time this morning and that of his colleagues. >> wright. -- ready to go. >> thank you all. this is my second time before the rules committee, and no matter what time of day or how late it is and as nice as you are, it is still a little

intimidating, particularly if you've only been here five years and you are joined by two incredibly seasoned, productive members. i am lucky to have them here and i associate myself with all of their remarks. we arenteresting that giving you a passion, i hope, plea for -- we have an opportunity, not only to see the glass as half full, 36 hours is plenty of time we could do something. we could do some in today, i have no doubt. the kindis because of of work i have got to do, not only with members of this committee, but i want to thank the members i have got to know in five years and i appreciate the strip chairman, your remarks of housing. people get upset at me at home about partisanship here, and there are issues, and i thought the with did a good job saying that we find ourselves caught in partisan aspects that make it

difficult for us to do the work we really want to do. that we think makes a difference in the community. at the end of the day, there are so many folks, including on this community, -- including on this committee, i've had a great relationship with. that is something folks may not know. mr. chairman, when you first came here, you knew i was from the land of enchantment. incrediblyis a beautiful, wonderful place with incredible challenges. have a tendency to just focus on those challenges. it is a place that has huge, persistent pockets of poverty, and yet we have more phd's per capita in my district and anywhere in the united states i believe today. we have an incredible number of veterans per capita, an incredible number of dreamers and also a diverse population with one of the largest members of independent tribes in the country. it gives me a unique perspective. i grew up when the children's health insurance program did not exist.

i am the oldest of three, and my sister, the youngest, was diagnosed with the same brain tumors that senator mccain is now struggling with. interestingly enough, my sister, 1960's, livedhe to be 21, which was unheard of at that time. i watch my parents trying to figure out how to negotiate and pay for care without having any coverage for the entire time until she died when she was 21. is to getimportant these issues right and get these programs funded. iran the department of health, and when we would run out of funding, i would have to make calls the families telling them i wasn't sure how we would navigate care for a child like my sister with a terminal disease, it is compelling. and yet trying to figure out how to navigate it all, veterans who don't have access to housing. we have a two star hospital in

found country, and we that we have one of the worst v.a. clinics in the country. this is not a lecture, it is outcome ofing especially now in this incredible season, we can do something. i know we can. i am here offering the amendment on the dream act. i do think it is incredibly bipartisan. the last time i was here, a along -- aas here, long campaign of dreamers. something i am embarrassed to admit today, until that role, while i was clear about dreamers and mixed status families, my brother, i have mixed status within microns -- within my close family network, but it wasn't until i sat down with two dreamers for coffee as they told

me about their story, i don't care really understood what it means to be 15, 16 and enjoying your friends from high school and go get a drivers license and have no idea you were not a citizen and your parents have protected and she'll do. -- inny things make sense your parents have protected and shielded you. and now sony things make sense. now you might not want to be in associations. i had no idea that when they go to college, they found out they are not eligible for most services. they have no idea they are not citizens. many of these families have american-born siblings. seven andu are the the whole family is talking

about having a 16-year-old who is not a citizen, and if there's -- if they are in summary else's car and they get stopped. in many communities, including in my state, these young kids are picked up and their parents to get notice for hours, sometimes more than a day. can you imagine? i'm a mother of two, i have a 32-year-old and a 30-year-old daughter and now a granddaughter. i don't think i can imagine how it would feel if i had no idea where my 16-year-old was for 24 hours. and then i found out and cannot do anything about it. this is an incredible have focusedand i on the stuff that is harrowing at heart, but they are here and participating in this process and making a difference in our economy. educators inm are states like texas and oklahoma and new mexico.

we'll have enough individuals willing to do public education and teaching. we need these young people. they are doctors, lawyers, practitioners and every kind of health care sector. they're doing lawn care and construction. they really are the backbone. we ask them, it's like telling everyone you have to be a valedictorian. set the bar incredibly high and they meet it. what other population could do that? they did. and here is the part that is really compelling, i hope. i have talked to many members, both sides of files, who say we do have until march. we want to get it right. we want to make sure it is as bipartisan as it can be. there is a ton of bipartisan work going on since well before september. i want to thank you for that. caucus, our caucus in the minority caucuses, particularly for the democratic caucus, have been welcomed and i did to a can't tell you how many either

republican only or bipartisan caucuses. i want to thank you for that, it has been a really robust effort. but the notion it is ok is not true. 122 or day lose status. they are immediately fired. immediately fired. we have a young man in pennsylvania with a toddler, a son, american citizen, went through a routine checkpoint. being deported. and accurateeman -- another gentleman in akron. 22nd.es status on the he can no longer work. it doesn't make any sense to me. particularly, with my state, we have one of the worst economies of the country. i want people working. i want young people working. i want them to have opportunities. i have to tell 122 in this

country every day they will lose their jobs and i have to tell the faith-based community and the agriculture community and construction community they're going to lose these employees, and we have an opportunity right before christmas to do something about it. i offer you this amendment for the dream act. i really urge you to consider this is our time. tocan demonstrate not only the house but the senate and the rest of the country that our well before september paid off. we have answer the questions, we understand this population, we know the impact they have, and so many of us are ready to support dreamers and their families so that we don't care american families apart. thank you for having a meeting this morning and thank you very much for having me testify before you. it is always an honor and i appreciate your generosity where you don't interrupt and we take

way too much time. these are really important priorities to us, and i am grateful to be here. thank you. >> thank you very much. as each of you know, this , as the time that i have been chairman, is very open. , we to hearing any person will even keep the lights on late at night. we welcome people. that we are ad better congress when everybody is able to represent the people they represent by talking in front of their colleagues. so you being here is on a for us, it is an honor for you to take your time to want to come and place yourself before the committee. i will address, if i can upfront, your request. it is request from each of you. it is a common request i have been a part of for a long

for a long time. i do not intend to throw anything back on you. i need to address today the responsibility that i have to answer today. but i will say that my former governor george w. bush, when he came up to washington, he challenged republicans and democrats, members of congress, to address the issue as he had addressed in texas under his statutory responsibilities to address the issue. tuition, a number of other factors. he was unable to get it done. congress and democratic congress. and he worked on it a lot every day. eluded your-

majority because it is a hard issue. i am not throwing anything at you, do not hear me do that. it is my responsibility. i have looked at your committee members for a number of years, including mr. sadr, mr. mcgovern, judge hastings. we have over the past years spoken about this issue. as you know, we have had a working bipartisan group of republican members, many from the southwest who intensely wanted to bring resolution, a balanced resolution to the table. very controversial, very hard. i don't believe anything should be harder then this success. i don't think anything should be an impediment. but i believe what the president highlight the issue

and believe it should be done by congress. i believe when the president challenged us, that day, we accepted the challenge. and he gave us an ending date. , i i believe that my party sit as a member of our republican leadership team, we ,ave accepted that challenge but that has been going on since president bush at least, through all of president obama. we have accepted that challenge, and i fully anticipate that we will be able to come up with a plan that we may present, not only to our members of congress but really the american people. to highlight a full debate, just as one might do under health care or tax policies.

we are going to engage in the sinise, fox -- we are going to nbc, fox, all of the stations, and we will highlight to the country to influence policy about what the right thing to do is. but it will not be done in this bill. the reason why is because i believe what we are trying to do now is to finish the work that had begun and was done, mrs. low incomes appear, -- they come appear and visit their bills, and we i think on what was a genuine bipartisan basis had an opportunity to move through the bills rightly or wrongly. was not always 50-50 and i acknowledge that.

but it was done with space and influence to accommodate a getting bills across the line. important thing my job is, and i always try to focus on my job, is to get the things done i had to do. it is funding the government, taking care of this disaster relief, and making sure we accommodate the bulk of making sure we take the funding of the government and move it forward. and absolutely opposed to every cr, even though i vote for them, because i know the ability to effectively manage the government is more important than putting them off a month at a time. but i will address the issue right now and tell you, i will not recommend that we take your bill, but i will invite you back and i will invite you to not

only bring your legislation that you have, but i will invite a republican plan because it will be that bill. there will be that alternative bill that we can win measure. -- that we can weigh and measure. it might be slightly different, but we will address the issue. we do care very much about this issue and have for a long time. we have believed that it is right and respectful to address this issue for so many young people. >> will you yield when you finish? mr. sessions: i will. we have started as we always do, the panel has finished. block, intend to listened to her. i am not lecturing anybody. i am providing an answer back. and the ramifications of that.

but i'm telling you that we will follow a pathway that we have started going down, and that is to make sure that by the time friends, we are addressing the issue. >> mr. chairman, may i be excused? mr. sessions: i have one question for the gentleman. the gentleman talked about the tax conference. and your disapproval of that. can you tell me about the conference that was done on the affordable care act years ago? i can tell you at length. hoyer: your side refused to go to conference because you thought it would defeat the bill. conferenceto go to to discuss making the bill better, resolving the differences between the senate and house bills and making better the bill in its final form.

that is why we had no conference, because we cannot and we had 59 senators neither scott brown nor any other member, and mr. mcconnell asked, don't do anything until scott brown gets there. we asked, don't do anything on your tax bill until mr. jones gets here. both president obama and the senate democrats accommodated the request that mr. brown be seated before they did anything further, and in this instance, mr. jones was not seated. the person who lost the primary whatsoever, mr. strange, was allowed to vote. mr. sessions: you have highlighted what i wanted to talk about, whether it is 59 or 52, it is a problem for either party. it is a problem even with 59. hoyer, is there

-- ne who wants to ms. pelosi: i -- [laughter] you tosions: we allow have unlimited virtually opportunities to come speak with the right reserve back, the same opportunity to the panel on a fair basis. does the gentlewoman seek time? >> yes i do. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> we go through this every day and have been shut out for we have nothing. this continuation of what we see on the floor. that thising to me most compelling evidence i've heard in a long time, all three

of you are being extraordinary. like paying for children's health care but taking away their lunch money. we never seem to reach anything. we have enormous power on this committee, absolutely enormous power. worldis no reason in the that we cannot put this amendment in order and get this done, the other day we were trying to get the manual for the for veterans congressional matter of honor and we had a letter from general --tis saying we would like saying he would like to see it done, and we cannot do that. for heavens sake. we have sat here all week. mr. sessions: does the gentlewoman yield? because i am a southern woman, i will. mr. sessions: there was some understanding group reading asked -- we were being asked to

waive all legislation. we received the request 10 minutes before we were going to have a meeting, and i will be quite blunt. when you serve your country and received an honor that this particular gentleman did, that is the second highest award, when you have an active valor, you are not awarded three different types of awards. he was selected for that, and you do not get both awards. we did not understand if we would be waiting to take that away, and you know this. ms. slaughter: this is not helping mr. hoyer. mr. sessions: you brought it up. ms. slaughter: i brought it up as we sit here time after time, 14 hour days, and it's like anything else, we get nothing done. mr. sessions: i try to resolve it.

