tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 18, 2014 2:00pm-9:01pm EST
people deserve transparency, they deserve to see -- deserve a seat at the table and they deserve nothing less. mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from utah reserves. the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from oregon. ms. bonamici: before i yield to the gentleman from california, i want to respond that certainly we on this side of the aisle agree with the goal of transparency. however, transparency does not mean letting industry people with a financial interest serve by disclosing it. that's not what transparency means, mr. speaker. at this point, i would like to yield four minute foss the gentleman from california who is not only a physician but a great member of the science committee, mr. bera. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. bera: i thank the ranking member from texas for her leadership. i rise in opposition to h.r. 1422 shall the e.p.a. science
advisory board reform act. here's why. it's absolutely accurate that the best science and the best advice comes from a multiple perspectives. you certainly need the perspective of industry but you have to independently have that perspective of science as well. you need a board that is unbiased. that is unfettered. that is transparent. that is looking at it from the perspective of advising congress and giving us the best possible advice because our soul job is to protect our citizens. to provide that best advice to our citizens. that's what the advisory board is designed to do and should do. but it requires a delicate balance. it can't be stacked in one direction or the other direction. you have to create that ransparency, that allows for vibrance, unfettered dialogue. and i say this as a scientist,
as someone who has sat on advisory boards. now, the importance of what the e.p.a. does and what advice they provide congress is incredibly important. i'll just share -- i'm a lifelong californian. i grew up in southern california. i grew up in a time where i could actually see the air that i was breathing. there were days they ordered us to stay inside. and is it is through legislation, it is through working with industry, it is through looking at science that you cannot only both protect our citizens, protect our environment, but also advance industry. i applaud the science committee and chairman smith for taking up this debate. but let's do it in a way that not only is built on sound science, is built on evidence, but also allows multiple perspectives. not just from one side or the other side, not just from one
group or another group. but creates this context where we can have vibrant debate. where we can get the best and most sound science. we can get the best advice which is what this group is supposed to do. they are supposed to advise congress and allow us to do our job which is to protect the citizens of the united states. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. million stewart: before i yield my time, again i would like to respond to some of the comments made on the other side of the aisle. i can see why if you -- all of us would be concerned if we thought we were getting advice that had been conflicted financially. i share that concern. and in fact that's one of the primary reasons we wrote this bill. this bill, to state again, seeks for transparency. and it seeks for openness. and if you're worried about industry experts being stacked
on the s.a.b.'s and provided biased opinion and expertise, i would ask you to give me an example of this, because i can give you an example of exactly the opposite happening and i'll say it once again. 60% of the current members of the s.a.b. have a $140 million in direct government grants. now that is a clear conflict. and yet once again we are still willing to work with that. we are not seeking to exclude those members. we are simply seeking for transparency and openness and for that same standard to be applied to industry experts as well who could help us with their background and their expertise. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, my friend, mr. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my colleague, mr. stewart from utah, for introducing h.r. 1422, the
e.p.a. science advisory reform act. i rise in strong support of this piece of legislation. as mr. stewart said, this bill will increase transparency and give americans more opportunities for public input and participation on science advisory board activities. i believe this legislation builds on the progress that we have made on improving the science advisory board. i represent a district where agriculture is the economic driver and a way of life. so it concerned me when i learned that farmers did not even have a seat at the table on the e.p.a. science advisory board. and i -- and the e.p.a. science advisory board, mr. speaker, considers rules that impact agriculture. by working together in the farm bill, my colleague, representative peterson, and i were able to ensure that farmers have a stronger voice when it comes to e.p.a. regulations. for the first time, agriculture interests will be represented within the s.a.b. i can report that e.p.a.'s made
progress in standing up this ag related committee and i believe the voices and input provided by farmers and producers to the e.p.a. will make for more commonsense policy. h.r. 1422 will provide the public with more access to scientific information and more opportunities to comment onboard actions. this legislation also ensures that state and local government officials would be part of the science advisory board. as my colleague alluded to earlier, we cannot have a science advisory board made up primarily of individuals who receive grant funding from the federal government to make decisions that affect them. again, i rise in support of this bill. i thank my colleague from utah, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point in time i'm happy to yield four minutes to my colleague, mr. rush holt.
