tv Public Affairs CSPAN July 28, 2013 2:00pm-4:11pm EDT
is puerto rico, and a lot of to drive this point home, i looked at a special case, which is puerto rico, and a lot of people do not know that puerto rico gets a lot of immigration, too, from latin america, and particular and what the difference in puerto rico, everybody speaks spanish, natives and immigrants. if you do the same graph, you do not see that downward sloping relationship. ok. there is other evidence that immigrants and natives do different things. it was mentioned work, where immigrants specialize in jobs which require less communication skills, essentially. that is consistent with that language story i told you. there is direct evidence where there is a lot of immigrants, the price of low skill services, which would be jobs that do not require a lot of communication,
are significantly lower, so this is another way the benefits of low skilled immigration. low skilled services are cheaper in markets where there is a lot of immigration. ok. there is a variety of other things that immigration does. we talked about the productivity spillover from other types of immigration. there are other impacts. i want to drive home the idea that we benefit from bringing in low skilled workers. there is this potential cost and maybe we are raising inequality, and that is a big concern, so we might want to couple this with transfer policies. it is a lot like international trade. maybe you can compensate the losers. in the u.s. you do not see much of this supposedly cost side of the equation. there's good reason to think it is small. there's the possibility that immigrants and natives work in different kinds of jobs and that firms are very adaptable in how they react to low skilled immigration. finally, alex asked me to talk about my thoughts on policy, and all the heat and the noise seemed to be about illegal immigration, like what are we
going to do about border enforcement, what are we going to do, are we going to have an amnesty? that feels like we are too late when we have that debate. you need to take a step back and say, why are they coming here despite the fact that is not legal to do so? the answer is they have this enormous incentive, they want to come here, they have the big economic gains from coming here, and on top of that, we want them to come here. we benefit from them coming. we demand their labor which is why they want to come. maybe the problem really is not illegal immigration, it is why don't we have more low skilled visas, why don't we have more legal ways for immigrants to come? you may be concerned about other impacts of admitting a lot of low skilled workers, and my answer to that is look, they have this enormous benefit for coming here, if you're worried about the costs of admitting low skilled immigrants, why don't we capture that with visa fees or other things to capture those benefits for ourselves? maybe in an era of budget deficits, maybe that is something to give thought to.
thanks for letting me give a talk here. i appreciate it. [applause] >> this is it? great. thank you very much for your time. i hope to give you something for it. i do not mean to alarm you, but i just met you and i know roughly how much money you make. almost all of you, and not exactly of course, but i have a good idea, and the reason i have a good idea is because of a remarkable calculation that was done at the world bank recently by an economist, which is a great book of his called "the haves and the have nots." he is assembled the data of real income of people all over the
world, stuck them into a single harmonized database, and asked this question -- if you take some random person from that database and you want to predict their real income, adjusted for prices across countries, how far can he get toward a perfect prediction of that person's real income knowing nothing else about them except what country they live in, one fact only? and the stunning fact is 60% -- he can predict 60% of the real living standards based on only where you live and work. i want to let that sink in for a
second because to me this is one of the most stunning facts about the economy or the world. we're talking about something important, that your real living standard and all that means for your ability to realize your dreams and the health and survival of your children, etc. and the calculation does not just suggest that where you live is more important than anything else about you, this number means where you live is more important than everything else about you combined, whether you are hard-working, lazy, black, white, female, male, your parents were rich, your parents were poor, hot, ugly, everything else about you explains a lot, but not as much as your country of residence. that is a remarkable situation that suggests there is an enormous inequality of opportunity in the world. you can notice it in places like this. here is the border between the u.s. state of california and the mexican state of baja california. the minimum wage on one side of that border is it 57 cents an hour and a minimum wage on the other is an order of magnitude higher.
another way to look at the fascinating results is to think for a second, you have the same person doing the same task in two different places, and that is an arbitrage opportunity, the same thing is being sold to different markets for hundreds of percent differences, and it is an opportunity to add value. all arbitrage opportunities are an opportunity to create value in the world, to generate wealth.
and it is common in the world to have the same person, to have a person who does a task for $250 a month in one place, be able to move, come to washington, d.c., other richer parts of the world to do exactly the same thing for 10 times as much. alex mentioned my paper that summarizes -- let's say nascent economic literature on what is the size of this arbitrage opportunity, how much value could be added to the world economy by exploiting this opportunity. there are all kinds of calculation that amounts to saying how many people are you going to assume can move and what is the gain to each one of them. when you add them up, in
sophisticated ways, you get to be really big numbers in the trillions. the global gdp gain to even modest increases in labor mobility rivals and exceeds the global economic gain from any other kind of relaxation of the international economic barriers you can think of. what i talk about in the paper is that if you add up economists' best calculations of the global gain from dropping all policy barriers to trade, so total elimination of tariff on earth, licensing restriction, and add to that the economic gain estimated by others of total elimination of every barrier, policy and otherwise, to the movement of capital, so perfectly allocate capital across the entire globe, eliminate all informational asymmetry, add those together
and you cannot get to more than $3 trillion every year in global gain. compare that to a modest increase in labor mobility, and i mean take one in 20 of people now residing him what the world bank defines as developing countries, allow them to work in richer countries, just one in 20 of them, and you get above $4 trillion, conservatively, and larger amounts of mobility would result in even larger gains. so really just titanic gains. i want to push back gently on the brilliant presentation by ethan, this is a gain that is primarily realized instantaneously by migrants, but these kind of population shifts occur over generations. if you were to say in 1900, ok, 80 million immigrants are coming to the united states and they
are going to experience an economic gain over the next hundred years, but that gain would go to the immigrants? now they are us. they were them then, but we are them now. now i am us. these movements occur over a time scale where we should -- i am not sure it is meaningful to talk about us and them. this is a gain to the country because the immigrants become the country. what kind of doubts could you have about these numbers? there are not a lot of papers about this issue, an issue that needs to be studied a lot more. a lot of what i read about in the paper is how we could challenge numbers like these.