>> no disrespect to anyone on the committee. know all of you want to deal with me. moment, did: just a you intend -- does anyone wish to engage the gentleman? [laughter] mr. sessions: this is fair. >> i'm not sure i want the gentleman with me. [laughter] mr. sessions: your quest is pertinent and we will address it. >> i will say this quickly. i do want to respond to a number of things my friend said, i will not delay him. it is always a pleasure to have the wit and the leader. we are delighted to have you here.

it is ok to, to not have a cup of coffee. hoyer, it is mr. fair if you get your looks at us, we are entitled to offer back to the gentleman, and i will tell you i do not believe we got a fair opportunity to engage the gentleman, but he had a fair chance at us. i would like for you to know that you are welcome back whatever you would like to come. we respect you for the job you hat yound we respect t have to do your job. the gentleman is dismissed as he chooses. ms. slaughter: the gentlelady has to go, as well. pelosi: i have time. mr. sessions: i did not finish my question. i want to join you

in singing the praises of president george w. bush. he has been the best president on immigration. in his heart and head, and he knew the issue. you post a question in your remarks, or a comment that i think needs to be addressed. ,hat is, when we won the house and we went to our first meeting with my being speaker with president bush, he said, now we can pass immigration reform. we were sitting at the table, not a big table, just the leaders, the president and vice president. and senator mcconnell said, no, we can't. the president said, why? we have cosponsors for the bill. mr. connell says just because there are cosponsors does not mean they will vote for it on the republican side. it is 60 votes, and that is what the president could not get, the 60 votes. let me just say, he was in the tradition of this great father,

in the tradition of ronald reagan. ronald reagan and george h.w. bush protected a higher percentage of people in their executive orders than barack obama did. higher percentage of people. in fact, president obama acted because commerce to not act, but president reagan said congress did not do enough, we will do family fairness and he expanded protections and president george h.w. bush continued that. presidents -- so president and our era have all been pro-immigration. wes is the first president have had, and certainly the first republican president in the modern era who has been anti-immigration.

on the subject of hand, on the subject at hand, i do believe there was not an awareness on , inpart of the president our conversations, it is obvious, of what happens to the students. it's not that you are protected until march. you lose status every day, as the chairwoman said, well over 100 lose status every day. ,hese people have to work serving the military or be in school. there are requirements. if you lose status, you cannot do those things. well over 10,000 have already lost status. every day they lose status. that's by march is almost an irrelevant date. what is relevant is that they lose status every day, and some of them, even though the white house is not fully aware of all of this, our subject to deportation -- are subject to deportation.

that changes this, the urgency. that's why we are here, not that we want it sooner rather than later, and address what is happening every day. in all fairness to the white house, i don't think they realized the lack of status. i don't think the president did, because i think he really wants to do this. i think he thought -- i don't bute with what he did, nonetheless, he did not think it was jeopardizing their ability to retain their status. i don't think he understood that. whether he did or not, the numbers of people involved. don't believe the people advising him on immigration did, either. to go back to your point about president george w. bush, he is spoken even in this administration beautifully about it and said, you're talking about immigrants, do so with respect for them as people. didmore point, the senate

have a comprehensive bipartisan speaker, mr. weiner, when not bring to the floor of the house. mr. sessions: that is true. i acknowledge that. we could: have gotten to 60 votes, but it was not brought to the floor. but the urgency of why we are here is not just to hasten the kennedy -- hasten the calendar. mr. sessions: i go to church with george w. we hear the same message of hope and opportunity. i am a methodist. but my church prays for people.

and the rest of us, too. mr. sessions: yes, ma'am. we are also addressing the needs of the nation and to particular areas today. you came to this committee to give testimony and we are glad you could be here, and we are going to continue now through our process we have, but i want you to know that i gave you my response that we intend to have that brought before the committee. si: but that will be mañana. mr. sessions: that will probably be late february. >> mr. chairman, a question. i believe in light of the fact there is a discharge petition, a significant number of members

have signed it to bring the dream act to the floor, to believe as i do that if the dream act was on the floor today, it would pass? mr. sessions: here is what i believe. i believe there are significant questions of exactly how we are going to make sure the american public understands what we are doing. and i believe it needs to be a national debate. and i do not believe that it would actually be appropriate just to bring something to the floor without debate and understanding of that. so i would say to you, i am a part of the process, i have had my own immigration plan for a number of years. bushe again see george w. on a semi regular basis, and he is passionate about this issue. congressman and he expects me to get things done, trust me. o.get those things, to

but it is a process that is in getting a group of people that want to get it done, not a group of people that don't want to get it done. mr. hastings: most respectfully, the question i ask is, 34 republicans, including our colleagues here on the rules committee, since speaker ryan a letter urging immediate action to protect all dreamers. do the math. if the dream act were to come to the floor, it would pass. i ask again, do you feel as i do, never mind about the debate, there has been a lot of debate, children here every day, discussing the matter, we have discussed it here in this committee repeatedly, asking the same questions. members on the other side. do you believe it would pass if it was on the floor? mr. sessions: i do not in its

present form. we might disagree, and that is ok. >> mr. chairman, excuse me. would the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: the gentleman is recognized. >> i felt compelled. i think perhaps mr. hastings is referring to -- i was one of those 34 who sent a letter asking to address the issue by the end of the year. i meet with the dreamers from my district and around the country. i think i have a meeting with some of them in about 40 minutes, i might have to miss some of your testimony, i apologize. think, ifo doubt i there was a bill on the floor, it may receive a positive vote, but there is one vote we have to keep in mind, and i think it was not quite clear when mr. hoyer

made his statement, that the president said he would sign the dream act. i don't know about that. he is said many positive things about dreamers, he believes we need to do the right thing by them, but he is also made it clear he wants some things besides the dream act. a clean dream act, at least for my understanding, is not something he supports, he wants other things so that we can prevent these young people and people like them from being put in this position again in the future. and so, it may be true that a clean dream act would pass, i don't know that it would pass in the white house, and that is one vote we absolutely need. in my estimation, mr. chairman, ans is an issue very -- issue that is very important, it really is. we have one shot at getting it done, and i want to make sure, and i think many of us on a bipartisan basis, want to make

sure we get it done correctly. we don't want to take that vote, mr. hastings, and have it vetoed by the white house, because that would not only be a waste of everyone's time, but raised the hopes of these young people. mr. hastings: if the gentleman would yield. first i would ask unanimous consent that the letter authored by mr. taylor in mr. newhouse he made part of the record. mr. sessions: thank you for that. i would urge the gentleman that if the resident vetoed the measure, two thirds of the members of congress could override the veto. and i believe it would be overridden. and if wese: couldn't, then what? i think it is incumbent to do it right the first time. i know it is important to a lot of people, but recognizing that we need to have a complete

package to satisfy not only the house and senate, but also the white house. >> will the gentleman yield? >> absolutely. >> what the hell are you waiting for? we have been talking about this for months. people are losing the status every day. maybe the present doesn't realize that, maybe the speaker of the house doesn't realize that. we don't have until march, people are losing status right now. by the way, these dreamers, some of them work in fortune 500 companies, some are in school, some of them -- mr. newhouse: if i could reclaim my time. mr. sessions: the gentleman is reclaiming his time. we are attempting to stick to what we would do, the gentleman will be given time and he is aware of that. he has reclaimed his time. mr. newhouse: thank you.

it is early, it is a little early in my estimation for four letter words, but i understand this is a passionate issue. everybody feels very passionately about it. what are we waiting for? that is a good question. there are many people on a bipartisan pace working hard on this issue, they really are. my understanding is, just in the last few days, a bipartisan group of senators met at the lighthouse -- at the white house , i don't know what was agreed on specifically, but apparently there was a commitment to work on this and get this done in january by those individuals with the president. so if that is the case, the pressure is off from the senate. it was not our doing, it was something already worked out, that there will be something happening next year. what are we waiting for? i guess that is what we are waiting for now. but we have been continuing to work on this, as you know, any

of us in this room have been working on it a long time and still want to get it done. fault that we are not doing it right now. there are a lot of other people who have a say in what happens, as you know. but it is something that i agree with the chairman, this is a discussion that not only congress has to have, but the american people are engaged in this, as well. it is not something, in my humble opinion, that should be attached to a spending bill, a year-end cr. this is an issue that i believe can stand on its own merits, can pass overwhelmingly in both chambers into the white house on it has theits, after necessary and i think important debate and discussion, which is happening, you are right. more. you know, it needs

frustrating as that is, and this place can be very frustrating, i think it would behoove us to do that in order to get it done and give these young people and lasting, legislative solution. i yield back. and appreciate the conversation and the passion, thank you very much. mr. sessions: thank you. everyd like to say, member of congress has an opinion on this issue. in particular, this committee does. you have been well represented. in virtually every rules committee we have on this issue where there has been a discussion, there is a push to us. i respect your time in our time. i'm going to do for my questions. i appreciate you taking time i'm going to follow the process we normally do, that weight we respect your time. the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i am than a take issue with

some of that, with all due respect. you have for years when you're in the majority, there was never a bill submitted. you had an overwhelming majority with president obama. outsideo demand a vote the process when you have four years, i take umbrage with that. i disagree. in terms of the bipartisan bill, the senate passed with one third of the republicans, i think. there were 31 opposed. a republican house is not going to put on the floor something basically a third of the members voted for. that would be very unusual, it does happen on occasion. you are very helpful on the occasions that speaker boehner did that. we always worked together. funding.- to keep the

as you pointed out. that for four years, republicans stop this, for two years we cannot stop a lot of things. see this differently, we call it differently. i want to give my friend an opportunity to respond. how many hours do you have [indiscernible] in 2010, we passed the dream act in the house of representatives. maybe you were not aware of that. we did not get 60 votes in the senate. to answer your question.