i also want to mention that not only is mr. holt a scientist and a great member of congress, but also has been named starting february of 2015 the new c.e.o. of the american association for the advancement of science. mr. holt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. holt: i thank my good friend from oregon. i rise in opposition to this legislation, h.r. 1422, as yet another attempt to gut the e.p.a. and to reform it into an advocate for industry. now, the proponents make claims that sound noble and virtuous like increasing transparency and participating. but make no mistake, the bill is simply a way to increase the role and influence of special interest. to tip the scales in favor of these special interests and decrease actual scientific input into the e.p.a. decisions and
rule making. let me try to explain what's wrong here. take, for example, the section in this bill that limits participation of board members who have relevant expertise. e.p.a. has an advisory board whose job it is to review scientific and technical information being used as a basis for agency regulations. however, section 2 of this bill states, board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review and evaluation of their own work. now, what does that worthy sounding clause mean? here's how it's been explained to me. if an e.p.a. board member is a leading scientist in a field and has published works that are well cited by other scientists, and works that would be used to establish the scientific findings affecting possible
regulations, that board member would be prohibited from reviewing any such materials before the board it related to her or his expertise. ecause it draws on the work, the scientific work of that person. now, i realize congress sometimes has trouble dealing with expertise. but this bill is a solution in search of a problem. the e.p.a. advisory board does and should use science not industry science, not government science. science. and science works so well and provides the most reliable knowledge because it's based on evidence, the validity of which is determined by other scientists in the free exchange of information. and expertise and influence of a claim in science and its application shouldn't be determined by the highest bidder
or the politically most powerful. the science should be allowed to operate. this restricts it. or would restrict it if this were to become law. now, to make this bill even worse, while the bill would exclude experts advising in areas of their expertise, it would allow people with corporate or special interest bias to affect the rule making if they only state their affiliation. now, while it sounds good to say you are increasing transparency, in reality this simply strengthens the role of special interests biased interests in the process. i urge all members to carefully review the language and think about these implications. and i think they will come to a decision to vote no. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.
the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: once again i have to respond to some of the things that the opposition is saying. this is essentially their argument. we think it's ok that 60% of s.a.b. members are $140 million in direct government grants. and we think it's ok that those same members are then allowed to provide their own peer review of their own work. that's ok. i think it's very common sensical to realize there are inherent objections and inherent conflicts in allowing that sort of structure to continue to exist. it's not gutting the e.p.a. as was claimed. to ask to increase transparency. it's not gutting the e.p.a. to ask for balance. and that's all this bill does. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes of my time to the gentleman, my good friend from maryland, dr. harris. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is
recognized for two minutes. mr. harris: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from utah for allowing me to speak on this bill on the floor. as the body may know the gentleman from utah succeeded me as chairman of that committee and we had numerous hearings about the e.p.a. science advisory board. so i'm glad that one of the results of those years of hearings was h.r. 1422, and i rise to support it. mr. speaker, this comes down -- i hope america's watching. the opponents of this bill clearly and simply believe that people who work for the government know best. we have heard that 60% of the science advisory board works for the government. they received millions and millions of dollars in grants from the e.p.a. they work for the government. and the other side wants america to believe that because they work for the government, they know better. mr. speaker, i did science and i
had an academic appointment. the joke was people who can do and people who can't teach. people don't really know how to do something end up in an academic institution and end up teaching. i have to tell you there's some truth to that. what this bill does is say that that scientific advisory board ought to be made up of more than just academics. because that's really who makes up the board now. it actually ought to be made up of people who are in the field -- mr. speaker, let me tell you, you know that some of the corporations who are affected by the e.p.a. hire the best scientists they can because they have to deal with the e.p.a. and those scientific minds work in the private sector that don't work for government. what's wrong with a balanced approach? the gentleman from california said we should be unbiased, unfettered, and transparent. that's what the board ought tofpblet how can you be unbiased
if you come up with the wrong conclusion at the scientific advisory board, you're biting the hand that feeds you, because 0% of those scientists deserve -- derive their grants from the e.p.a. there is no way they can be unbiased. would the gentleman yield another 30 seconds. mr. stewart: the gentleman is allowed 30 more seconds. mr. harris: they are neither unbiased nor unfettered and we know fully and truly, as the gentleman from texas said, because of the revelations of mr. gruber, that transparency is not a major objective of the administration. i'm afraid that's filtered down to the e.p.a. mr. speaker, 1422 makes sense. the best advice is from a balanced group of advisors. it is unbalanced at the e.p.a. now. this bill will provide some balance. i encourage the body to pass 1422. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.