what are people doing in papers like this? a very simple calculation of there's a bunch of people at a low income level, and what if we move a certain amount of them to a higher income level and multiply the amount of people moving by the income gained. you can think of four ways you can critique this that are pretty obvious. you might wonder maybe migrants are not as productive as natives at the destination. something about their productivity is less when they arrive. what are people doing in papers you could say maybe there is some kind of bad economic effect on people who did not move at the origin, and that offsetting cost should be taken into it accounts in a global calculus. maybe there is a offsetting negative economic harm at the destination which other the panelists have talked about, and fourth, you might have a non- economic concern about all these economic gains, but how many of
these people could feasibly move in any realistic political scenario, so why don't we leave in any realistic political scenario, so why don't we leave this hypothetical stuff on the table and talk about things that really matter. i want to take the rest of the time to surf lightly over the literature on these different subjects. first, let's talk about the gains to migrants. you could ask what is the productivity of a migrant who moves or the reverse of the question, if somebody had not moved, what would be their economic productivity? if you took one of them many ethiopian cabdrivers in washington and transported them to ethiopia, a what would be their productivity, and how would that differ from the average economic differences between americans and ethiopians? in a paper called the police premium, my co-authors try to
estimate for the gains to immigrating the united states, and we tried to account for as many observable and unobservable differences between migrants and non-migrants as we can. we got micro data from the world bank, from the u.s., and from 42 other countries, stacked them all together and asked the question, how about an observably identical person from each of 42 countries and in that country and in the united states, what is their real income after adjusting for price differences, after adjusting for country of birth, after adjusting for country of education and age and education level and gender. the question we're asking is,
take a mexican, born in mexico, educated in mexico, left after age 20, and they are 35 years old and they have nine years of education and they are male, and then make all plausible adjustments based on self- selection on determinants of them, and ask what do you end up with as the gap in economic productivity between that person in united states and that person in mexico. here are the results for all 42 countries we did. the vertical axis is the multiple of that person's real income at home that they get in united states. the red, orange, and yellow parts are an analysis based on the degree of self-selection on determinants
of income after you have left out country of birth, gender, education level, and age. even after all those adjustments, you're still left with hundreds of percent gains. another way to look at this is most of the determinants of poverty in ethiopia do not come with his cabdrivers. to turn shakespeare backwards, dear brutus, the fault is not in ourselves, it is in our stars, mostly in where we are born. how about the second objection about negative externalities at the origin? there's a lot of literature about this, and i want to provoke thought briefly on this subject by taking a local thought exercise. here is metropolitan washington, d.c., and there are people in the world who believe that skilled migration from developing countries is so harmful that it should be referred to with the pejorative
rhyming phrase "brain drain." i do not use that. i just refer to it by the neutral term "skilled migration" because for the following reason let's take a low income part of washington, these parts east of the anacostia river where incomes are relatively low, and ask the question, what is the economic harm that is done by allowing smart young kids to leave those places, allowing them to live elsewhere, allowing them to work elsewhere? conversely, that is that the same logical question of asking what would be the economic benefit to those places of not allowing them to leave, that is, trapping them there, not giving them a decision about whether or not to leave. let's set aside many ethical problems that you might have a policy like that and say, would it be effective? well, you might wonder how much of the deficit in human capital production in those neighborhoods would be remedied
by forcing the skilled people who have grown up there to go there, and the same thing happens between countries. the ocd has estimated by what fraction africa's deficit of physicians would be remedied by the hypothetical relocation of all emigre african physicians back to africa, somehow, by black helicopters, i do not know. and the answer is about 10% of the deficit as estimated by the world health organization would be remedied by even that draconian, forcible relocation of every emigre african doctor, and that is the reason why doctors are not in africa is primarily due to very complex forces that are not remedied by forcing people to live one place or another.
in this anacostia example you might be concerned about whether not allowing smart young people to leave that geographic area would it affect people's education decisions. isn't some of the reason people like people do stay in school and get an education the fact that they can get high incomes elsewhere? the same thing does happen between countries. in my research and the research of others, we have shown that the education decision, the extent and the specialties of education decisions of a lot of young people in developing countries are shaped by the opportunity to migrate, the option to migrate, even if not exercised. the bottom line on this is and this is going to sound like a strong statement, but i know this literature so i can say definitively, that there is no piece of evidence in the economic literature that any place on earth was ever developed primarily due to restrictions on movement or that any place on earth was ever made healthier by restrictions on movement of health professionals or any of the other effects you might imagine from restricting people's movement.
it makes more sense when we contemplate the real effects of a policy like trapping people in a low income neighborhood. now i want to talk briefly about effects on people on the destination. i can cut this pretty short because madelin and ethan have done a fantastic job. i want to point out the long- term discussion is not even worth having. other economists have pointed
out the u.s. got a lot bigger between 1900 and 2005, and the u.s. got four times bigger. in 1900 we were a country of 75 million people. unemployment in those two years happens to be exactly the same. somehow all of that labor force entry, less than half by immigrants and a lot of other labor force entry, especially by women during that time, and to have generated it proportionate terms roughly as many jobs as it took. really this is very intuitive when you think in the long term immigrants and other labor force entrants are not just suppliers of their own labor. they are consumers of the produce of other people's labor. in the long run we are all part of an economy. the only reason we're having this discussion or doing research on it is in the short term, and the most influential piece of research in this area is by a person at berkeley who studied this episode in a paper in 1990. the mariel boat life, an agreement between carter and castro that allowed about 125,000 cuban refugees to leave cuba and arrive in miami. research on it is in the short term, and the most influential
100,000 of them stayed there permanently. that means in three months there was this unexpected giant 7% jump in the size of the labor force of miami. he looks for effects on anybody else's employment or wages in the months after relative to other cities that do not experience this gigantic inflow and cannot find anything, nothing, even for blacks and hispanics, isolated, nothing at all. it is fair to say that even 23 years later it is still a subject of active research. how could that be? madelin and ethan have talked a lot about some of those reasons. it might have to do with labor supply, the labor supply of natives was low in areas where these people ended up working. i have a new paper on that
subject, documenting that the u.s. workers supplied to manual farm work jobs in north carolina did not seem to be affected by the great recession when unemployment jumped to from 4% 11%. in economic terms, for just some jobs that immigrants are doing, the native supply seems to be the great recession when unemployment jumped to from 4% 11%. in economic terms, for just some locally inelastic. it could have to do with labor demands, that there is something about large inflows immigrants that stimulate demand, and not just driving other workers down the labor demand curve by competing with them, but shifting outward labor demand curve. ethan talked about all kinds of mechanisms for this. firms adjust their technology choices in response to the availability of labor. ethan's research has been very influential there. jenny hunt has a fascinating new paper showing that natives adjust their educational choices based on the presence of low skill migrants. another at boston university has some innovative work showing that skilled women's labor force participation are influenced by the availability of low skill migrants. all kinds of things that stimulate economic activity, and therefore the demand for other people's labor, including natives and including low skill natives, lots of things going on here.
the mental model of one labor demand curve and is it downward sloping or not, the title of a 2003 paper, is much simpler than the actual economy. i want to talk finally about feasibility, and then i will finish. this is where this economist departs from economics. even people agree entirely with every word i have just said and just pat me on the back and say would luck with that. that is impossible. i want to point out in america lots of things are impossible until they are possible and then they are possible. one of the most inspiring documents in all of u.s. history is this letter from ben franklin to congress in february 1790, and you might know that franklin died in april of 1790, so this is the last public act of his life. he dashed off a letter representing a quaker association, saying how about you guys abolish slavery right now and 1790, not just end the slave trade, but make it illegal for other human beings to own human beings today? you know it was generations before that happened or was even discussed in congress again, but
it was debated for two days, and they did not keep full transcripts in those days, but there are steno notes of the discussion, and they gave all sorts of practical objections to this. who is going to compensate the property owners for all the expropriation, go back to the greeks and romans, slaves have always been with us, etc., etc. there are hilarious parts where they say franklin is getting old and he is a little loopy. they were right at that time. now today they seem crazy, and franklin turns out to be right. it took a while, but things can change massively. and there is a vast opportunity out there that i think slowly the world is finding ways to realize and it deserves a lot more research. thanks. [applause] >> thank you very much for much for all the presenters and their fantastic presentations. now we will begin the q&a session where you will get a chance to ask questions. i want to give you a few reminders. wait to be called on.
wait for the microphone to arrive to you so that everybody in the room can hear you and can hear you on c-span. and that's your name and affiliation. cato is a libertarian think tank, but i will heavily regulate the question and answer session. please ask a relevant question and refrain from making an extended statement, please. with that, let's have some questions from the audience. yes, man right here in the front row.