let the record be clear, we did pass the bill in the house. let the record be clear, we passed in 2010 in the house, we did not get 60 votes in the senate. i just love the record to be clear on that. the world has even changed since then. awareness in the public mind of the dreamers and the urgency of it all is so much more now. , to followell you the path of the distinguished chairman to start talking about this in february is an act of extreme cruelty, an act of extreme cruelty, when we know what the consequences of that would be. the time for discussion is coming to an end, it is time for decision. that is why we come here to plead with you to say help these dreamers. these are people, these are people who are frightened. they are frightened and they have challenges. they are serving in the

military, they are working, they are going to school, they are constructive. it is the business community at the highest levels, people are appealing to take -- to congress to take this up. this is a bigger issue. we have bigger fish to fry in terms of immigration, and that is where we can take up so many other issues. and yes, i think the president will find this, but he does want a border consideration and we has been engaged in those negotiations as well. but you can't do everything. we are just saying, let's protect the dreamers and in all of these other issues -- they are talking about like 1/7 of the people in our country whose status we have to address. there are so many, whether they are immigration issues were bitter -- or order issues that are part of a larger discussion. we are saying right here and now we have an emergency, we need a

decision, we need to throw ourselves on the mercy of this butittee, not ourselves these dreamers on the mercy of the committee. >> i agree with everything that has been set. immigration reform requires additional attention. it is incredibly complex and a problem on so many fronts. we have been debating this for 20 years and people have been waiting, including businesses for congress to figure it out for 20 years, and i don't suggest that in the next six point, to mr. newhouse's that he will be an easy path. three months. but we have been doing it, the last three. dreamers are separate issue. it's like not wanting to find the children's health insurance program. that would be like saying we will not entertain it for months until we figure out additional health care reform. it is a separate, clear issue

that requires immediate attention because literally people lose their lives. they lose her license attention -- their lives in detention, suicides are ups, they lose their jobs, we have childhood trauma, pediatricians and congress who were tough to find. it was an emergency. i have made a very good case for that. i did not want any member of the committee to misunderstand that we think somehow dreamers should be a replacement in terms of the policy for immigration reform or that we think that there has been sufficient bipartisan effort, although i would argue the 20 years is a long time for the country to get policymakers at all levels to figure it out. but this is a very select, specific issue, that i think has much broader bipartisan support as result. i thank you for yielding and the committee for hearing me out. >> thank you.

a couple of other things. this is not directed at anybody in this room. but we have finished all of the appropriations bills and waiting 100 days for the senate to pass one. i think that is an institutional concern, not a partisan shot at anybody. i would expect our bills when we sat down to negotiate, they would change. the appropriations committees in both sides have showed they can get to it on this. they've done it three times in a row. they have an art of fighting the middle ground. but the senate has to participate. anybody,irect this at we have to have common numbers. other heads ofll

the appropriations committee. we have the distinguished leader and we have to come to a deal. when i said majority leader, i mean there majority leader. i wasn't meaning to throw kevin under the bus. it has been tremendous frustration waiting this long because we have been prepared to negotiate. maybe if we are out of town, all of the folk of have a hand in that decision can make that decision and we can come back in relatively short order and do what i know we all want to do. , i don't necessarily agree with this one-to-one formula idea, i think it is a clumsy concept, i don't think it has anything to do with reality. we might need to do more on nondefense discretionary. you might need to do

more on defense. it has been a convenient for, and it sort of works, but not as well when there is not a , between if you will the parties in terms of the branches of government that they control. that is my observation. i will work with whatever number you guys come up with. i think all of the appropriators will. it makes a formula, mistake. with that, i want to give my friend a chance to reply, both of them, to anything they care to. i appreciate this much of your time. this is a lot of leadership time for you to come to a single committee and spend with us, and a critical time, and it shows me how passionate and committed you are to the issue, and friendly how respectful you are of the committee, and for that i'm grateful. losi: take you.

i told the president, we take pride in finding a common ground. we know the issues we are dealing with. i said to the president, left to -- their devices can own devices, they can reach common ground. i think the speaker feels that, as well. as i said to the president and i say to you, the difference between the $17 billion difference, it is all bipartisan , opioid epidemic, veterans, some of the pension crisis. if it is a bipartisan, were not bringing it to the table. but this issue, and i appreciate you using the word passion, but this is a very intellectual issue as well. it's not even issue, it is a value.

these, thatf saving this building is burning down and we are deciding how much h and o is in the water we will put on it. likeve to decide it it's the chip health care bill. it is discreet and about -- discrete. of other issue in terms border migration and the rest, those are big issues we have to deal with and welcome that discussion. i want to thank the chair of the committee because of the caucus, they have been engaged daily, intensely, and a bipartisan way on how we can do something in this way, and also have some piece of this

situation. the president wants some of border security in there. as i said, you don't take chip in and say we are going to do everything we want to do on immigration on the border in dream. that is a bigger conversation that we welcome and respect and we want to have sustainability in whatever the solution is. i think the congress is very capable of that. i think if the bill comes to the floor, the dream act is overwhelmingly passed from what members have sent us. we just wanted a shot, just a shot, let's have a go. >> i want to associate myself with mr. newhouse's remarks. be an expert,d to but i would feel more comfortable if the judiciary committee would present a product they had debated. i think they will by march. >> by march is an act of cruelty. >> i have seldom been accused of

acts of cruelty. we have a difference of opinion. -- i think the process would be helpful here, ialogue would be useful in healing for the country. and frankly, it would be a wonderful thing for us in a bipartisan way to actually enact legislation reform in this area. that's the way i prefer to go about it, peace by piece. a lot of people prefer the comprehensive approach, but i think it is easier. i agree with you, i think we can find agreement. i think people want to find agreement here. is just legislatively, if better if it comes up in the committee, in my view. i know a working group is focused on this right now. >> there is a working group that has produced nothing. produced anything in years, so three months is not a long time.

let's see what happens and let it run its course. said,friend the chairman in relatively short order, early in the new year, dealing with this in presenting a product in the floor that has gone through, and if a genuinely bipartisan product. i hope that's what we can achieve, there is enough to do to fund the government, in my opinion. the people that make the final decision on the top line number, i think this is an appropriate are desperate to have a number, i said $8 million apart from my counterpart. we can split the difference, i just need the number. hopefully we will have that opportunity and you will have the opportunity to reply. >> i just want to say a respect everything you have said and i think the judiciary committee is the perfect place to take up he conference of immigration reform, we are just talking about this right now because

they have not taken it up and it is an emergency. the full committee should be addressing the immigration issue. >> i might say that in my conversations with particularly republican judiciary members, there seems to be a great agreement on the facts about dreamers, they are not a security issue, they meet the standards. , every data works point we have, bipartisan agreement, they're going to school, more than 80% are working, fulfilling a military requirements, and they are embedded in the communities the way we were expecting. we don't have immigration related issues. the hard part is that there is not that kind of stipulation on orher the issues, the facts strategy on immigration reform in judiciary. not a complaint, just that it is an issue. i would agree with the leader that gang of eight, years before

that, there has been difficulty because they cannot stipulate where some of those baselines are. which is why, if we are not careful, even with three months, and i agree with the leader statement, it feels incredibly cruel if we all agree that this group did nothing wrong, and even so, one could argue, were punished anyway because they don't have status, you will, you will, they did, they did, and i would have to agree, i have no evidence that suggest the president thought this would be a big deal, and that he intended to have this group deported. continuing conversations with homeland security and they will say, we are not supporting, and i give them their own data. i get a transition, and i realized they are understaffed, this is a huge federal police force.

they admit, to their credit, administer very effectively. they have hiring problems, training problems, oversight problems, contract problems. data, we point out, you are in fact detaining and supporting, and they did not believe it until we show them their own data. that does not mean he gets reversed. i don't think they understood what this act would put into motion. if i did, i don't know if i could be in this institution and not be a bit angrier or disappointed, and i agree, sure i am passionate, i know you hear that and i know you guys can hardly take me on the floor, i am passionate about everything. but this is an intellectual argument. these kids did not do anything, they did everything right. they do lose their jobs, they are losing status, they cannot keep roofs over the head, they are supporting entire families and have children.

can you imagine a seven-year-old, a seven-year-old asked me, my 15-year-old, my 20-year-old, my 25-year-old is going to be supported, what do you say to the seven-year-old? what do you say to the young man i met last week, i don't know if this is a facts, but i will say what i overheard and be clear i would never misrepresent information knowingly. what i do know is factual as the young man said, i am responsible for my elementary and younger aged siblings, i am the breadwinner and parent in this regard. he is in his mid-20's. as i was leaving, and he had lost his job because he lost status and is subject to deportation. as i was leaving, some of the oath told me that both of his children -- both of his parents were killed in a car accident. so what are we saying to those children?