the gentlewoman from oregon. ms. bonamici: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i just want to respond to with all due respect my colleagues who are promoting this bill and asking for balance. on the contrary, what this bill achieves is not balance because as explained under this bill people who are employed by the industry with a financial conflict of interest can serve as long as they disclose their conflict. that in contrasts to current practice which is biased which is balanced by membership. people with financial conflicts of interest do not currently serve on the science advisory board. . just to clarify, it's not just people who are employed by industry with a financial connict of interest will be able to serve, under this bill people who receive some type of grant cannot participate. now, just to clarify, these are
not government employees. these are employees of research institutions, universities who may have received some government grant funding. they are not employed by the government. they are not government pros, and that is a big distinction. they are not beholden to any particular government agencies. so that is a big difference. i agree that we should have balance and transparency, but unfortunately this bill takes us in the wrong direction, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. stewart: yes, mr. chair -- mr. speaker, could i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 11 minutes remaining. mr. stewart: ok. thank you. before i yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from oregon has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. stewart:. thank you. before i yield to the gentlelady from texas, mr. i could -- sorry -- from tennessee, if i could just very quickly make the point once again all we're seeking for is
fair and transparency. and the opposition is claiming it's ok for government -sponsored and granted scientists to sit on this board. in fact, it's ok that 60% of them have tens of millions of dollars of government funding but it's not ok for anyone from the industry, and it's completely transparent how unfair that standard to be. the second point i'd make is this. we're not claiming that either of them should be forbidden to serve on these boards. we're just asking that they disclose those financial agreements and let the american people decide and that certainly seems to be a fair standard and hardly the minimum that we could ask. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes, again, to my good friend, the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes.
mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the sponsor of the legislation, the gentleman from utah for the excellent job that he has done in preparing this legislation and bringing it to the body. if you were to go with me into strict in tennessee, 19 counties, 10,000 square miles, one of the things that you would hear in every community discussion is a certain amount of disdain for federal agencies. now, we all expect we're going to hear about not liking the i.r.s. but the number one agency in my district to dislike, to be frustrated with, to want to get control of, to e.p.a. and because that is whether you're a small business owner, a painter, a manufacture or a farmer who is growing food to go on the table, you get hassled by the e.p.a. with all
sorts of frivolous and nonsincecal rules and regulations -- nonsensical rules and regulations and interpretations. the american people are tired of it. they look at us and say, tell me what you're going to do about it. now, mr. chairman, today is a day that, yes, we can do something about it and a component of it. the science advisory board, isn't it so interesting that these agencies create all of this tangled web of different boards and advisory capacities and it is all to insulate their cronies and it is all to help them shield millions of taxpayer dollars, money coming out of the pocket of hardworking taxpayers that are going to their cronies who are receiving these grants? the american people are saying stop it, get it under control, get a handle on this and this
is one of the ways that we do it. the chairman has spoken eloquently about the membership and the makeup of the science advisory board. the cronyism that is taking place there and the need for it to stop. he ability to have these conflicts of interests brought out of smoke-filled rooms and moved into the transparency of sun light and knowledge of the american people, it's a great disinfectent. it's time for it to be put on he e.p.a. and certainly h.r. 1492 is a great way to go about it. ere would be no way for h.r. 1422 if the e.p.a. were to follow their own peer review handbook. but i guess grubergate has gone
governmentwide. and what we're seeing is they're all trying to find ways to squirrel this away and to hide and not have that transparency. it is time to pass this legislation. it is time to bring transparency to the process. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: i have no further requests for time. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: i'd like to claim as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stewart: i can do this quickly. three things as we conclude this debate, three things we should keep in mind. the current content or makeup of the s.a.b. board is somewhere between 51 and 53 members. there are some in transition because there are some coming and going. we'll take the average of the number -- of those 52, nine, only nine are nonuniversity background.
