m mr. welch mentioned while adjusting the fees it's shifting the subject matter but i believe this commission will be well-advised to ask for more meetings potentially i'm asking the point for a subcommittee to be well prepared and well-informed how we change what we change and with when and i definitely think we should be considering a number of hearings today was a great start continually it was supposed to be an overview and complexity and looked the process going forward. i wanted to comment on something that commissioner hillis said i think we should look at the 2002 and 2009 policy to look at having the allocation being revoked instead of an administrative active reindication that might make the pipeline more clear and i wanted to also lend my voice to the concern around conversion i think that displacement should be one of the major concerns in looking at criteria. commissioner antonini >> a couple of interpretative points i think are important the way it is now and talking to mr. t if you

slaughter: i yield 1 1/2 to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. well well -- mr. welch: $40 million is going to be used to help kids and their families. children want to be with their parents in their country and i thank kay granger. but the rest of the bill is a mess. just think about it, $70 million to the national guard. why are we seriously thinking that we have to have combat-ready troops at the border to greet nine and 10 and 11-year-old kids that if they made the journey successfully, are familiarished, exhausted and terrified and the homeland security has a big budget and this won't make a dime's worth of difference. what this does really where does this bill come from. yesterday we were on our way home. there was no bill yesterday. and people figured out if the house didn't even act on a bill we wouldn't be able to blame the do-nothing senate. mr. speaker, wait. the do-nothing senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform on june 27, 2013. the do-nothing senate passed that bill in a bipartisan manner, 68-32. >> no consultation with the president. there'

cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, there's a reason that the american people hold the congress of the united states in such low esteem. we're providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion. and here's what it is. number one, this was an important investigation. we should do it. we should do it energetically and we should do it together. instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. that's essential to having any credibility. the second thing is, what do we do about mrs. lowey: who took the fifth -- will lois lerner who took the fifth? and the manner which she did that took her to waive that. your side think she waived it and therefore should be held in contempt. our side, and we have the side of legal opinion, said she didn't waive it. you know, that's a legal

cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, there's a reason that the american people hold the congress of the united states in such low esteem. we're providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion. and here's what it is. number one, this was an important investigation. we should do it. we should do it energetically and we should do it together. instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. that's essential to having any credibility. the second thing is, what do we do about mrs. lowey: who took the fifth -- will lois lerner who took the fifth? and the manner which she did that took her to waive that. your side think she waived it and therefore should be held in contempt. our side, and we have the side of legal opinion, said she didn't waive it. you know, that's a legal

i now recognize the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you. you've got a pretty hard job. it really is. but two things. when mr. lynch indicated gratitude for your cooperation in turning around at codell. secondly, i know the subcommittee sent some request for information. it is helpful to the committee, it's a burden on you, but it really makes for a better life all around if there can be as much cooperation as possible in a timely way. but i do want to acknowledge the hard work that you have to do. one question i have is how much -- i mean, the costs are high. how much of the complications that you face day to day in making decisions about an embassy, wherever it may be, have to do with the enormous security requirements that now seem to be part of everything? i'll ask you, ms. muniz. >> i think the security requirements clearly significantly add to the expense, but i don't know that anybody in the state department on this committee would call into question the need for those security measures, both operationally during

clinton thought he was going to have a heart attack over this, what he considered to be a welching on the deal. >> host: mr. kline there have been questions about your sources, especially the most salacious parts of the book, no names specifically. what do you make of the claims and why not bring more people to the forefront as people who actually gave you the sources ss and give their names? >> guest: i think that's a very legitimate question and it's a question that has been asked of bob woodward, whose books are all anonymous sources. the game change authors, hideleman and the other fellow whose name escapes me for the moment, all their sources are anonymous. when you report on current political battles, it's very hard to get people on the record because they don't want to lose their access to the people in power. so, i've developed over the course of many years, during the books i've written on hillary clinton, on barack obama, the last book i wrote was called "the amateur. barack obama in the white house." i have a row low desk of sources who i have come to depend on who have proven to be absolutely a