they will go to foster care? who is going to keep the lights on. it really is an emergency. maybe the hispanic caucus did not do an effective job with the white house. maybe the minority caucuses did not, maybe the american public didn't, 80 immigration advocates didn't. whatever occurred, we find ourselves in the emergency, and you have the power and i respect that, you have the power to respond to the emergency. mr. sessions: the gentlewoman is taking a phone call, feel free to use my office. i do care very much about this issue and i want to give everybody a chance. so thatto keep moving we are trying to do these things. >> think you very much. mr. sessions: the gentlewoman from new york. used to it, but

what we do is we kick the can down the road. cr, planning another one for march. no mattersame debate, how use slice it, we don't get anything done. is there some way that we can get ice to suspend deporting 15-year-old kids until he can finally deal with it? with legislation? have you considered that all? asked homeland security, we have been unsuccessful. we have asked them to be clear about their priorities, we have asked them to be clear about when the re-applications were submitted, how to treat those. we were clear and our requests about temporary detected status for populations and we have not received a positive response on any of these issues from homeland security. the hispanic caucus is still waiting on many written request for answers and suggestions from the department. concerned that

this, like so many other things, that we are content to say, we will get to it. don't worry, we will find the chip -- we will fund the chip program. country,essed about my worried about our standing in the world today. the government itself, the tax bill to me was one of the worst pieces of legislation i have ever seen. it passed and the most abominable way it could have been done. emotions about being proud about democrats that have nothing to do with it and angry we were not part of it. this is just more, every day something else is piled on that we will take care of some time. but when they are deporting children, and children

committing suicide who have done nothing, absolutely nothing, it is so un-american. it is in human, is what it is. if we cannot put a temporary ,tay on it, something, my gosh you talked about how they don't even notify the parents after they pick up their child, and it could be a minor child. >> that is right. >> they could be in custody somewhere and you have no clue what is happening to that child. what kind of humanity is that? reason how they can live with themselves if you've taken away your child and let them appeared i don't have any questions, we have asked them all as far as i'm concerned. i agree with you. it has been talked about and talked about and talked about.

people are dying. i imagine a lot of employers and schools -- wonder where students went. sorry, let me just say that. i feel so helpless. -- i feelsomething that about the whole country, i think we are obligated to straighten this out, because we work in a place where that is being done. is the emperor has no clothes kind of thing happening in america today, i think this is a large part of it. we do know the president of united states ran almost his entire campaign on talking about immigration and building walls and separating people, so i have absolutely no compassion

whatever, even showing he understands what he has left in his wake. all i can do is apologize and tell you that they have all the sympathy in the world for me, and as a member of congress, i am ashamed we have not done something about it. thank you for your extraordinary work. i know you so well, as long as i ise known you, compassion one of the most important things for you, we all know that. if any of us have been sick, you are the first one to call. i know you feel the same way i do. there is no reason to talk anymore. they are taking children up off the street and not informing anybody where they have gone. there is something so inhuman about that. were not going to act on that, i contain that. in his entireress

term without doing anything about it. >> let me just say, i appreciate your kind words. my only purpose in being in congress is about the children. i have my own children. one in five children in america lives in poverty and goes to sleep hungry at night, and what difference we can make in those life. anything that affects children, whether it is chip, daca and the rest. i am like a lioness protecting the children, don't hurt the children. >> that is what we are here for. my goodness. we are the only body in the country they could do anything to stop this. even a temporary hold on ice, don't pick them up until we get this settled, at least the pressure to get that done. >> i think there is a spirit or we can find common ground to do something, it is just about time.

the most finite commodity. time makes a difference in the impact it has on people's lives. i have no doubt there is a bipartisan consensus that can and then theissue bigger discussion on comprehensive immigration reform. i have that confidence. just to make the point again that time is important in the lives of these young people and their families. cole, while the congresswoman was saying this is what i've heard, we have a say plural ofiations, the anecdote is not data, but it is illustrative and we see enough reallyproblem to say we can make things better and act upon it. >> i have one question for you.

what are the consequences of not passing the dream act? >> in terms of the cato institute, a respected body by i am sure many of you in this to portinghave said -- they have set the cost of deporting and all of that implies is $50 billion. excuse me, $60 billion, that is the cato institute figure. the center for american progress found the deportations would cost us $460 billion over the next decade in terms of what that means to their families, loss of productivity and the rest. because these are contributing members of society, in the military, in the business world, in the academic communities and in their families lives. >> in taxes. >> there are two measures, one aom the cato, one is

shorter-term estimate and one is 10 year. that's like these train people,hat are killing we can change the structure. it wasn't that long ago the waterways were made of brick. or talking about spending that kind of money to support young people who minas norm. -- mean as no harm. $430 billion is an academic figure to what the dreamers contribute to the economy, but they have to keep working. over 10 years. >> the economist at the center for american progress. >> thank you very much.

mr. sessions: thank you very much. let me clarify, the gentlewoman has not brought a temporary, what might be a temporary theest for three months to committee, she has brought a bill. >> yes. mr. sessions: the distinguished general and from georgia. >> i've had the great pleasure in getting to know the gentleman from new mexico and a time i've been here. i think this requires a degree of enthusiasm, passion mixed with engagement. i think one of the challenges we have in this institution is sometimes our passion turns one another often set of engaging. point of bringing every young woman down to meet

you. you've been very gracious. we have a few liberal individuals in our constituency that cohen, a group of young women, and they wanted to meet bernie sanders, they had been in town all week. i found him at the visitor center and you happened to walk by and you stopped and gave them about five minutes of your time and they have not stopped talking about nancy pelosi since then. i have not heard about bernie sanders since then. i have not gotten a chance to get to know you as i have gotten to know the young lady from new mexico, i wanted to encourage you to use your position of influence to share not just passion but also find a way to make that engaging. i listened to your exchange with mr. cole. he talked about a legislative strategy that would provide a solution in the today's.

-- in the next 90 days. you describe that as cruel. it is hard when people have different ideas. if they're coming to the table with different solution before a deadline and the answer is not thank you for coming to the table, the answer is not this is an act of cruelty. >> i did not say that frivolously. >> i know that you don't. >> and i don't say it passionately, i say it objectively, intellectually, to what it means in the lives of these people. but i thank you. >> i took the point. werelked about -- when you talking about 60 votes in the senate back when the chairman raised it, he had not even finished his sentence about a bill never having on to the president you said we didn't have 60 votes and you are right. and remember it well, and that is the only reason a bill to not go to the president that one time. the reason the building not go to the present the other times

is a different issue. it's also a reason appropriations bills cannot move through the united states. i think about the successes we have had together. i have not heard them celebrated at the table. we have funded chip here together. we did commit ourselves to doing that. we don't have 60 votes in the senate, we cannot move the bill to the president's desk as folks don't like it, but we have got not done together. >> not in a bipartisan way. alwaysocrats have opposed the walls and bill, it takes money from children and occupations. >> i take the gentlelady's point. i would be interested in hearing that same point applied to our men and women in uniform. i know you did not vote on the nvaa bill. we all agreed in this chamber in a bipartisan way to fund the

military at a set level. i heard the gentlelady say we are not going to fund the military at that level until we agree on one for one parity. i don't understand how we have had this conversation about immigration is in shambles, we have to do someone -- we have to do so much, but let's do this one thing for the dreamers, let's move this issue, lives are at stake. people are losing their lives was the story from the witness table. that i will stipulate may be true in the dreamers scenario, i am certain it is sure in the national security scenario. >> i agree. >> finding the one to one parity you would say is less of a priority, that we agreed on what the defense level should be when we authorized it through the n daa, we have agreed in a bipartisan way to fund the military, and so there is no need to wait on that deal, we can act today because as you issue, it the dreamer

is a separate, clear issue that requires immediate action. ishave an emergency, that exactly two of our national security. can we commit to that today in the same way that you have a legitimate case to make that lets solve the dreamers by itself, let's do that as a individual issue, that we can do that for national security too, that we -- that the troops we promise to pay raise to that are going to get it, can we commit to getting that done together? because your cases persuasive, but it should be persuasive for the men and women serving as around the globe, as well. >> is that a question? thank you. we have had many conversations and meetings with general mattis and our objection is not to the bill, we want to see what the money is for, we want to modernize our forces. everybody has enormous respect for him and his judgment.

the other joint chiefs of staff as well as the deputy undersecretary. this is not about that number. although appropriators don't necessarily say the authorizing number is the appropriated number, is that not correct? nonetheless, that is not the issue. nobody is saying we want to take down the defense number. in the are saying is, nondefense, domestic discretionary but it -- discretionary budget, one third of it are veterans, homeland security, the issue of anti-terrorism activities at the justice department and state department, all security functions are in that domestic side of it. we need money there. but also, part of the strength of our country is for us to rid our country of the opioid

epidemic, to give more money to our veterans, there is a need for more funding for veterans. that is why in the difference between the $17 billion difference, are issues i think we would all find be bipartisan and not controversial. the opioid epidemic, and veterans issues, issues that relate to the national institutes of health which is more funding. whether weabout question the number on the fence, we don't -- the number on defense, we don't. but the strength of our country is reflected in the domestic side, as well. >> everything you say is true, and i understood that the first time as well. agreed on is, we have an ndaa defense number, we haven't agreed on all of those other bipartisan issues you are talking about. you have made a passionate case

today that we should not hold the dreamer bill hostage until we agree on everything else, but you -- everything else you also stipulated is very important. why is it legitimate to hold our men and women in uniform hostage ? >> we are not holding our men and women in uniform hostage. you probably know that. nobody is doing that. and i don't appreciate that characterization. but i do want -- we had an agreement that said there would be parity. in the same way you meant exactly what you said when you to mr. an act of cruelty kuhl, i mean exactly what i am saying when i say my democratic friends are holding my national security funding hostage until they get the nondefense security bill and everybody at this table

knows it, everybody in this chamber knows it, and it has been a practice in the seven years i have been here as we get the negotiating these deals. with anyean that disrespect. as you say, it is an intellectual issue, it is not one of passion. we have so many opportunities that we lose talking past one another. i remember when the minority whip was here, he made it clear that 125 republicans voted to shut the government down. years ago, and it took democrats to get done. it has not been a month since every democrat voted against voting for a and republicans kept the government open. no one believes the government -- no one believes the democrats are trying to shut the government down. sometimes in the name of getting hoyer said it mr.