and of those only five and sometimes six represent industry. the industry experts have much to offer. if you don't think that, say, for example, with the hydraulic fracking board, that that technology is changing rapidly, it certainly is and we need to take advantage of it. the second thing is public comment. the american people are smart, and the american people are those most affected by some of the standards and the rules that the e.p.a. would suggest. we should listen to them, and this bill allows a process where they can be listened to. and finally the third thing we're requesting that 10%, a mere 10% of these board members come from state, local or tribal governments. that hardly seems like a bar that is too high to cross in tting inputs from states and localities. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the remaining portion of
my time. sorry, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah reserves his time. the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized. ms. bonamici: i thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the bill before us today does undertake a laudable goal -- improving transparency at the e.p.a. however, as i stated previously and as my colleagues spoke, this bill, as written, does not accomplish that goal. instead, h.r. 1422 will increase the influence of industry on e.p.a. decisionmaking, including industry members with a financial conflict of interest while reducing the role of qualified academic researchers and hoping to guide regulatory action that is based on sound science. the union of concerned scientists said at the same time this bill encourages corporate experts to join the s.a.b., it creates roadblocks for academic experts to meaningfully participate, by banning experts' participation and advisey activities that directly involve or indirectly
involve their own work. this turns the idea of conflict of interest on its head. with the bizarre presumption that corporate experts with direct financial interests are not conflicted while academics who work on these issues are. and of breast cancer action wrote, this bill's overly broad restriction that a member of the s.a.b. cannot participate in a discussion that cites the member's own work is counterproductive and goes far beyond the commonsense limits imposed by the national academies. of course, scientists with expertise on topics that s.a.b. addresses likely will have done peer-reviewed studies and other work on that topic, that makes the evaluation more valuable, not less. mr. speaker, we can and should work together to improve e.p.a.'s approach to reviewing the science underpinning legislation but this legislation will only damage and delay the process and not bring us the transparency my
colleagues seek. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this legislation, and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. stewart: could i -- could i inquire how much time i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes of my time to the gentleman, my comrade from utah, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate this opportunity coming here and talking about this issue. my relationship with the environmental protection agency has been infrequent, thankfully, but it has also not been necessarily successful or positive. in an issue that dealt specifically with my hometown, to be very honest, the science that was used by the environmental protection agency to make the decision was flawed. and the state clearly showed that it was flawed. and yet that did not make a difference in their ultimate decision which led me to believe that the decision was perhaps more politically
motivated than it was scientifically motivated. i realize this advisory board, though is in place to mitigate against those circumstances taking place. but if that advisory board is going to work, it has to have the balance of input that is necessary for that. i am frustrated that of the 50-plus members, only two have backgrounds in state and local governments and only those in specific states. this bill desperately needs that kind of input from those entities that have a day-to-day working relationship with these issues, and if that is not there, if that is not remedied, then the board itself is going to be flawed and will not fulfill the purpose which it was designed. i fully support this bill because this advisory board has an effort and a job to fill to mitigate problems before those problems develop, and ifs not an effective board, then -- and if it's not an effective board, then we should reform it or good grief you should eliminate it. it can be reformed. it should be reformed. this is a step to actually reform it, to make sure there is better input for better
decisions to be made. i congratulate the gentleman from my home state of utah to come up with a bill that solves a real problem and does it in a very professional way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: with that, mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. i like, before i do, ask that letters that i mentioned in my previous testimony from the u.s. chamber of commerce and others be entered into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stewart: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you for considering my bill, h.r. 1422, the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act of 2013. to reiterate what has been said multiple times here, this legislation addresses how the e.p.a. is systematically silencing voices on the science advisory board, ignoring calls for independence, preventing the board from responding to congressional requests. science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues. however, when inconvenienced scientific conclusions are
disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible and that's certainly what we've seen. the e.p.a. science advisory board reform act addresses these shortcomings by strengthening public participation and public comment opportunities. and improving the makeup of the science advisory board and its panels. the bill reinforces peer review requirements and reduces conflicts of interest. it provides opportunities for dissenting panelists to make their views known and requires communications of uncertainties in conclusions. the scienced a risery reform act provides transparency and independence to ensure unbiased scientific advice. surely that is something that we could ask for the american people. surely that is something that opposition could support. and in fact surely that is something that white house would support. and with that, mr. speaker, i encourage a yea vote on this
matter and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate on the bill has expired. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of .r. 1422 is postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in
>> equally important is building sid zens' ability to engage their government. a challenging goal in poor communities where many citizens are not equipped to voice concerns or engage with local officials. we have seen when disadvantaged youths come together on their own initiative to build skills and safe spaces, start their own small businesses, and exercise leadership and teamwork for the benefit of their community, they are less likely to leave.
why? because they become invested in the present and future of their home communities. one recently told us before participating in the program i wanted only to follow the american dream. now i believe that i can create my american dream here. it does much more than send dollars to the region and the results tell only part of the story. our whole approach is designed to strengthen the capabilities of our grantee partners so they can take on bigger challenges. fundamentally, we want them to learn from each other and be leaders in their own communities. in the process, they create social and economic anchors at home and demonstrate their preference to stay. in fact, i'm encouraged because we see many communities at the grassroots level to address the causes of youth migration. the impact of a single thriving community, an organized group of rural poor, or inspired young person in an urban slum may seem small, but they become the safe havens and incubators of change
that inspire others. if reached, if empowered, and if connected to each other, they are capable of generating the sea change dess desperately needed. they are the ones who will change their communities and their countries. 45 years ago a small congressional delegation of members of this committee paid a visit to central america. what they learned was not surprising. that true long lasting change depends in large part on thriving communities. communities that provide not only social and economic opportunities for the most, but are themselves foundations upon which democracies are built. one result from that trip was the creation of the inter-american foundation, which helps support the protagonists, not participants, in their own development. our work naturally compliments other u.s. efforts from improving prosperity, governance, and security in central american countries. again, i thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today on behalf of
the i.a.f. and thousands of grassroots partners in the region. >> thank you. i'm going to go ahead and ask questions and then i'll yield to the ranking member. y first question may be most appropriate for you, assistant secretary. but according to the information, the administration released last friday, individuals residing in the u.s. will be able to paragraph tiss for -- partition for refugee status for their children and spouses living in central america. this is therefore a family reunicase -- reunification program, presumely the p-3 category. under hcfr section 207, a refugee admitted to the united states may request follow the joint benefits for his or her spouse and/or unmarried children under the age of 21. if the family has become
separated. my question is this, are the family members living in the u.s. who will petition for these children refugees? are they refugees? and if they have -- if they are, have they been deemed refugees? if not, under what authority are the nonrefugees living in the united states under a whole host of statuses allowed to petition refugee status for their family member? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am going to turn to weezer in who is much more expert in this because i do think that this is not, in fact, the standard program that you're describing. it is quite different. it is did he signed to focus on the children in country who are obviously the ones that we are trying to get out of such a difficult circumstance in the three northern triangle countries without having them