>> good afternoon. quick question, i did not see images of military applications for immigrant labor, and did you think about that or take that into consideration given all the ways in which we are spreading out our military across the world? >> for me? i am very ignorant of that. i've never seen any work on that, i never done any work on that. i'm interested in it, but i do not know. >> there is a representative who has introduced a bill to deal with that issue in terms of a modified dream act, so that is one application, but it is fairly small compared to the entire aspect. other questions? yes, right here. >> hi, i am a commentator. i wanted to ask and hear about what happens with unemployment in the low skilled labor, native labors, when immigrant laborers can occupy that, those jobs?
what happens as a result of that with income inequality? i will give an example. the person that hires foreign skilled laborers and play them $20 per day, instead of paying them the minimum salary. this person is making a lot of honey, the person who is hiring, because her or she is having slavery salaries. that increases income inequality, and we have seen that. and we see the native labor, the low skilled laborer, that becomes unemployed, and we have seen that impact in african- american native people that have unemployment right now. i did not hear anything about that and do you have any comment? >> sure. so, i did not talk about unemployment, i talked about wages, but the same research that says the wage impacts of immigration is also looked systematically at the unemployment impact, and they have also looked specifically at these groups, about other minorities in the u.s.
you might think they might be more harbor immigration more than other groups. you can sometimes -- and as i pointed out, you can sometimes find effects. we ought to be concerned about that. but it's just these effects, when you look at it systematically the patterns are it's not a huge impact. these are people at the bottom of the economic ladder in some cases so you want to be concerned about it. but immigration is not responsible for the 14% unemployment rate in the black
population. at most it contributed a tiny part of that. so yes, i think you have concern about it. it is not a major driver of unemployment in minority and disadvantaged populations farce we know. >> to address the inequality point because it doesn't receive enough public attention and it's wonderful president obama has been talking about it this week. let's hope we continue talking about it. but immigration has played a tiny role in the tremendous increase in inequality in the united states that most of the inequality has happened at the upper end. it's a winner take all society. and that's really not due to immigration. at the lower end where you might think that what is going on with the wage distribution, research by david card who has gone through and looked very carefully at this and they find that very little of that increase in inequality at the bottom send due to immigration. instead most of it is due to changing labor market institutions in the u.s., the decline in minute -- minimum wage but not due to immigration. >> doug brooks, my question would be we talked about the boat lift from cuba. has there been any studies related to other groups, say the iranians or now the afghans or iraqis who have been coming to the united states, have there
been studies on them and the impact on the places they've ended up? >> i don't know off the top of my head. >> the only studies i'm aware of for the united states is one looking at the entry of russian scientists and engineers when the soviet union allowed juice to come to the united states. it's looking at mathematicians. and what they find is it looks like the russian mathematicians didn't play well with the u.s. born. they didn't speak the same language. there is also some research that
goes back and looks at when the nazis came to power and they came to the united states and the benefits the u.s. received as a result of that. these other groups would be very interesting to look at, i don't believe anyone has systematically. >> david card's work has been incredibly seminole. there is a stack of papers looking at every mass movement that has occurred. we're almost running out of them as economists to study them.
there is a paper about the return of french who were living in algeria at the time of algerian independence. a huge number of portuguese people are returning to europe when angola became independent. russians coming to israel at the time of the fall of the soviet union. polish 600,000 polish people arriving in the u.k. again and again all of these find almost no net effects. if you control for the other effects that these guys have been talking about, the fact that the labor demand curve is shifting right and left, that is the overall demand for everybody's labor is being stimulated by my grants then you find there is some competition. there is competition in all
labor markets. there say fascinating paper about women moving into the labor market showing they were competing with men and there was a downward sloping supply curve. there was a study of movement of blacks out of the south into northern cities and there is a slightly sloping labor demand curve. all of these things are abstracting away from the fact
this serve also shifts and that's why nobody has been able to find in any of these studies of all kind of flows of people from all kind of organize gins into all kinds of destinations any of these effects. alex just mentioned the most extreme one i know of that i don't think has been studied in detail is the liberalization of movement of people in south africa that occurred in the 1990's. this is an international situation in that large amounts of south africa were not recognized as being part of south africa -- africa. they had many of the attributes
including judiciary and stamps and military. then one day they said actually that population which is six times larger than the population of the white areas and about 1/7 as wealthy can move freely and there is no restriction about what jobs they can take and what time of day in the white areas. now it's 20 years later. we ran the experiment. what happened to the wages and employment of all those white people? well, it improved and there are numerous studies. there is one i know of from the university of cape town that track as cross the income distribution what happened to the employment conditions and wages of white people even with what jobs they can take and what this titanic movement of hundreds of% of the population
low crime propensity in markets that get a lot of immigration tend to see crime go down. there is work on the rise in prison population and i don't know that -- as far as i know there is no causal association between those two. maybe somebody can comment on your second question. >> it's a very complex question. let's talk about nurses in the philippines. philippines is the number one sending country of nurses to the u.s. 54% of nurses in the u.s. are just from philippines. and the philippines has i don't want to say too many because i don't know what the right number of nurses is. the philippines has way more nurses than per person than any country on earth. i saw this number scythed and i wanted to know if it was true.
i went in and counted how many practicing registered nurses there were in the philippines. and it's more in the philippines than in the u.k. it's a pretty poor country. it's like peru and they have huge numbers of nurses. one of the reasons for that is that there is a well developed private and public sector machinery for pepping fill pin nurses migrate. they work here, canada, israel, they work everywhere. and one of the reasons that lots of fill pin people mostly women become nurses is the ability to migrate even if they never exercise it. there are large numbers of unemployed nurses in the philippines now. the problem is not to keep nurses at home but to generate jobs for people including overseas. there are other countries in completely different situation like jamaica is interested in attracting more of its nurses to stay rather than immigrate and there are experiments on how to do that, paying them two or three times as much is something that is not in the realm of possibility for other countries. but there are other things they have experimented with like task shiftings, letting them do more of the things doctors do like prescribe medicine or practice independently. have more choice in where work. some just assign you to an area and say that's where you're
going to work for the next five years, good luck. allowing them more choice in where they work. but it's it is different by country and even over time and i think a very interesting area. >> i can answer about the crime data. something has been said about immigrants for generation is they are more likely to commit crimes. we see going back in time that has never been the case. immigrants have always been less likely to commit crimes on average than native born americans. even in the earliest 20th century which there was a commission to study that, they came to negative conclusions about immigrants in every single category. they claimed they are racially inferior, predisposed to lowering american wages. everything you can think of they found or manipulated data that immigrants are bad for the u.s. except in the area of crime. there is a hilarious segment that says your daily experience might seem otherwise. they are less likely to commit crimes. what you see heavily in immigrant cities with the
exception of miami, it is the exception that proves the rule that cities with large immigrant populations have lower crime rate. and they choose places that are a bit more peaceful and once they go in there, the crime rate drops more once they settle. >> i've been to several things here on immigration. i wonder if each of the panelists could state what is your view of the concept of the nation's state and sovereignty. mr. clemens hit on it a little bit but i'm very curious about what is your actual view of the nation's state? >> do you guys want to address that? that doesn't have much to do with your research.