about republicans years ago, i believe that leadership has to start at the top. you are a role model to young women in my district. dom so grateful for what you there, but i fear we are at a place where we would rather fuss at each other then talk with each other. mexicomy friend from new , she will never be accused of misunderstanding what her position is. she is a passionate advocate on behalf of of her constituency. i would dare say there is not a single issue in this congress i would be uncomfortable approaching her about and trying to find a way around. she is not going to wordsmith me , not going to give me the talking points, she is not going to tell me all of the reasons i am a scoundrel. she is going to listen with an open year and we will have a shot. know ass that i don't we sit here today where politics

ends and policy begins, and as the pendulum swings back and forth, i fear it has gone too .ar one end or the other i know your influence and the admiration of the men and women of this body kerry for you -- this body carry for you. you have been so inspirational to the young women in my district, and the young men in my district, to be candid. that you do what you can for us to reflect our shared failures and celebrate our shared successes. the american people don't know of all the ones we have. the whip introduced a letter that is in the record now, but i remember when mr. walt was in

we were celebrating the biggest reform of the veterans administration in the history of thethis year. this congress. who did that together? we did. we did. it didn't just go to the senate to die. it's something that makes a difference in the lives of veterans. we have so many things that we could celebrate together. again i don't -- i would be happy to be your accountability partner in that. you hold me accountable for it and i'll hold you so. but i see the opportunities and i see the great good that you do in so many places. i would just encourage you to help me with that quest as well. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. woodall. i don't think you really believe that we're holding the defense men and women in hostage, any more than i think you are holding our veterans hostage or our people with opioid addiction hostage by not supporting the funding for them on the other side of it. but i do want to tell this story.

i think it's important for you all to know this because you keep talking about the shutting down of government many years ago. it wasn't that long time ago. and many of the people who were in the lead on it are in the lead in this congress right now. there was a budget agreement. $1 trillion -- you remember this very well, mr. cole. trillion -- $1.58 billion dollars. $1.58 billion was the agreement. bipartisan agreement. house and senate and white house. president obama. house and senate. $1.58 billion. it wasn't a great number in our view but it was a compromise. we all agreed to it. you recall, mr. cole, as we were going to mark up to that number, the house republicans said not one dollar over $988 billion. $988 billion. not one dollar over.

your chairman, mr. rogers, chairman at the time, said we cannot meet the needs of the american people at $988 billion. he said that. that was the number that the house republican members insisted upon. it was a terrible number. steny was railing against it. everybody was railing. we're never going to vote for this. so don't say you are not going to vote for it. rail against it if you will, but don't say you are not going to vote for it because you don't know. they insisted. house wouldn't move. unless we had $988 billion. president obama agreed to it. the senate democrats agreed to it. the senate republicans agreed to it. and it was the number of the house republicans. i went to mr. boehner, and i said as horrible and painful as it is, as much as we don't like this number, as much as we agree with mr. rogers that this does not meet the needs of the

american people, 200 democrats will vote for $988 billion. you know what mr. boehner said? i can't bring that to the floor. the only group that did not support the republican budget were the republican members of the house. your own number. i said what was that about? were you supposed to be calling a bluff? he said i just can't bring it to the floor. i don't have the votes. i said, well, we don't like it. but we absolutely cannot shut government down. we will agree to the $988 billion. they wouldn't bring it to the floor. they shut government down. the speaker was part of that. mulvaney was part of that. many of the leadership of this congress were part of shutting it down. and when 17 days later, because of public pressure, and billions of dollars lost to the economy,

17 days later, government was opened and mr. hoyer mentioned how many republicans voted to keep government closed. many of them among the leadership in this congress right now. one of them, the head of the office of management and budget. so when we talk about who agreed to what and where, i want you to be reminded, i don't know if you were even -- this is not that long ago. you are saying years ago. it wasn't that long ago. and it is so recent that many of the people who were in the lead on shutting down and keeping it shut down are in the leadership of this -- on the republican side in this congress right now. so this is -- we cooperated on something that we really didn't even believe in. we believed in mr. rogers', the republican chairman. this does not meet the needs of the american people. i even had my own leadership and members say we have to vote for this. and they agreed. we can cannot shut government down.

and we won't shut government down. government shutdown, it's up to the majority. you have the house, you have the senate. and you have the white house. so that is all in your court. very hard for us for the reasons i mentioned, for us to vote for this continuing resolution. we were hoping it could be a place where at least some, if you need our votes, that some of our values might be reflected. but this issue is not even an issue. dreamers act. this is a value. that's what brings us together. our values. we'll always differ on this or that and have to come to compromise. our values are who we are as a nation. and who we are as a nation is to welcome and bring safety to these young people. i thank you for affording me the opportunity to say an occasion when we have had to cooperate in a very, very difficult way.

when you all wouldn't even agree to your own number. mr. woodall: i appreciate those words. i appreciate you taking my words to heart. i think we should talk more about our successes together and less about our partisan failures. i just have one question for my friend from new mexico. i was on the border, i was in guatemala and el salvador and hondurass with -- and with mr. kennedy. it was 2014. we were visiting with families who said, hey, dad can't get back and forth anymore. so we're picking up and we're moving to america because he's the breadwinner. he can't come here. we've got to go there. those children brought here through no fault of their own as well, no protections in the dreamers act. for folks who came in 2014. whose parents brought them here

in 2014. president obama thought 2007 was the right year when he did daca dream act. some think 2013 is the right year. if it were to pass today. if we don't do those other things that we talk about, moving separately, getting to them some other time, getting around to that later, aren't we, whether it's immoral, whether it's cruel, whatever adjective we want to apply, aren't we just sentencing another generation of young children to the exact same fate that you're trying to save this generation of young people from? ms. grisham: mr. chairman and mr. woodall, i would say yes. which is why i don't disagree. land i don't think anyone on -- and i don't think anyone on this panel disagrees that we have an immigration reform problem. and we have a central american problem. we're going to have to deal with. you can't get refugee or asylum or visa status.

we have huge backlogs. we have issues with families that are partially here and partially there. we have governments that even since 2014 have fallen further into hostility and corruption, which changes the strategies that we adopted from homeland security. and in fact we appropriated funds to deal with some of those issues to create stability in the triangle region so that we could begin addressing unaccompanied minors and not continue to have one subset of problems or another. most of the dreamers, that issue, while i'm not going to say it's not that they are looking for safety and refuge in this country, a lot of it was economically produced by the fact our country was doing so well, and mexico in one example is doing so poorly. that has particularly in those southern border states which aren't doing well. that really shifted. but you're right. i don't believe in the

emergency, and opportunity, for folks who were embedded positively after we told them what to do about it, that we say, we were just kidding. you got to go back. and we erode those families. but i would agree it's just as cruel and inappropriate, intellectually and passionately, i'm happy to be the passionate one, if we don't deal with these immigration issues and understand the risks that we have at all of the borders, not just the southern border. and that we really talk genuinely about human trafficking, drug trafficking, contraband. go to the coast guard if you really want to have -- not to the exclusion of, not addition of. we have to start thinking about our investments and strategies and partnerships. so that we don't have huge risk with unaccompanied minors. i agree. mr. woodall: i tell folks back home all the easy problems have been solved. all that's left are the hard ones. and hard don't get solved by

ones smart people that they get solved by people who trust one another. we will miss your trust. but we have one year remaining. ms. lujan grisham: i'm going to have you appointed to one of our hispanic caucus immigration committees. that will happen this afternoon. mr. woodall: the giant port of entry which is the atlanta hartsfield international airport. in my passion, i mistakenly said all the democrats voted against the c.r. that was not accurate. 175 did. but just over one dozen voted yes. i wanted to correct that for the eckerd. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. pelosi: let me just say when the vote came to open up government, democrats voted 199. we had one out sick, 199 to open up government. while majority of the republicans voted to keep government shut down. mr. woodall: i yield back. mr. session: must have been a democrat that day. my good friend from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you.

this is a sad day i think for this country. the third c.r. we're going to consider. we're not going to provide people any certainty. this is governing by chaos. i know it's frustrating to many of us on this side of the aisle. i'm sure it's frustrating to some our republican friends. but it's very frustrating to the american people watching this unfold. there are two ways to govern. one way is through consultation and bipartisan cooperation and listening to the other side and trying to work on compromises and deals. and the other way to govern which is my way or the highway, which is the way -- what we're seeing here today. and i would argue with you that i am hearing all this -- we're talking about the dreamers here and what is particularly galling to me is to hear members of the republican side talk about process. and talk about the need for more hearings. and talk about the need for more

regular order when it comes to this issue. the president of the united states ended the daca program on september 7. it's now december 21. the judiciary committee has had lots of time to consider this issue if it were a priority. we have had the judiciary committee come up here with a concealed carry reciprocity act. the nra wanted it. they have been bringing up lots of bills here. this for some reason hasn't been a priority. so we have waited. when you talk about process and more hearings, we just did what i would characterize as a tax bill scam, which is a giveaway to the biggest corporations of this country, and there wasn't a single hearing on it. in the committee of jurisdiction. not one. zero hearings. and nobody complained about it. voted it out of here, went on to the floor, in a very partisan vote, you send it to the white house. you all went to the white house to celebrate there yesterday.

don't talk about process. we have been talking about this issue, this is a national debate on this issue for a long, long time. i mean, thousands of dreamers visiting on the hill, your offices, visiting staff members, talking about their plight, asking for help. i don't know -- if it's not a sense of urgency on this, i don't know what we can possibly do to get you to change your mind. and if you don't want this attached directly to a c.r., we have the power to allow this bill to come up as a freestanding bill. you can vote up or down. whatever makes you feel comfortable. but we ought to have a debate. there ought to be some deliberations. there ought to be a more open process here. it is clear that there is bipartisan support not only in this congress, but throughout the country to act on this bill. and we ought to do it. and to say we'll deal with it in march.

as we have heard about 122 dreamers are losing their status each and every day. so i'm not sure what that means. when march comes around. but understand when you lose your status you can't work anymore. and 91% of daca recipients are legally employed and they are paying taxes. and they are following the law. laws of this country. and they are doing incredible service to our community. we read in the aftermath of the terrible storms that hit texas about dreamers risking their lives to save people. they are working in our fortune 500 companies. they are contributing in so many important ways. and for any of you who have met some dreamers in your district, as i have, i mean many of them

didn't know that their status was in question. they just thought they were born here. or that they came here when they were so young. i had a young woman from el salvador who said that her family won't let her speak spanish in their home because they don't want -- they didn't want anyone to think that she wasn't born here in the united states. and to this young woman, the only country she knows, and the only country she loves, is the united states of america. and she is working. she is contributing to our community. by all accounts we should embrace her. and yet here we are rationalizing inaction. why we should kick this can down the road. and i'm just saying that there is -- as leader pelosi and miss lujan grisham pointed out, these people are feeling the consequences as we speak.