attempt this very dangerous journey and try to enter the country in the undocumented status as they did last year. >> to try to answer your question and please follow-up if i miss part of it, you asked if this is part of the p-3 program. it's not exactly the p-3 program. that's based on people who are out of their country of origin already as refugees. you asked if the parents themselves in the united states would be considered refugees under this program. they are not. they are considered under the statuses under which they are here. they are either here as lawful permanent residents or the additional six statuses that are eligible to apply. the refugee claim is a claim of the child themself. the child facing a risk of persecution, a well-founded -- either they have experienced persecution or they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country on one of the five protected grounds. the five protected grounds are their race, religion, their
nationality, their political opinion, or their membership in a particular social group. so the -- maybe another way to put it is that the eligibility to petition in this program is one category, and those are the parents and their statuses here in the united states. but in order to be granted refugee status, the child themselves have to show that they are eligible for that status. >> it's not the p-3 program. >> it's not the p-3 program. >> if a minor or spouse is not granted refugee status, they will be considered for parole. what kind of visa will they then be entering the united states with? and how will we be able to ensure they don't overstay if their two-year renewal is not approved? and then finally, the administration noticed the parolees would be able to attend school. will a minor be allowed to attend a public university once he or she becomes of age? will they qualify for federal
grants and state aid? and what is the real difference between a refugee and a parolee who can potentially apply for dacca if his parole status is not renewed? >> i can talk about some of the differences between the offer to refugees who are resettled and what's available for parolees. the for details on the parole program i'll have to refer you to the department of homeland security who administers the parole program. when a refugee comes to the united states under our resettlement program, they are eligible for a range of benefits which include a resettlement and replacement grant that's administered from the state department through our agencies. then they are also eligible for follow-on refugee benefits from health and human services. it includes things like assistance enrolling in school when they become of age, if they are of age assistance getting jobs. we assume their parents already have housing and jobs. it's more about getting them into school as refugees.
there's no cost to apply to the program in either case and -- if you come as a refugee, your medical check is free and you will get a loan to take the flight to the united states which you then have to repay back later. parolees is a temporary -- one of the more important aspects of refugee resettlement is that it is a path to legal permanent status and citizenship. and that's one of the main differences with parolees. that's a temporary status. as you noted it often usually lasts for two years and you have to apply for renewal. none of the benefits that i just mentioned for resettlement are available to parolees, either. in fact, if you are not eligible for refugee status and considered for parole, then your family has to submit an affidavit of support which shows that they are able to support you here in the united states. >> if it's not the p-3 program, what is it? what program is it? >> it's called incountry refugee
processing. which is allowed. it's accounted for in the law. the refugee status and parole discretion are in the immigration and nationality act. >> do you know what law it's under? we can get the citation. >> that's fine. i recognize the ranking member. >> first of all, let me apologize for being late. these days we have a lot of things going on. i'm more -- i'm upset about omething that happened to us this exodus happened. and i'm very concerned about the origin of how this happened.
and i would just -- i'll go back and forth. try to follow me. when this whole thing started everybody's shocked about the kids and the conditions and everything else. it a meeting was called and we asked the ambassadors from these countries who come to the meeting so we can discuss how this whole thing started. would you believe we got one ambassador from the countries? meanwhile we have like 13, 14, 15 congress members at this meeting and we have to now try to deal with staffers. to me that chose me that maybe they were not as serious at trying to stop this. to me that just -- i just don't know if this whole stampede started as a rumor and all these kids all of a sudden came across the border because of the rumors
started. if 14 or 15 members of congress call for a meeting to try to help because we -- this is the hispanic caucus trying to help, you don't send a staffer to the meeting. you try to deal with the situation and see how it can best be alleviated. i am more concerned the roots of why this happened and then obviously we have to deal after they get here. i don't want -- right now there's a lull. obviously there's not as many kids coming over. i don't want to see this being used as a release on a pressure cooker on somebody say, all right, we start the rumors and get the coyotes to get these couplors and you are going to have a -- rumors and you're going to have a rush of kids coming over. i just don't -- i just don't know how you deal with that.