>> my husband is a philosopher. so i here some about cosmopolitanism which is this view that you think about the welfare of your own citizens or people within your own country. i think we all most of us tend to succumb to that. one of the things i appreciate about michael's work is it does think globally. i'm not a philosopher or political scientists to know what a nation's state is as an economist but i think immigration really is best viewed from a global perspective instead of from within your own country and the gains to u.s. gnat tives or the cost to u.s. natives.
and when you think about it globally you get answers sometimes that are unambiguously in favor of greater immigration. >> the only thing i'll add to that is i sure wish there was a way we could -- there is so much gains to be had as michael talked about, fl allowing more people to immigrate to the u.s. and to other developed countries. i wish there was a way to coordinate that better. because there are gains for them and some opportunities for bargaining on that. so i mean, obviously, the kind of governments are an impediment to that but i don't want to make any more views about my views of the existence of governments.
it and leaving it. two very different solutions. when i look at the world and i see the calculation of how much your place of birth matters, one response to that which i wouldn't share is okay let's abolish states and governments and pretend like they don't serve a function. another would be to say what are ways that the institutions involved in the nation states could become more open to people changing the nation state that they are affiliated with. i'm often told by people that look you are in favor of some sort of global veil of ignorance and if you read john recalls he will tell that you nation states are the basic unit of analysis where there is a veil of
ignorance and nation states is where it's defined and outside of it ethics don't mean anything. i disagree with that. the fact that the republican of south africa declared that was not part of south africa would mean we can't say that act was ethical or unethical because that's a separate country. what is or isn't a country is something people decide every day. in the 1990's south africa made a decision about who was in the in group. i don't accept that ethics can't be defined across borders but i'm also hesitant to declare that government serves no function. a greater openness of the institutions of the nation state could be beneficial for everybody. >> i had a two part question. the first part being you talked a little bit about what the fiscal burden a little bit of immigration and the different groups what their fiscal burden is. the concern for many americans is half americans don't pay taxes.
they are concerned that the immigrants coming in are going to fall into that group that don't pay as opposed to the group that does pay. is there any research if they come in the low end, do they end up moving up? and the second part is panelists were talking about how high skill immigration would be a big benefit and low scale immigration would be a big benefit. is there a relationship percentage that is optimal for our country? if 10% of immigrants coming in should be high skill or 80% should be low skill. has there been research on what would be an optimal infusion for
our country? >> i'll tackle the first part because that's easier i think. much like low skilled or less educated natives. less immigration receive less than they pay. that's true of natives and immigrants. it's a problem if you viewed it a problem. it's a problem with the tax structure not with immigration. you would want to change your tax structure or transfer programs are designed. that is where i think the changes should occur first. the second part of that question is that wages do increase for the average immigrant over time that they assimilate. so their tax payments would increase over time. now for immigrants who have not graduated high school which is the predominant group, right now over their own life times they are net fiscal cost. once you get to high school and higher immigrants are net fiscal contributor.
this is from the report that is the best evidence from 1996 which is old now. when you look at descendants of immigrants, they become us, they become the country. when you look at the descendants of immigrants which all of us really are that over time they do pay back if you will if their immigrating ancestor was low education, they pay that back. so it depends on what your time horizon is what you think about the cost is.
>> that was a good answer. all we have is that model that i talked about, that very simple model that says you ought to admit immigrants whose skills are rare in the existing population. there is a lot of problems with that model. further more, i have some doubts about our ability to fine tune exactly who we get. so that's another issue. if you look back at the various major policy shifts, the immigrants we actually got compared to what we said we wanted differs wildly. and so maybe we ought to think more about what kind of policy we want to have for other reasons as well, not just this kind of optimal kind of calculation. >> i don't -- i'm not a specialist in the study of immigrant simulation but i know one fascinating fact chi looked up that is now online, you can get the whole thing on lines. fraction of white foreign born in 1940 with a high school degree is 12%, 12%. and now over 50% of the
unauthorized population of the u.s. adult population has a high school degree. remarkable. so there might be some level of immigration that assimilation doesn't happen, kids are just incredibly poor and uneducated, whatever that is it would have to be vastly greater than what we saw in the 20th century. on the right level of immigration we talked about proposals for more market driven mechanisms for regulating immigration. richard freeman at harvard has an article talking about this. economists have been talking about these mechanisms for a long time. that's one of the reasons i like
the book is because it talks ability mechanisms for regulating because go around washington and ask what is the optimal size of the u.s. labor force and optimal composition of it? does anybody know the optimum allocation of capital in wall street? no human being knows that and any composition is going to be imperfect and maybe wildly flawed. and mechanisms for gathering information from the real world about what the right mix of the labor force is which is what these mechanisms are might be something that the world could explore. >> we have time for one more question.
>> thank you very much for this presentation. my -- the emphasis has been on the benefits for the receiving country, in particular the u.s. the standard model is we receive the immigrants, the wages go down and other groups see the wages go up and everybody will gain. i suppose the capital is assumed to be the same. on the sending country i suppose the reverse is true. michael eluded to global benefits but the model says the sending country loses. what is your view on that and is there a case for policy intervention, transfers between governments? >> the research -- i don't know the research on brain drain that well but yeah, there is mirror image labor supply impacts in the receiving -- sending countries. the sending countries, the people they tend to send varies
by country, they tend to send their high skill workers. and i'm not sure you should call this a cost for them either. governments? the sending countries tend to have high inequality so this would tend to push down inequality in the sending countries if the model is right. and if the model is not right, they'll adjust in other ways. >> i have never seen any evidence in the literature that the limitation on the physical >> i have never seen any evidence in the literature that
the limitation on the physical haveent of skilled workers caused any beneficial effect anywhere. him. clay. theoretically, we could imagine reasons why that might be. him. clay, the possibility of figuring out who would have been a good leader and forcing them to stay in ethiopia, who would have been entrepreneurial and forcing them to stay in liberia, much less creating the conditions for that person to be an effective leader or , i've never seen any evidence that has successfully been done. there are many countries that have made the transition from huge outflows of skill label -- skilled labor. taiwan and korea are examples of that in the late 20th century went from losing huge numbers of skilled people to
attracting them back on that, but every case i am aware of causes much of rotter changes in the economy and not because of their movement grade the movement as a driver of change, i've never seen any evidence on. >> great. thank you very much. please give a warm round of applause to our panelists. [applause] .unch will be served it will be held on the second floor of the george yeager conference center. restrooms are on the second floor on your way to lunch along the yellow all. thank you again for coming area -- thank you again for coming. >> tonight on newsmakers at 6:00
oregon, our guest is senator ron wyden, he's a member of the senate intelligence committee and he talks about the nsa intelligence programs and gives his views on the patriot act. here's a preview. >> the bipartisan vote and support for amendment in the house this week is part of the defense appropriations bill. are you working on a similar proposal with democrats in the senate? >> i'm definitely working with democrats and republicans to overhaul this program dramatically. there have been a number of discussions already with senators on both sides of the dial and the discussions have accelerated since that extraordinary houseboat area we have a quarter in the united states senate on record saying they are very interested in pursuing the issues that are central to this debate. that's the reason we insisted
on finally getting some answers. the answer is yes and we will see a strong am a bipartisan effort in the senate to pick up on the work of the house and fix a problem that i think needlessly intrudes on the privacy and liberty of millions of law-abiding americans. >> you can watch more tonight on "newsmakers was quote at 6:00 eastern time. ,his week on capitol hill house house will be working on spending bills for transportation and housing. leaders outlined the agenda this past week trade this is about 45 minutes. >> on monday, house is not in session, on tuesday, the house will meet at noon and 2:00. votes will be postponed until 6:00 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 for morning hour and noon for legislative visit.
in the house will meet for legislative business. the last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m.. the house will consider number bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the of business tomorrow. yesterday, the senate acted on a student loan bill that house passed last month. i expect the house to deal with it probably next week. in addition, i expect to consider -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. >> the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. these take your conversations off the floor. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i expect to consider the fiscal year 2014 transportation, housing and urban development appropriations act authored i representative tom latham. members are advised to house will begin consideration of this bill on tuesday afternoon and should be prepared to offer amendments that that appropriate time. members are further advised that
the 6:30 p.m. vote series that they could be longer than normal. for the remainder of the week, mr. speaker, the house will consider number of bills to restrain runaway government and re-empower our citizens. to stop government abuse and protect the middle class, we will bring in a number of bipartisan bills to the floor under suspension of the rules on wednesday. following that, we will debate to bills for certain to rules focused on stopping government abuse and protecting the middle class. the first, hr 367, sponsored by representative todd young, requires congressional approval of regulations that cost over $100 million. the second, hr 2009, 2 keep the irs off your health care act, by representative tom price, since the irs from implementing any portion of obamacare. when federal bureaucrats abuse their power and waste tax dollars, liberty is eroded, the economy is slowed, and the rule of law is betrayed.
