mr. sensenbrenner and mr. conyers. so it has been bipartisan with great pride.opefully they'll bring the bill to the floor soon again. i'll be pleased to take any questions you may have. >> ms. leader, what is the end game of the drama, a two-month c.r.? >> that's not an end. that's not a end. a two-month c.r. is not an end. a two-month c.r. is a continuation of uncertainty. and they ought to just face the fact that this president has the right to do what he has done by executive action. he has the right in the law by legal authority as well as by precedent of other presidents. and they want to overturn that using the constitution and the rest and saying, therefore they're not going to fund homeland security. the very first responsibility we have is -- it's hard to understand but two months is nothing, as their leader said, why do we have to do that? why do we have to -- why do we have to do that? so if they don't understand why we have to do that, they don't understand that maybe 100,000 people will be without pay. people who -- more importantly who should be a

mr. sensenbrenner, mr. davis, that mr. portman are dedicated to helping us stem the tide of this powerful government, making sure that our policies make sense and bringing together people left and right they care about liberty and freedom and public safety. thank you. [ applause ] >>> you know the problem that we face consists of putting too many people in prison, treating them badly when they are in prison and then not doing much to prepare them for their release and their going back into a civil society when they leave prison. those are big, big problems that have a lot of complications. and as i said earlier it really is in terms of the public that once someone is sentenced and goes away they are forgotten about. and in the institution they are as pat said ordinarily treated as if they are less than human, as if that is part of what it is all about when it isn't because what that does is prepare them not for the re-entry into civil society as self-sustaining citizens and free citizens but turns them into something that

mr. sensenbrenner and davis and portman are dedicated to help us stem the tide of this powerful governmentogether people left and right that care about liberty and freedom and public safety. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. you know the problem we face consists of putting too many people in prison, treating them badly when they are in prison and then not doing much to prepare them for their release and going back into civil society when they leave prison. and those are big big problems that have a lot of -- a lot of complications. and as i said earlier it really is, in terms of the public, that wants someone -- that once someone is sentenced and goes away, they are forgotten about. and in the institution, they are, as pat said, ordinarily treated as if they are less than human. as if that is part of what it is all about and it prepared them not for the re-entry into civil society as self-sustaining citizens and free citizens but it turns them into something that will ultimately end up right back where they started. chuck olson and pat brought faith to the problem. i remember at chuck'

mr. sen sensenbrenner. it is important not to block anyone from voting. i still think it is the right thing. i think the premise is righted. there is no statement about voting in the constitution, but there are statements of philosophy and rights and liberties all driven by someone's right to vote for a government that will promote religious freedom, freedom of access, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to a trial by jury, due process and we know the 13th, 14th and 15 amendments were geared toward the idea of freedom. and you can only secure freedom one, by your wonderful men and women who are willing to stand in uniform and fight for us, many who have gone through and shed their blood but the other is an active and partnership tower civic siving and the actions are their voice and their vote. i plead with my colleagues that let us make the vote and the voice real by supporting the re-authorization of the voting rights act, written to respond to the united states supreme court. i may have disagreed with the supreme court's section 5 but i