>> if i could, mr. sires. the only thing i would say is that i think one of the things that last summer taught all of us both here in the united states but especially in these countries was it was a wake-up call for some of the countries in terms of what they needed to do at home. and what we have seen over the last five months is a real shift in the attention to some of the underlying issues and in the will to address those issues back home to ensure that some of the areas that were not getting the attention they deserved, geographically, because we know where some of these kids -- most of the kids are coming from, and their families, and economically and in terms of level of violence which we are not being attended to by either national governments or local governments. i do think you see a difference as you saw reflected in the three presidents here last week
in the attention to those causes. >> anybody have any other observation? >> i can't speak to the -- what the ambassadors did here, but i have to say that on the ground in the communities where we are working, hundreds of communities throughout the region, the conditions on the ground are really as horrendous as everybody has been describing them. with levels of violence and poverty. > i don't doubt that at all. i'm a hispanic. i think i know a little bit about the western hemisphere. what my concern is this business starting a mor or stampede to release the pressure. of what's happening in this -- so we have to really try to address -- i know you're doing
your best but i don't know if it's enough. i don't think this is going to be over. i think this is going to continue and that obviously we are going to have to deal with the immigration issue here in america and how to deal with other own issues here. >> you also have governments that have stepped up their anti-smuggling legislation and the units that they are using to go after those traffickers and to put out the messages that this won't be tolerated. i think that's very -- >> i think what happened was they -- those governments realized how upset this country was and they were concerned that maybe some of the aid would be cut if they don't step up to the plate and start doing some things about what's going on in their own country with their own children. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
thanks for your work on this this summer. it was a real problem. you had to try to get your hands around and head around what was going on. the president's supposed to consult with the congress to establish the number and groups of refugees eligible for admission each fiscal year. miss jacobson, under what authority are you establishing the in-country refugee and parole program? >> i'll be happy to ask katherine to say anything further that she needs to, but my understanding is that when the numbers for the fiscal year are sent to congress as they were this september -- >> 4,000. >> those numbers obviously are the numbers that we are working with. those are the numbers that will include any increases in central america. obviously program like this would take time to set up. we would not expect numbers of any magnitude to really be seen until, frankly, quite a ways down the road.
frankly probably late into 2015. were we to need any additional numbers beyond that 4,000 there is some flexibility within the overall numbers. but we anticipate those numbers being adequate for the coming year. >> you're telling me nobody's been processed through this program to date? >> no. that's correct. the program itself will not even begin to take applications into it any earlier than at least the beginning of december. it has not begun. and obviously as a new program this will begin and we will see in terms of the kinds of response that we get. >> who sets the cap? >> in a program like this there is no cap at the outset. we have to see who qualifies for it. >> it's just an open number of refugees able to come into this country? >> obviously what we sent to congress is the overall cap in
refugees. that stands. that cap won't be -- >> what's the cap for 2015? >> 4,000 for this region. i don't know the global number. >> the global number is 70,000. that's established by presidential authority and presidential determination. >> that's from all countries? >> that's globally. so 70,000 is a cap. it's what we budget against. >> what's the cap for central america? >> within that we make allocations. for latin america and caribbean it's 4,000. >> do you anticipate any change in increasing those numbers for central america? >> we left it at 4,000 because we thought that was probably appropriate. but there is some flexibility to change it if need be over the course -- >> we are seeing afghans, iraqis. there's a global need of people seeking to come to this contry. i guess what i'm asking are you planning on expanding the number from central america or are you going to leave it sort of like it is, status quo? >> at this point we left it at 4,000. i would just add that in addition to including the
incountry program specifically in the report that went to congress in september, we did the required consultations with the judiciary committee where this program was raised and also did staff briefings back in sefment there's been some consultation in advance of the vice president's remarks on friday. >> i'm not saying which number is right or wrong. i'm trying to get my head around what you're going to do with that allocation. i have a question, in this country you can vote when you're 18, sign a contract and be tied to that, get married, you can be tried as an adult. everything i'm reading here you're identifying children as 21 and younger. why? >> that's the definition of minor children that d.h.s. uses according to the law. >> we asked d.h.s. to come to this hearing and they refused. that's my request. it's interesting because a parent is eligible to request program access for his child who is a resident in one of the three countries, the parent is at least 18 years old.