thank you, i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his information. i don't see on the schedule, mr. speaker, that we are going to budget conference at least with no notice from the majority leader on that fact. mr. speaker, as you know, we are facing a number of critical deadlines. it has been 125 days since the house passed a budget and 100 23 days since the senate passed a budget. on issue after issue, our republican colleagues, mr. speaker, have passed bills and refused to negotiate. mr. speaker, it is passed time for action. we should go to conference and reach agreement. i would urge my friend, mr. majority leader, that mr. speaker, to go to conference.
one of his colleagues from virginia said this -- i am probably on record about this. i believe we need to go to conference. speaking of the budget. this number went on to say i have listened carefully to the argument that we should not go to conference and frankly i do not wind it compelling. mr. speaker, that was representative scott ridgel from virginia. does the gentleman expect we will go to conference at all on the budget? and i yield to my friend. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his tenacity as this is a weekly discussion between he and me. i'm delighted to respond and say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that it is something we should commit ourselves to working out. but as the gentleman knows, the position of the majority is we don't want to enter into discussions if the prerequisite is you have to raise taxes.
the gentleman has heard me every week on this issue in that we believe strongly you fix the problem of overspending, you reform programs needing reform to address unfunded liabilities first. then if the gentleman is insistent that taxpayers need to pay more of their hard-earned dollars into washington, that discussion perhaps it is appropriate. but as a prerequisite to entering budget talks that we agree to raise taxes is not something i think the american people want this body to engage in. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, the gentleman's premise is absolutely incorrect and the american people ought to know that. the senate has voted to go to conference. -- excuse me, they haven't voted to go to congress because republican members of the united
states senate will not bow to go to conference. there was nothing in that motion that said it was a prerequisite that the house agreed to anything, mr. speaker. nothing. my friend, the majority leader, has said repeatedly we have a prerequisite. we have a difference of opinion. that's what democracy is about. there is no prerequisite. there is no precondition. there is no condition preceding this to going to conference. the senate couldn't make us agree. that's what conferences are about, mr. speaker. they are about coming together and understanding there are differences. there will be no need for a conference if if there were not differences. there are differences. we are $91 billion apart on our budgets. we are 14 days away from the end of this the school year in terms of -- this fiscal year to get to
a compromise, to get to a number, to get to some understanding of how we are going to ensure government operations continue. there is no prerequisite. there is no precondition. i don't know where that comes from, mr. speaker. i've heard a lot. i have no idea where it comes from. nothing the senate does can force this body, republicans or democrats, to do something. what they have asked is come to the table and talk. there has been a refusal to do that, mr. speaker. and it is bad for the country. a $91 billion difference between us on the budget has to be resolved somehow, someway. the way democracies do it and the way the legislature does it, mr. speaker, is to meet and try to resolve those differences. you could divide the
differences, the senate comes down 46 and we go up 45. my own view is mr. ryan believes there's nothing he will agree to. i will get to that a little later, mr. speaker. that is why we are not going to conference, and he said so in the paper. i will get to his quote in just a second. let me ask the majority leader, mr. speaker, mentioned the bill on the floor next week. so far, we are essentially going to be at the end of the session. before the august break coming next week on friday. we have done for appropriation bills. the house bill of which the majority leader speaks is 17% below the budget control act we agreed on.
not only that, mr. speaker, it is 9% load the sequester level. -- below the sequester level. we are not going to vote for it. we believe that badly underfund transportation, housing and infrastructure in this country. but this performance makes some sense considering the lack of regular order. we talked about regular order and we don't follow it. going to conference's regular order. it doesn't change the fact that we just have 14 days left to go and then we need to reach agreement. i will tell my friend, the majority leader, that we are willing to work together. we have been willing to compromise. we have compromised in every one of these agreements we have reached. my friend, the majority leader would say they have as well. but you cannot compromise if you don't sit down.
i will tell you nobody has called me to ask me how i believe we can get to the end of this year with a continuing resolution. nobody has asked me that. i talked to mr. ryan. i talked to mr. van hollen. mr. ryan has not talked to mr. van hollen. with all due respect to this discussion about talking, they're not talking. i talked to senator murray. no discussion on how we resolve the difference. i talked to the chair of the appropriations committee, the ranking member here and the chair on the senate side. nobody is talking to them about how we resolve the question at the end of next month and we won't be here at the end of next month. we are in session two weeks in september. i want to use a quote, but we should not pass a continuing resolution and i will not vote
for a continuing resolution unless we talk about preconditions. for going to conference. talk about preconditions. talk about demands and ultimatums. i will not vote for a continuing resolution unless it defund obamacare. for the time of the continuing resolution. nobody in america believes that is going to be done. a lot of people i know, the majority people tell me -- the majority leader would tell me that a lot of people wanted done. the president won't sign the defunding of obamacare because he believes it's in the best interest of the health of our people. and the welfare of our country. and yes, even job creation and economic growth. but marco rubio says he won't vote for a continuing resolution
unless it does something that is not going to happen. the majority leader said they won't go to conference. another ultimatum. unless the senate abandon its point of view. the senate has a right to it point of view and we have a right to our point of view. we need to discuss it. that's the way you get things done in a democracy, mr. speaker. i want to ask the majority leader, does the gentleman expect we will go to conference at all at any time on the budget? and i yield to my friend. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate his questions. i would note for the record that i believe, if i have my facts correct, that during the time the gentleman was in majority last, the last congress, it was the 111th, 48 times there was an avoidance of going to conference. so all of a sudden now, the
gentleman says that is the panacea. i would tell the gentleman, given his litany of examples of who is talking to him around here, there is a lot of talk about how we resolve our differences. in fact i do know that chairman ryan is talking with chairman murray across the capital about how we go forward. i would underscore to the gentleman that it is not our intention to discuss taking more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from americans while we have not fixed the problems they expect us to fix. i would also say to the gentleman as far as appropriation bills are concerned, he is correct. i did announced that the bill would be coming to the floor next weekend it will be the fifth bill that we will do prior to the august work time. i would remind the gentleman when he was last in the position of the majority, the appropriations bill did not come to the floor in under an open
process. in fact, the restructured rules on every one if my memory serves me well. much easier to shut out diverse opinion, but the speaker has this congress, insisted that we have an open process and allow for robust debate on difficult issues. the gentleman that knows we have been true to that word. i remind him there is a commit it to open process, a commitment here to try to resolve these challenges before us. he is correct, we will have a busy fall, trying to address the needs of this country, whether it is spending and budget needs or whether it is the needs of the middle-class families struggling out there, wondering when the economy is going to pick up, wondering what is going to happen to their health care. we have a looming obamacare law that already the administration has admitted is threatening job
growth, therefore, they offer relief to businesses, but refused to do so for working people. we do not think that is fair. we have democratic union leaders who have said this law is going to provide and has already created nightmare scenarios for millions of working americans, so far as their health care and well-being is concerned. i hope the gentleman will abide by what i know he has always been for, solving problems. i hope he will work with us to do that in the coming months. >> mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman's recitation of history. let me remind him that, when i was leader, all 12 bills were passed before the august recess. that also happened the third year.