so, look, if you don't want to vote for it, vote no. it's that simple. one of the advantages of being in control of the house is you get to schedule things. control the agenda. i get it. trump once -- additional things. but these dreamers are not hostages. they are not political pawns. if he wants other stuff, fine. we'll work with him in a bipartisan way to try to figure out whether we can come to some accommodation, but these are real people who are suffering right now. and they are experiencing this terrible uncertainty, which i think is cruel. i don't know how else to put it. this is just so wrong. and it doesn't demand more urgency that we're bringing up gun legislation takes a priority

over this? again, maybe the president didn't realize that we didn't have until march. maybe the speaker of the house when he announced in a press conference a couple weeks ago, we have until march to deal with it didn't realize people are losing their status as we speak. but the reality is the reality. and all we're asking for is a vote. and i willing to bet that it am will be a bipartisan vote. and it will be -- it will pass. and i think the votes are there obviously in the senate. i believe the president will sign it. but we ought to lead. i just--it is so frustrating to sit here and listen to people rationalize why we can't do anything. you have to stop that. there's lots of issues with the c.r. we can go into that forever. but on this one issue, when you look at the support out there amongst democrats and

republicans across the country, here's one moment when we could actually come together and do something. and yes, it doesn't solve everything. we got to do immigration reform. we have to do a whole bunch of other stuff. boy, 800,000-plus people to give them peace of mind before the holidays. to say that we appreciate your service to this country and all that you have contributed. that would be a magnificent signal for this congress to send, especially after all the divisiveness we experienced this year. i absolutely support your amendment and i hope it is made in order. we will certainly offer it and we will certainly all vote for it. but please stop rationalizing inaction. don't use the excuse that we haven't had enough hearings. we had a tax bill up here that had no hearings. nobody had a problem with it. we're talking about real people here that deserve our compassion, that deserve our support. and quite frankly there are people we should be truly celebrating.

with that i thank you -- i yield to the gentlelady, the leader. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for his very strong statement. mr. chairman, i'm going to have to excuse myself for what's going to be happening on the floor today. but i just want to take this to a different place. i consider our work here like we're in kaleidoscope. on one issue there are certain of us in the design. you turn it again and it's different people. we're all a resource to each other. on some issues we can act in a bipartisan way. other times it's regional. other times it's generational. whatever it happens. gender. and the rest. but we have our comings together in different design. i don't want to have any inference to be drawn that because we have disagreements on the tax bill that we can't find disagreement on other issues.

because disagreement on the number that we can't find agreement on other issues. because, again, we're all a source of strength to each other for the american people. and we'll be in different designs depending what the issue is that comes before us. so again, whatever our differences on other things, hopefully we can find common ground on this ethic of caring -- for caring for people and not saying you voted for this so i'm not going to vote for this. or you voted for that and i'm not going to vote for that. again, this giant kaleidoscope that is this congress, the beauty of the mixture across the aisle, across generations, ethically in our own caucus we have a great deal of diversity as you do in yours. i thank you for your attention to this. that so much you were here for so long with so much to do. i thank you, mr. chairman, for

your courtesy and for your candor. always that. and again thank all the rules committee members for the great service you provide to the congress, to your staff. thank you as well. i just think that we can turn that dial on that kaleidoscope and get to a place we're all part of a design for a small piece of the challenge that we have in that confidence building we can go to the larger issue of the comprehensive immigration reform. and who knows where we can go together. i yield back. mr. sessions: if the gentlewoman allows, one of our members does wish to engage you. dr. burgess. mr. burgess: thank you, mr. chairman. members can be forgiven if they don't remember the vote on the dream act in 2010 because it did occur pretty late in that session. if i recall correctly it was in the month of december.

many members had actually departed. i remember that because i was tasked to run the republican side on the floor because everyone had left town. it did happen, but it happened so late. you are correct, the senate did have a cloture vote earlier in the month of december where they could not get the 60 votes, and we, as mr. cole pointed out -- mr. woodall pointed out, we bumped up against that from time to time ourselves. but it's significant because then in june of 2012, when president obama announced the deferred action for childhood arrivals, significant in my state because 18 months later we had -- i don't remember the total number, but it was over 100,000 unaccompanied minors pouring across the lower rio grande valley sector because that part of the border is very difficult to control. even if you are dedicated to

border security and dedicated to border control, the river meanders, it's flood plain, it's overgrown with vegetation. which the u.s. fish and wildlife service will not let us remove, which we should. so that the border would be more controllable. and i'll tell you, i have been down there. when these children are coming across on dusty roads, they are out of water, their clothes are not suitable for the types of terrain they have been traversing. we all saw the pictures of the children on top of the train coming from central america through mexico. how is that compassionate to allow that to happen? and when governor perry asked president obama, come with me to the border and let's look at this, president obama would not go to the border. he was in dallas for a fundraiser, but he would not go to the border with the governor. the governor had to calm the -- had to call up the state guard to do the job of defense of the border the federal government was not doing.

but i say that just to illustrate that we must, we must -- we cannot consider these things in a vacuum. the notion of border security is not just a notion. it is something that we have to pay a great deal of attention. or people are going to be hurt, and hurt badly. before you have to leave, i do need to point out. based on this health insurance plan which passed through our committee, our subcommittee, actually did not have a subcommittee hearing at mr. pallone's request, he wanted to delay that and have a full committee markup, you refer that to mr. walden's bill. the chip bill was my bill that. -- my bill that, combined with the community health certainty bill, and became the walden

bill. i do want to stress, i did not get what i wanted on that. i want add two-year bill, and i wanted the state of texas to engage me on what did the chip program look like before. you remember when the affordable care act passed, we were told we wouldn't need things like the state children's health insurance program, transitional medical insurance. everyone will have the affordable care act and no one would need these programs anymore. when the affordable care act passed, the funding for state children's health insurance program was increased, but only to the end of calendar year -- fiscal year 2015. it was authorized to the end of fiscal year 2019, but left unfunded. we did fund it in 2015 with the medicare access and chip re-authorization act. where it was a bipartisan bill. we did agree. this time the agreement that was made, if we're going to expand it to a five-year program with which i disagreed, but that's what the senate wanted, that's what committee democrats wanted. i ceded on that issue. let us offset the cost of the bill. i think we came up with responsible offsets.

people object to using the prevention public health fund. i would just submit we have used those -- just to refresh the committee's memory, these are dollars that are replenished as self effecting appropriation every two years, or every year of $2 billion to the secretary of the department of health and human services for use however that person sees fit. occasionally we have seen fit to direct some of those dollars to something that we thought comport with the whole idea of the prevention of public health fund like the cures bill a year ago. which many of us voted for. there was an offset in the cures bill with the prevention public health fund. many of us on this dais voted in favor of that. it did use those dollars. that's not a foreign concept. assessing a larger part b premium for individuals who earn over $500,000 a year did not

seem like a stretch to me when we were looking for offsets for that bill. with income related to the part b premium, going back to 2003, this was one more income relation with the part b premium for people at the very upper reaches of the income scale. not dividend income, not stock income, but ordinary income of greater than $500,000 a year, you don't get your part b premium offset by tax dollars. most of us do recall the part b premium only covers 25% of the actual expenditure out of the medicare part b, which is doctors and some drugs. 75% is covered out of the federal treasury. we said to those individuals who make over $500,000 a year, you are actually going to pay the premium to cover those expenses. still a bargain. you still cannot -- i'm here to tell you. you cannot buy a affordable care care.gov forn health

nearly the cost of the full charge of the part b premium. so someone says, ok, don't want to pay that extra part b premium, i'll go buy health care .gov, good luck, you are probably paying more for your insurance. we also said that if people are covered by more than one insurance. if they are covered by medicaid and commercial insurance, according to law, medicaid is the payer of last resort. oftentimes it doesn't work out like that. and i know why that is, because it's hard to collect your money from commercial insurance. aetna, cigna, united, they hold on to their dollars tightly. most states give up and say bill medicaid because easier. -- because it is easier. those dollars come to us quickly. it's a reliable income stream. collect from aetna, cigna, united, but in fact we should collect those dollars first before we go to the federal taxpayer for those dollars.

these are the offsets that were included in the children's health insurance program. they were very reasonable. they were not draconian. the opposition was simply because we didn't want, my opinion, we didn't want to get to a solution. but the solution is, it's there. it's attainable today. call your counterpart, minority leader over in the united states senate, and let that bill come to the floor. and that's one that will pass. i appreciate the chairman giving me the time to engage the minority leader. and i will stand by to hear what undoubtedly is coming back. ms. pelosi: thank you. you afforded me an opportunity to make a distinction in a very clear way about why we opposed burgess, became walden, when it came to the floor. you are quite correct in saying in the past there has been a call on some of the prevention funds. but that was -- the prevention funds are additional. we had worked with mr. boehner, as you know we had an historic

agreement when we did the doc fix and schip and community health centers and all the rest a few years ago. that was a big accomplishment. some funds were taken -- over time some funds had been taken from the additional funding you correctly say comes into the account. what we're concerned about in the walden/burgess bill, put it on walden, is that it went to the base. it went to the basic money of the prevention fund. we did not think that that should be a place where children had to take money from children's inoculation, fighting lead poisoning. those kinds of things. mind you, not to get back to former issues, we have had a $1.5 trillion tax break for corporate america unpaid for and permanent. we're talking here about five years. i agree with you. it should be paid for. it should be offset.

but we did not like those offsets. mr. burgess: it's the same budgetary offset used in the cures bill. many people on this dais voted in favor. ms. pelosi: as i did, too. let me just say this. we have a disagreement there. let me also say this. in terms of the medicare piece, we do not want -- i appreciate -- medicare has some -- a means testing in it. mr. burgess: we don't use the words means and testing together in a sentence. ms. pelosi: income related, that -- well, there are offsets -- assets people have that are not their income. that might be part of it, too. the point being that we don't want to diminish the constituency, the health pool that is there. the people who are healthier and this or that find it cheaper to go shopping elsewhere. we want to keep them in medicare. that was part of that.