it did not happen the second year when we had a lot of political -- and the reason we went to structured rules is because we had filibuster by amendment. we had delay and obstruction in 2007, just as we have today. just as there is a refusal to go to conference. over 120 days that both houses have passed their budgets, we have still refused to go to conference. that is why you cannot get agreement, and the gentleman characterizes mr. ryan has talked to ms. murray, and senator murray does not believe it was a substantive discussion because -- and you talk about mr. ryan -- i have a quotation of his you will like, because it makes the point i am making,
that will make it later -- paul ryan, when asked about senate republicans planning to work with democrats to address the debt ceiling, said this, it does not matter, we are not going to do what they want to do, i.e., senate republicans. it really does not matter what they do, they being senate republicans. it does not matter what john mccain and others do on the taxes and the rest. if they want to give up taxes for sequester, we will not do that. it does not really affect us. but it does affect us, because, if we cannot get agreement, those american folks of which the majority leader just spoke, who are looking for jobs, who want to see the economy grow,
who are suffering because of gridlock am a who have a lack of confidence because this congress does not work, the most dysfunctional congress in which i have served, and i have been here 33 years. the least productive congress in which i have served. mr. speaker, that is what we need to be doing. mike lee, another republican in the senate, talking about trying to get to agreement, if republicans in both houses simply refused -- this is their strategy, mr. speaker -- if republicans in both houses simply refuse to vote for any continuing resolution that contains further funding for further enforcement for obamacare -- we had an election you did not win that argument at
the national level. mr. speaker, i said mr. obama won that argument. senator leahy says he will not vote for a c.r. if it includes further defunding for enforcement of obamacare. we can stop it, we can stop the individual mandate from going into effect. how? by shutting down government. that is their strategy. we do not think that is a good strategy, mr. speaker. we think that is a bad strategy. he did not want to see that. we are prepared to work together, to compromise to do that, but nobody believes, just as the gentleman said he will not agree to tax increases. we will have to compromise on that. nobody believes that the president will compromise after an election, after being
reelected on a health care program that is benefiting millions of people right now. nobody believes we will compromise on that. 39 times we have tried to repeal it in one form or another. it has failed. we got to come to grips with that. one of the house members, mr. mulvaney from south carolina, said it is completely appropriate to use the debt ceiling or the c.r. to ask for changes to reduce the burdens of this law on americans. they have offered that 39 times. it is not going to happen. apparently, strategy is we are prepared to strike down government unless they will be bludgeoned into agreeing but to doing it our way if we do not do it our way, we will not do it anyway.
that is what the budget conference is about and what this debate seems to be about. senator toomey on the other hand said this -- this has been the way we have been operating for a couple of years now. this is senator pat toomey, former chair of the club for growth, said, it is a disaster. it is a terrible way to run government. senator toomey and i do not always agree, but we agree very emphatically on that. congressman tom cole described the latest shutdown threat, which is what the previous three speakers had indicated, tom cole describes the latest threat as the political equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. that is tom cole, chairman of
the republican campaign committee, mr. speaker. we need to get past this you will not do this, i will not do that, and figure out what we will do, i say to my friend, the majority leader, and we have 14 days to do it. we have not gotten it done yet, and frankly we have nothing on the calendar for next week that shows we are moving toward that and. i would hope very sincerely that we could come to agreement, and we were not come to agreement on something that was so hard fought for the last five. we know that. we know you will not raise taxes. but the fact of the matter is we need to come to an agreement. americans expect us to come to agreement. with so few legislative days remaining before the fiscal year ends and the fact that we must address it, i hope the gentleman will give clarity as to what
will be addressed in september, the nine days, since we are so far off course from regular order on the budget and appropriations schedule. can members expect to see a c.r. and does the gentleman have any idea what the c.r. will look like, what it will encompass, what we can expect? we democrats are prepared to work on that effort. we are not -- the gentleman knows we are not going to repeal the health care act. the election decided it. as a matter of a fact, boehner decided that after election, he said your health care law has been confirmed. i want to make it clear we willing to do some things, we are not willing however to see the sequester cripple policies that this congress has adopted. we are not willing to defund the
affordable care act. we are not willing to shift more of the burden onto the backs of the middle class. we are not willing to target medicare or medicaid and education for the deep cuts that were in the labor health bill. we will not consider the labor health bill. it is supposed to be marked up today. it was pulled. i say to the gentleman that he should and his colleagues be willing to compromise on the few legislative days we have remaining, and if he is, he will have a willing partner in me and in democrats, because we believe we need to come to an agreement. lastly, let me speak of the debt ceiling. the majority leader has made it clear he thinks not resolving
the debt ceiling would be a bad policy for our country. i believe it would be a disastrous thing for our country, for the economy, for every american, and people around the world. we know that what happened last time, we were downgraded. it is the majority party's responsibly in each house to make sure that america's credit worthiness is not put at risk, that we pay our bills. i'm hopeful and i want to tell my friend that i am prepared to work in tandem with the majority leader, mr. speaker, to pass a debt limit extension. we will do so in an equal way so that whatever political consequences there are we will take them together to do what the majority leader and the speaker and mr. mcconnell have said is the responsible thing to
do. we are prepared to take half of that responsibility with them. we would hope they would join us in that effort. senator mccain has said that some of my republican colleagues are already saying we will not raise the debt limit unless there's repeal of obamacare. senator mccain said i would love to repeal obamacare. but he said i promise you that will not happen on the debt limit. the president has made it clear it is not going to happen. someone would like to go on with his quote, so some would like to set up one of the shut down the government threats, and most americans are really tired of those kinds of sheen and against here in washington. that is senator mccain. i have quoted senator toomey and senator mccain who believe we
need to come to agreement. i have also unfortunately quoted senator -- congressman ryan who said he does not care what senator mccain thinks -- who was a candidate for president a few years ago. mr. speaker, i want to ask the leader if he expects we will take an up or down vote on a debt limit extension when we come in september, and i yield. >> i would say to the gentleman the answer to that last question is no, but i would say to the gentleman, the discussion the gentleman just had was so full of just so various and sundry issues, i do not know where to begin, other than to say what is lost in the gentleman's comments is the focus on the hard-working families and businesses of middle-class america, and it seems to me, mr. speaker, that the gentleman is full of that is
not going to happen because washington says that is not going to happen for political reasons. and what we ought to be focused on is how we can act to solve the anxiety that seems to continue to grow on the part of the american public when they wonder about their job, they worry about their tuition cost, they worry about their children's education, they worry every night when the go to bed. the gentleman is so sure that we can and cannot do things for political reasons -- the president is out giving campaign speeches, some of which we have heard dozens of times during the campaign season, that's what all of us should be absolutely focused on is coming together, not for political imperative, but to solve the problems and provide the relief to the middle class of this country that is asking us to do that.
instead of the political demands and imperatives that the gentleman's list of issues was about, let's focus on the people that sent us here, let's ensure that this body of any in washington can begin to work for the people rather than the other way around. i yield back. >> i have heard that answer more than the president has given the speeches, that mr. cantor refers to. this party has always been, is now, and will be focused on the working people to which the majority leader refers. the president asked us to pass a jobs bill. no jobs bill has been brought to this floor. there are some bills that the republican party leader wants to say, mr. speaker, our jobs bills. there has been no comprehensive
jobs bills, there is none scheduled for next week, but what the people are concerned about is their board of directors is not working. this is not about washington. this is about people who voted all over america. and the leader and his party made their point, and we had election, not in washington, all over america, and america voted and it has not made any difference on this floor. politics as usual. obstruction as usual. refusal to compromise as usual. talk about regular order, but not going to conference, not on a budget, on a farm bill, not going to conference on a violence against women act. we finally passed that -- >> there was not a bill to go to conference on that. >> the majority leader wants to
focus on working people, he is absolutely right. and the working people of america voted, and i told the majority leader last week 1,400,000 of them, more of them voted on our side than for their side. but his side is in charge. we understand that. we know we need to compromise, work together. but we have not been doing so, and he can talk as much as he wants. that is what the people believe as well. i tell my friend the majority leader. i asked him about the debt limit. he said no. one of his-- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i want to clarify what he said, that the debt limit extension was not going to come to the floor. >> in september.
>> i appreciate that. can he tell us if there is a clean debt limit extension after september? i want to repeat so that he knows, is party knows, and american knows, we are prepared to work with the majority party to do in a bipartisan way what ever leader believes is the responsible action to take. one of his predecessors, senator roy blunt, said in responding to whether we ought to risk default by not passing a debt limit, he said this -- no, i do not support that. i think holding the debt limit hostage -- in other words, if you do not do the debt limit, we would not do this and the other or said another way, if you do not repeal obamacare, we will let the country default -- senator blunt, again, one of his predecessors, i do not support that, i think holding the debt
limit hostage to any specific thing is probably not the best negotiating place. i thank my friend for his comment. i would again ask him, could we expect a clean debt limit extension at some point in time between september 30 and november 15? >> i will say to the gentleman it is our hope that we can work together across the aisle to solve the problems, to come up with the answers as to how we are going to pay back the additional debt that we will have to incur in this country. i think whatever budget you look at, their site or our side, mr. speaker, in any iteration calls for additional debt. it calls for the need so we can relieve the american people of that continued liability, and
our side has said we would like to do so within the next 10 years, bring the budget to balance. i hope that the gentleman will join us in that spirit rather than saying we should just continue to borrow into eternity without some recognition that that just cannot be a sustainable solution, either. i would say to the gentleman, when he is off talking about the need to go to conference -- and some of the statements he made about the farm bill were inaccurate -- but i think there are a lot of things that this house has done that the president nor the senate seems willing to respond. as i said before, what we are trying to do is address the needs of the working people, the middle class of this country. we passed the skills act. that was a bill designed to try and align the worker training programs at the federal level with the employment opportunities out there across
the different regions of the country. so we could respond to the fact there are hundreds of thousands of jobs openings in certain industries simply because of their workforce does not have the proper skills and training. the president, if he wanted to help the middle class families, instead of off a penny again, giving speeches, he could come and call on harry reid and say bring the bill to the floor, mr. leader, we could do something for american people. this house last week passed a bill which i believe, and i am sure the gentleman shares my sentiment, that ultimately what we have got to do to grow our economy to secure our economic future is provide for quality education for our kids. we passed a landmark piece of legislation last week without any bipartisan support, mr. speaker, what if the gentleman is so intent on wanting to help and wanting to do something, not because of washington's needs, but because of what we have to do for the kids across this country and their families, then
let's help try to forge an answer on reauthorizing the education bill. we also passed a bill that made it easier for working families to spend time with their kids and hold down a wage job, and hourly wage job. is there any movement on that? the president could say let's do that, let's provide relief to the middle class. we also passed in the house several energy bills to help the families out there across this country who are on their vacations right now, choking when they see the price of gas at the pump. we have bills, the president could go ahead and approve the keystone pipeline. where else in the world would you have an environmentally sensitive people other than in america? we do it cleaner and better than anyone. to sit here and deny us the opportunity to take advantage of our indigenous resources of all it does is cost are working families and businesses more money. they have also passed bills to
allow for the safe and environmentally sensitive way of going enter deep oceans, to go in and tap into the resources that are there, things that technology has unleashed, yet the senate nor the president seem interested in helping the middle class and the working families, because all we hear from the other side is what we can and cannot do politically here in washington. i would say to the gentleman, there are plenty of things we can get done together, let's start to focus on the people of this country, not the political imperatives of this institution, and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for that response, which i took as a no, which did not indicate that we could expect to see bipartisan work on making sure that the government pays its bills that have already been incurred. and a lot of rhetoric and a lot of recitation about bills. all those bills had something in
common, do it my way or do it no way. we had an election. i tell the gentleman. he knows that. they thought they were going to take the senate, they did not. the majority in the senate is in the crafts. and the president of the united states was reelected. and that house republican majority was returned. but that did not mean the american people do not expect us to work together. and i tell the gentleman i am not sure what ever he thought i made, we did not go to conference on the violence against women act, we did not go to the conference on the farm bill -- >> if the gentleman would yield. >> i will yield. >> there was a blue slip on the senate bill, mr. speaker, and we took up the bill in the house and went ahead and passed the bill.
so i do not even know why that is even pertinent to this discussion, and i would say that gentleman understands as well there was a bipartisan farm bill that came to the floor, and if i recall, that partisanship faded away which is what now then has caused the house to bring about other farm bill, and this time trying to be transparent in the process, brought up the agricultural policy piece which has passed the house without bipartisan support, and then we are also engaged in discussions with the chairman of the agricultural committee as to forging a consensus on a nutrition piece so we can act again on that. i say to the gentlemen, it is not accurate that we do not intend to eventually go to conference and iron out differences between the house and senate on both of those issues on the ag policies as well as nutrition policies. >> i talked about fact.
pete sessions, chairman of the rules committee, republican, said when we passed the farm bill, i believe this is an honest step to get us go by passing part of the farm bill to go to conference. i asked the gentleman last week, i ask him again, there's nothing here about going to conference. he told me we are not going to conference of the we passed the nutrition part. we want to see something on the nutrition part passed. pete sessions, talking about why they brought the farm bill to the floor and conditions it was, dropping all references and provisions for poor people to have nutritional assistance, said we are attempting to separate, bifurcate, offered today a rule and the underlying legislation which will go to conference, and in the senate because they passed their own
farm bill, has included its provisions where they discussed nutrition program. as a result of that -- this is pete sessions, speaking -- that should be in their bill as a conference measure. if we pass it at this point could go to conference. the gentleman is not accurate when he refunds there's nothing to go to conference on. the senate has amended their bill into the house bill. he could go to conference on that under the processes. the gentleman must know that. that was the expectation that pete sessions says was the purpose of passing the farm bill. let me go back to the point i was making before the gentleman on the to correct me on what i think were accurate representations, both on all the pieces of legislation as i mentioned. surely that is the case i mentioned. that is the case on the budget.