but then one other point that you made on the medicare -- on the children's health side of it. no. we are committed -- the first bill we passed when we had the majority, first bill we sent to the president was the schip. first bill we sent to the president that passed the congress. we passed other bills in the house when we had our first 100. but the first bill that passed the whole congress was you and i call it schip. we go back. but the chip bill. that was the beginning of 2009. we had a full commitment to that bill. when you talk about we don't want it to happen, no. this is a high priority. it was the first bill we sent to the president. but i do think you can take heart in the fact there is bipartisan conversation that is almost there for agreed upon offsets in a bipartisan way. we had hoped that that would be

what would be the basis for the funding in this bill, but it is not. but it is well down the road. good faith with the speakers office,- the speaker's the house and senate, democrats and republicans, and the white house on that score. mr. burgess: what i'm hearing you saying you will support the schip provision in the continuing resolution because we should be able to get this worked out -- ms. pelosi: you don't have the right offset in the bill, but we do agree it's important. mr. burgess: it's an offset we agreed to use before. ms. policy: it is a different offsets, but mr. burgess, thank you for your enthusiasm for chip and for this very productive exchange we're having now. thank you. mr. sessions: thank you very much for your time. as you know this committee has allowed you to engage us. i think you gave us a fair opportunity, although all the members would have wished that

our time would have been longer. thank you very much. i know you've got to go. we appreciate your presence. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. session: merry christmas to paul. ok. you have had your fun. ms. pelosi: that's another way to describe this. yes sir, i did. mr. session: are you telling me you are leaving also? ms. lujan grisham: i can stay as long as you will have me. long as you want. mr. session: judge hastings. mr. hastings: we have been here a very long time. i do not want to prolong it. i do want to point out that by blocking the amendment that's also by ms. lujan grisham, in many respects we're offering a cold shoulder to the young people that many of us have seen

demonstrating here at the capitol, certainly in an intense way for the last two weeks. mr. chairman, we all know that this continuing resolution is the last train before the end of the year. you've already given a big time christmas present to billionaires and corporations. can't you also give a gift to the dreamers and to the majority of this house who recognize this as an urgent priority? it's been a record breaking year for closed rules. most of my constituents don't even know what closed rules are. but in this particular session of congress we have had 57 completely closed rules. that's twice the number that

democrats had when we were in the majority. you don't have to end on a record breaking closed rule. you can make ms. lujan grisham's amendment in order and give the dreamers a fair chance on the floor of the house. i do believe that most of us know that it would pass. we are leaving a number of things on the table. long-term flood insurance. perkins loans. there's been discussion about funding to address the opioid epidemic. legislation to help save failing pension funds. that's something particularly critical to people in our country. believe in long-term bipartisan re-authorization of chip and community health centers out in the lurch. and long-term fisa.

i was prepared yesterday, i thought we were meeting at 4:00 yesterday on fisa. i was supposed to handle the bill with the 702 re-authorization. now that isn't coming up. we're not dealing with raising the defense and nondefense spending caps. and we are leaving medicare extension on the table as well. president donald john trump just tweeted, house democrats want to shut down for the holidays in order to distract from the very popular just-passed tax cuts . house republicans, don't let this happen. pass the c.r. today and keep our government open. mr. woodall, my dear friend,

pointed out how sometimes our passion and our discussions cause us to form camps and not form agreements. it's a kind of statement that just came from the president. there's no democrat i know that wants the government to shut down. there is no republican that i know that wants the government to shut down. we have fundamental disagreements on some policy matters, and in past situations that was also the case. but i would remind donald trump, that his tax measure that you all celebrated yesterday, if any of the polls ought to be believed, is not particularly popular in this country. it would be my hope and yours that it would become popular, but at the moment it is not. and the president needs to put his tweeter account under his

pillow and sleep on it rather than continue to divide this country the way that he has. we're here about serious matters. the continuing resolution of what is needed to keep this government opened that should have been handled long before now. and all we're asking is for the dreamers. i may offer an amendment, mr. chairman, if ms. grisham -- dreamers. lujan grisham's amendment is not offered, and that is to at the very least provide temporary protective status to those who are in the dreamer status under the national laws of this country, the same as we have for haitians and hondurans and nicaraguans, we could at least until march, if that's when we claim we're going to have it, at least not before the end of the -- these young people and not allow them to be in the lurch losing their status. it's disgusting situation that

we find ourselves in. rather than go on, mr. chairman, i'll leave it at that and not cause you all to have to listen to me. i am pretty damn mad about what we're doing to the dreamers. mr. session: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. thank you very much. we appreciate your help. the distinguished gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne. i would like to personally apologize to the gentleman. i did make a quick decision and i did ask that the minority leader stay for dr. burgess. that was not meant against you. i know you wanted time. but in respect for the balance, i did what i did. so i offer my apology to the distinguished gentleman. the gentleman is recognized. mr. byrne: well, mr. chairman, the questions i have for the two -- i have or the two people four sitting in the chairs are empty there. i know they didn't leave and didn't do it on a personal basis. i don't take it personally. i do think it's a sign of disrespect to the committee.

they come here, they seek for us to listen to them. i patiently listened and they left. mr. sessions: the gentleman is entitled to his opinion. i appreciate that. mr. byrne: i did not go to the white house yesterday. i stayed to meet with a democratic member of the house with whom i am working very closely on an issue that is extremely important to everybody in the house. i try to work with democrats every chance i can. and i'm disappointed your leadership didn't stay. just say that. i'm further disappointed that the minority leader refused to go to the white house and meet with the president about another issue that's extremely important to all of us. i mean, i wasn't invited by president obama very many times, but when he invited me, i went. he and i had pretty strong disagreements, mr. chairman. but when the president of the united states calls you to come to the white house, you go. particularly when it's on a matter of extreme importance

like funding the government of the united states. i do think ms. pelosi is holding the defense of the united states hostage. i do believe that we're endangering the lives of young men and women that wear our uniform all over the world. we're probably going to pass a c.r. and get out of here today or tomorrow. we'll all go home to nice homes and our families. those young people are out there god knows all sorts of places, including south korea, and we have not properly provided for them. and i just got to tell you i'm not going to feel too good at christmas about that. i think that is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. it's a dereliction of duty because we have had a cynical, manipulative attempt to hold up funding the defense to get an agreement on nondefense matters. that's what it is. that's why we didn't show up to the white house for the budget meeting. that's why we won't engage in

good faith discussions with the speaker about getting budget caps. and that's why we have endangered those young men and women. that's what's happened. they are not here to respond to me. i'm sorry, i would love for them to respond to me, but that's what we have done. and i'm about to make a decision myself about whether i'm going to vote for a c.r. to keep the government opened, when i know it endangers our men and women in uniform. if i vote for the c.r. it's because i believe we got to keep the government opened. we have to move forward. if the members on the other side don't want to do that, you don't want to keep the government opened, that's your decision. to the gentlewoman from new mexico, my president, the leader of my party, wants us to consider a daca fix. i'm going to honor his request. i have some grave concerns about it. but i'm going to honor his request.

if you'll check with some your -- with some of your colleagues about me, i'm going to do so in a good faith way. i don't play games with people. i'm going to listen. i had a group of pastors come by dissing me in their district. they want me to meet with -- i have a group of pastors want me to meet with dreamers in my district. i'm going to do that. i'm going to keep open ears, open eyes, open heart. i going to reach across the am aisle as hard as i possibly can on that issue. i'm assuring you of that. i wish that i felt you-all were reaching back. i don't feel that. because there are other issues here that are attached to the dreamer issue that somehow we're saying we can't talk about those. well, you don't get to pick the contours of the debate here. you have to accept the contours they give us. i don't always like the contours of the debate. many times i have to agree to things i don't like to get other things. that's the way it works. but if we're going to have a discussion about dreamers, then we need to have a discussion

about border security. if you want that discussion and you want it in good faith, then faith, discuss with us border security. don't say we're only going to debate dreamers. you want us to debate dreamers, you want to do it in good faith, then you have to do the same thing about border security. i think there's a lot of common ground on border security if we'll have the discussion. but if you want us to come to an agreement on your issue, you have to come to an agreement with us on our issue. does that seem like a fair way to do this? ms. lujan grisham: mr. chairman and mr. byrne, i absolutely accept your offer to continue to work with us to reach across the aisle. i may disagree with you about which pieces are left for whom in this body to address and what priority, including defense. and in fact, without making a complaint, just in observation,

because things happen, i was part of the original meetings with the speaker on the task force, as were my colleagues and counterparts in the senate with their leadership. and immediately after we were disinvited to those efforts. i can't tell you why. i can't tell you whether that was meant to be negative or just strategic to get to a place where we could start to reach across the aisle so we know who is where -- mr. byrne: my question is pretty simple. is it fair for us to talk about border security in the same discussions we're talking about dreamers? ms. lujan grisham: mr. chairman and mr. byrne, i apologize i was so long winded. i thought i answered that yes. but we have to be invited to that conversation. in fact, we have been diligently now working in many bipartisan groups specifically on boarder -- on border security. however, it's not done. dreamers are losing status and are being harmed.