i do not what the intention is, but we have not gone to conference on the farm bill, and we did not go to conference on the violence against women bill. the fact is what those bills that he mentioned did have in common is -- and he said -- we had no democratic votes for it, there was no work to get them a to still work for compromise. that is why the polls reflect to the working people such concern. the majority talked a lot about confidence, talked a lot about building confidence if we are going to build the economy. i agree with him. we need to have individuals confident, and the gentleman knows every one of business leader says if they had confidence that we could work together and get things done, not put the debt limit and risk, not for the ongoing operations of government at risk, but continue to have fights -- i
talked to a major leader of one of that health insurers in this country and said, we may never not like some of this bill, but we will try to make it work for all americans. we are not doing that, mr. speaker. we're trying to repeal. we are not conferencing. you're not trying to come to compromise. we are talking about working people as is appropriate for us to do, and that is what the president is out doing, not here in washington. i am talking all of us. he is talking to the people and saying this is my program, this is what i want to do, and i'm not getting cooperation from the congress of the united states. i think he is absolutely right, and he is talking to the people, not us, not here in washington, but he is criticized for doing that by the majority leader. i think that is what he ought to be doing, because the people will ultimately have to make a decision as to who is looking
out for their interests and who is sadly confronting and not listening to the people in the last election. in the last election or right now, when the people are saying, board of directors, work together, stop obstructing. i would hope we could do that, mr. speaker. unless the leader has something else he wants to say, i yield the balance of my time. >> here is a look at the upcoming week in the house -- they will be returning on tuesday and taking up legislative work at 2:00. they will be working this week on funding for transportation and housing for the 2014 fiscal year and up bill on student loan interest rates which doubled this past month, which
passed the senate. the senate is in tomorrow and they will work on transportation and housing and denomination of james komi to head up the a b i. -- to head up is the fbi. a vote on that is scheduled to move the nomination forward. they will also work on a nomination for the national labor relations board. you can watch the senate on our 2.mpanion network, c-span president obama hosted the president of vietnam at the white house, truong tan sang . they talked about trade and security. he is the second president to visit the white house since diplomatic relations were reestablished in 1995. this is about 20 minutes. >> it is my pleasure to welcome tosident truong tan sang
the white house and oval office for his first bilateral meeting with me. >> [speaking vietnamese] >> this represents the steady progression and strengthening of the relationship between our two countries. >> [speaking vietnamese] obviously, we all recognize the extra nearly complex history between the united states and vietnam. >> [speaking be enemies] >> but the step-by-step, what we have been able to establishes a degree of mutual respect and and trust that has allowed us now to announce a comprehensive partnership between our two countries. >> [speaking be enemies]
- speaking vietnamese] >> that will allow even greater cooperation on a whole range of issues between trade and commerce to illustrate to work on cooperation to issues like disaster relief to scientific and educational exchanges. ] [speaking vietnamese >> what we have also discussed is the ways in which, through partnership,ation both the united states and vietnam are participating in what will be an extraordinarily ambitious effort to increase ande, commerce, transparency in terms of commercial relationships
throughout the asia-pacific region. >> [speaking vietnamese] >> we are committed to the ambitious goal of completing this agreement before the end of the year, because we know that this can create jobs, increase investment across region and did both of our countries. our countries.of >> [speaking be enemies] vietnamese] >> we resolve peacefully maritime issues that have surfaced in the south china sea and other parts of the asia- pacific region. ] [speaking vietnamese
we very much appreciate vietnam's commitment to working with us and the eec -- an east asia summit to arrive at codes of conduct that will help resolve these issues peacefully and fairly. speaking vietnamese] >> we discussed the challenges all of us face when it comes to issues of human rights and we emphasize how the united states continues to believe that all of us have to respect issues like freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and we had a very
candid conversation about the progress of vietnam is making and the challenges that remain. [speaking vietnamese] >> we have both reaffirmed the efforts to deal with war legacy issues. ] [speaking vietnamese >> we very much appreciate vietnam's continued cooperation as we try to recover our missing in action and those who were lost during the course of the work. -- during the course of the war.
] [speaking vietnamese >> i reaffirmed the united commitment to working on some of the environmental and health issues that have continued decades later because of the war. speaking vietnamese] >> finally, we agreed one of the great sources of strength between our two countries is the vietnamese-american population that is here but obviously has continued strong ties to vietnam. speaking vietnamese] , it is those people to people relations that are the glue that can strengthen
the relations between any two countries. ] [speaking vietnamese i just want to say to the resident how much i appreciate his visit. thoseeaking vietnamese bracket >> eyes think it signifies the maturing in next stage of development between the united states and vietnam. vietnamese] >> as we increase consultation and cooperation, increase trade and scientific and education exchanges, ultimately, that's going to be good for the prosperity and opportunities of people here in the united states as well as good for the
opportunities of prosperity of the people here in vietnam. speaking vietnamese] >> at the conclusion of the meeting, the president shared with me a copy of the letter sent by ho chi minh to harry truman. > [speaking vietnamese] >> we discussed the fact that ho chi minh was inspired by the u.s. declaration of independence and constitution in the words of thomas jefferson. ] [speaking vietnamese >> ho chi minh talks about his
interest and cooperation with the united states. speaking vietnamese] >> and the president indicated even if it is 67 years later, it is good we are still making progress. speaking vietnamese] >> think you very much for your -- for your visit and i look forward to continuing to work together. thank you. >> president obama, ladies and gentlemen, welcome. [speaking be enemies] ] [speaking vietnamese
>> i would like to thank you, president obama, for extending the invitation to me to visit the united states as well as the warm hospitality you have extended to me over the past couple of days while i am here great -- while i am here. > [speaking vietnamese] >> be frank, president obama and , had a very candid, open useful and constructive talk. [speaking vietnamese] >> given our bilateral relationship over the past 18 years, it is time now to form a comprehensive harder ship in order to further strengthen our
we have come to agree on many we>> we have a high level of cooperation between the countries. and do will consider to upgrade the mechanism of corporations of the highest level as well as the best use of the existing mechanism. >> [speaking vietnamese] >> we will continue at the highest level possible to build
>> we also touched on legacy issues, like human rights council where we still have differences on the issue. >> [speaking vietnamese] >> i also stressed my appreciation for the care extended to the vietnamese in the united states. and they have become american citizens contributing to the overall health of the u.s.
>> [speaking vietnamese] >> thanks to the support and assistance of the u.s. government and american people, the middle east american community in the u.s. -- vietnamese american community in the u.s. has become more prosperous in the life. >> [speaking vietnamese] be >> i would also like to take the opportunity to express -- convey a message from our government in the american community in the u.s., who would like to see you contributing more and more in the french
>> [speaking vietnamese] >> we welcome the united states, their support, and other support in the matter in order to ensure a peace with prosperity. the world at large. [speaking vietnamese] last but not least, i also on behalf of our government and our state extend to president obama an invitation to visit
vietnam. president obama has except the invitation and will try his best to pay a visit before the end of his term. >> [speaking vietnamese] fix myuld like to willlation a bet, he attempt to come during his term. once again i would like to thank president obama and the american people for their hospitality extended to me during this trip to the united states and i
believe that our cooperation will continue to strengthen for the mutual interests and benefits of our communities. >> [speaking vietnamese] >> thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] thank you, everybody. thank you, everybody. >> the first lady reflects the schism within the united states about what women are supposed to be today. baristas to be a mom in cheek? are we supposed to be first made? to navigate that, if the president is supposed to be head of state and head of government, is the first lady supposed to be the ideal fashion these the -- fashionista, mom and chief,
first health mate? if she is going to be first helpmate, she really has to understand what is going on in new administration and the country. you cannot release separate, i think, how the first lady presents herself and the conflicting expectations that the country still has four working wives and mothers. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, historians talk about the role of the first lady and her move from traditional home and family to activism on important issues and back to private life. monday night, 9:00 eastern. >> breaking international news. israeli-palestinian talks will
begin on monday. the state department says that secretary carry called benjamin netanyahu and mahmoud abbas today. they both except to the invitations to come to washington to formally resume direct status negotiations, to put together a plan of how they will proceed with future talks tomorrow evening. the senate is going to be considering nominees for the national labor relations board this week, including two new nominees who testified on capitol hill recently for about two hours. >> the committee on health, education, labor, please come to order.
today's hearing as part of a bipartisan agreement to come together in over a decade. huge step forward for workers in this country. i hope that this agreement brings something new for the board, so we can ratchet down the rhetoric that seems to surround this agency. they are an agency that is critical to our country, economy, and middle-class. 75 years ago congress enacted the -- enacted the national labor relations act, allowing for bargaining for a better life. for the union and non-union members alike, it gives workers a voice in the workplace, allowing them to speak up for fair wagesod