and dreamers in the context of being in this country today aren't a border security issue. they are here. these don't have to be always mutually exclusive, i agree. but in this context, in this emergency, at the end of the year, on a c.r. we have an opportunity. with our positions of great power come great responsibility. i do, mr. byrne, accept your offer. mr. byrne: i'm looking forward to that discussion. because i don't think we're going to get a bill that helps the dreamers unless we get something that deals serious fashion with border security. that's a reality. i get lots of speeches around here from people about the realities of the things we have to deal with. that's just a reality. so if you want a fix on dreamers, you need to come to the table seriously in good faith, talk about border security. i'm willing to listen with open ears, open eyes, open heart about the whole thing. but i'm not going to be

segmented about it by saying we just got to do dreamers and not talk about the rest of them and get something worked out there. i'm sorry you had to listen to my tirade earlier. because it's not your fault. you have been here and very patient about listening and responding to our questions. i do appreciate that about you. i think you have yourself an exemplary fashion. it's impressed me. i'm sorry your leadership didn't stay so they could have impressed me the same way. i yield back. sessions: the gentleman yields back. we're moving up and down this panel. you have decided to stay. i respect and appreciate that. i expect it. but i still appreciate it. i have a question. you talk about trying to be inclusive in listening to people, including people. you want to be included. how about curbelo joining your organization when he was denied? ms. lujan grisham: i want to report i voted each and every

time for mr. curbelo to join the caucus. he's aware of that. while i can't always, i bet you feel the same way, take responsibility for the actions of every single member on either side of the aisle, i bet you have moments, i hope i'm not overstepping my appropriateness here, but i have those moments -- i bet you have those moments with both sides just chairing this committee. it's an interesting and difficult job. i think that -- mr. sessions: we're angels. the chairman handles us well on both sides. ms. lujan grisham: i would like to brag on mr. curbelo, in spite -- where there is still disagreement about how well that would work. mr. sessions: you get my point. inclusiveness goes both ways. one of my friends cannot even be a part of a caucus which has not been questioned that he is hispanic, either. and he can't become a member of the caucus.

ms. lujan grisham: i assure you that was not -- the issue at hand. mr. sessions: i don't doubt that. so there's something deeper. ms. lujan grisham: i want an opportunity to brag on your colleague. i know you are busy. i want to do that. mr. curbelo has not stopped working to protect dreamers. and despite disagreements about other issues, to his credit, and to ours, the entire caucus and myself, his ideas and his stalwart support here have not gone unnoticed, i hope, by both chambers and by many members of our great body. thank you for raising that. mr. sessions: all i'm saying is this inclusiveness goes a couple different ways. we can't always get there. you get my point. and i accept yours also. mr. curbelo is a dear member of our conference. and as a member of this body. we're pleased to have him. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you. i also point out that i arrived

here this morning at 8:03 and ms. pelosi was already in the chair. by my reckoning she was willing to spend and did spend about 2 1/2 hours with us today. i think our friends on both sides, particularly on your side, had a number of questions for her. but i think that the dedication of 2 1/2 hours of our committee shows the esteem she holds our committee. that's longer than any other witness i recall that has been before this committee. mr. session: mr. walden spent about 28 hours. mr. polis: ok. so mr. walden is in the rarefied stratus with ms. pelosi then for having spent a good deal of time with this committee. paul ryan, the speaker, been here? i don't know. we would certainly love to see mr. mccarthy and mr. ryan if they choose to join us. i don't think you'd hear any complaints from our side if they

were only here for 2 1/2 hours. i think we would be grateful for that time. mr. sessions: why would we need to do that when you've got me? [laughter] mr. polis: we appreciate your time on this committee as well, mr. chairman. i would just again indicate that were mr. mccarthy or mr. ryan to come, we would certainly be respectful of their time. if they were with us for two hours or 2 1/2 hours, we would consider that a great sign of respect for our committee. mr. sessions: let me assure you, they have great respect for this committee. they have appointed, as ms. pelosi has, each of you, we have made sure that our committee to a person is not only the finest in our conference, but here of equal value to each other. and we do appreciate that. this is a representative of our party right here that you see. we speak as -- not as one voice. but we speak as one team.

i know that you engage us every day. that is literally i consider the strength of this team. not just one person or the other. mr. polis: earlier i want to address something by mr. byrne said that somehow ms. pelosi or the democrats are holding something hostage. one has to recognize that the democrats in congress have no ability to hold anything hostage. we're the minority here. we're trying to make motions. they will likely be outvoted. the majority party is responsible -- >> will the gentleman yield? will the gentleman yield? >> i am not finished yet. >> after he's finished? mr. polis: i would be happy to yield in a bit. i would be happy to give you some of my time later. let me start again here. the gentleman, mr. byrne, indicated somehow mrs. pelosi or the democrats are holding something hostage. the democrats have no ability to

hold anything hostage. the republicans not only have the majority on the floor but actually control the agenda of what we vote on. and if the democrats had a say in that, we would certainly schedule for immediate votes, items like child health insurance program, the dream act, and i don't even think we would be talking about a shut down of government if the democrats were in charge. but again, the democrats have no ability here to schedule anything for the floor. despite our best efforts. and if there is anybody who is holding government hostage, it is your fellow republicans, mr. chairman, who are in control of what we vote on and control the floor. i happy to yield to the am gentleman from alabama. mr. byrne: i appreciate the gentleman doing so. as mr. cole regularly tells us, in order to get one of those things done you have to have a bipartisan agreement because you have to have democrats in the senate agree to it. am i wrong about that, mr. cole?

mr. cole: that is correct. mr. polis: the gentleman didn't say the senate is holding it hostage, he said ms. pelosi is holding it hostage. she is not a senator. mr. byrne: but she's part of the discussion. polis: she would make a darn fine senator, but if the gentleman has an issue it's with the senate, not ms. pelosi. happy to yield. mr. sessions: we are engaging in what is great for all of us. does the gentleman have a question for our witness because if we do not i'm going to excuse the witness. mr. polis: i think one thing the committee can be better educated on because there seems to be some misunderstanding is the whole issue of deferred action not expiring until march. it is already expiring every day for over 100 dreamers. and i wanted to -- that means there are 100 people able to

work legally today that are not able to work legally tomorrow. the republicans are creating more illegal immigrants every day by failing to act on this. i want to make that clear. and that will continue until congress addresses the dream act . that is not democrats. that is republicans. they are creating more people that are here illegally every day and i want to ask ms. lujan grisham to explain how that works. why are these expiring and why is there no other status for them? what becomes of these dreamers that status expires and they're not waiting until march, their status expires today, i want you to clarify for the committee why that is so urgent. grisham: you are correct. it is 122 who lose status every day by march we'll have 4,500. in the deferred action eligibility requirements, you

have to renew your application. based on the date of original application. so in this process, as those original dates of application expire and you must reapply, there's nothing to rely aply to -- to reapply to. there's also a notion, i think, by some in congress that for -- and again, i don't want this to be the case, i'm here imploring that we use this vehicle to protect dreamers today so we can deal with the more complicated issues and they are complicated, i don't want to diminish or pretend they aren't, and i'm grateful for the invitation i had by many caucuses, problem solvers, the tuesday group, main street, and so many others, talk about border security and identify issues we think both sides can move forward and agree on. but here there is nothing you could return to in march. so some have even said not only do we understand that we're risking the 4,500, add to that the thousands of applications by

the original, right, renewable date, which was when, october 5, that were postmarked on time but not delivered on time and homeland security made a unilateral decision, not standard in the administrative process, to also theny those. -- to also deny those. you now have thousands of dreamers who cannot work and who are at significant risk and in march, if god forbid i lose this appeal to you on my amendment today and something doesn't occur shortly thereafter, there are some who say well the president could reinstate daca. there's nothing to reinstate. there would be total chaos in trying to figure out no program to try to reapply to and the fact that there'd be no status to protect the folks in this executive order from a prior administration that's been rescinded. we have to do something. it does, quite literally,

require an act of congress. i'm hoping that your question and my answers and my effort today move the committee to join me in approving my amendment today. thank you. mr. polis: i thank the gentlelady. i want to make sure again she -- i want to make sure the committee knows there is no march deadline, the deadline has passed for over 100 people every day. that's why you see the sense of urgency. it's why democrats have no interest in putting this off until january. we expect to stay here through christmas, through new year's, to get this done. there are bipartisan proposals on border security. and there are some that our colleagues mr. hurd have worked on, problem solvers have worked on, those are very close to the finish line. i think we can vote on them this week. and pass them. along with the dream act. so we are ready to go and again,

if there is anybody who is standing in the way, it is not the republican rank and file, it is simply republican leadership. the votes are there. this is ready to occur. what an impact on message that would make to be able to create uncertainty for the 1.5 million able to that will be contribute to our country and

make it even greater. i strongly encourage my college to support the dream -- my colleagues to support the dream act amendment. some of you might vote yes, some of you might vote no. simply let us have our vote so we can go home knowing what we actually we did what we need to, many that of mine, so i've come to know, who know that we are here working for them, and can advance the issues simply by allowing this on a bill that was certainly passed. i'm happy to yield back. been the patient

and capable witness. we thank you for being here today. it's always a pleasure to see my friend. unless there are other questions then thank you for this much of your time. >> thank you for your courtesy today. i appreciate the committee's participation in the dialogue. ♪ >> c-span's washington journal, live every day, with news and policy issues that impact you. up friday morning, stephen mansfield, author of " choosing donald trump" discusses his washington times op-ed about trump and evangelical voters. hillcrest, talk show host, on politics and what to expect in 2018. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern friday morning. join the discussion. ♪

>> saturday night on c-span, former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. samantha power discussing america's role in the war. here's a look. now that you're sitting at thewhat of a distance you, human rights being battered, is weaker?, is it has it lost its champion? >> i think that we have all tolen prey over the years thinking of, when we say america, the champion of human rights, i at least often think of that is the american government. i think that's what we mean by america. i think around the world it's really hard to stand up for human rights when you're

attacking judges or discussing police brutality. we've seen u.s. leadership on human rights with the attack on the media. now, we see the living government -- libyan government, the officials, endorses slave market, where human beings are being sold. they didn't like it, that's not convenient, to have video like that shown. you see the leaders of military mounds andescribing mounds, thousands of eyewitness survivor testimonies about the systematic ethnic cleansing of people. and that is discussed as fake news. the government, we are leaving on human rights -- leading human rights, whether it is positive

or not. >> saturday night, samantha discussing america's role in the world. she will be joined by former defamation league national director, abraham foxman. best of the power reflects on her time in the obama administration. you can see this event saturday at 10:25 p.m. eastern here on c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] >> house and senate republicans held in enrollment ceremony discussing the tax reform bill. speaker paul ryan, mitch mcconnell, finance committee chair orrin hatch, and house ways and means committee chair kevin brady. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]