you're going to identify a child as 21 or younger but you're saying parent has to be at least 18. it seems to be some hypocrisy there. if we need to change that in the law, we'll change it. but there is hypocrisy of the two ages. in the united states you're a child until you're 18 years old. do you agree with that? >> the definition of a minor youth is in the law. but obviously if the pe continuationing parent is 18 the child going to be significantly younger than that. >> my wife says i'm still a child. >> you're allowing the children and from what i'm hearing you-all have found a way to get these children into this country without them having to take that journey across mexico and on the trains and everything that we have seen. what specific circumstances
would you allow a second parent residing in the home country say elal have a a door to be added -- el salvador to be added to the child's petition? mom if she's in el salvador, or dad, can come with them. >> they have to be the parent of the child or they have to be -- have been married to the petitioning parent in the united states at the time that that parent received their legal status in the united states. >> is that common practice for other countries as well for refugee status? do we allow mom and dad to come with the child? >> that's the p-3 program that the chairman spoke about previously. >> historically in the p-3 program do we allow the mom and dad to accompany the child? >> it's usually the child accompanying the mom and dad in that case. >> what circumstances would prevent a parent from being considered for refugee status? >> the same definition for refugee status applies for the child as for the parent. if the parent is not eligible
for refugee stay turks they could be considered for parole. >> my time's up. are we -- thank you. i'll just with go back right now. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess the issue with me is, our policies that are adopted particularly unilaterally by the administration more and more, that affects the behavior that we see. when the president did the administrative amnesty for minors in 2012, that was a signal that was sent. you had biden going down this summer, no, it doesn't apply to you. only if you were here the certain time the hon dour ron president said there is a lack of clarity in u.s. laws that were contributing to this surge. i wanted to-ask and my colleague from south carolina mentioned d.h.s. and i wish they were here. an issue i think does send a signal for people to come illegally that involves both d.h.s. and department of state.
it is this. i was shocked when we received this report on the judiciary committee. fiscal year 2013 i.c.e. released 36,700 convicted criminals who were in the country illegally rather than have them detained pending outcome of deportation proceedings. and we always hear we have to focus the resources on criminals. people who mean us harm. some of the convictions these people were convicted, 193 lomside convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, kidnapping. aggravated assault, vehicle theft, drug trafficking. very, very serious offenses. and yet d.h.s. is releasing these individuals into american society rather than repatriate them back to their nation of origin. now, what does that have to do with the state department? here's why. not all of them, we asked d.h.s. to provide us the list of
offenses and identify reasons to the best they could why they were released. some of the people they claim they want trourn them to their home country, but their home country just won't accept them. they are only allowed to hold people for so long under binding court decisions. so they have know choice but to release them. the way i understand the system is supposed to work you have somebody, let's say been convicted of rape, they are here ill really, no right to be here, our government is supposed to go to that contry, let's say it's china, you go to china and you say, hey, here take -- if china doesn't take them back, then we are under section 1253 subsection delta, the secretary of the department of state shall order the consular offices in that foreign country to discontinue granting visas to nationals and citizens that have country until d.h.s. has certified they are accepting their convicted foreign nationals.
secretary jacobson, we know that some these people who had been convicted are from countries in the western hemisphere. has the state department ordered any consular offices in any of those countries to stop granting visas because those countries have not accepted some of these convicted criminal illegal immigrants? >> we have not, congressman. the main reason we have not is you, i think, realize, the cutting off of visa services to a country is an extreme step that really leaves us -- >> actually, it may be that, but as i read it, i think the statute says that the secretary of state shall order. >> the only thing that i would like to add is, all three of these countries are taking back criminal deportees. they may not be taking back all of them and they certainly are not taking back as quickly as we
would like in terms of the court's ability to hold them or -- >> i understand that. what the countries are doing is one thing. i want to hone in on how the state department -- >> to have documentation to go home that's what we have to work out with the country. >> i understand that. my point is these people are being released. clearly there was a break down somewhere along the line. as i read the statute, i think a lot of my colleagues on judiciary, we believe that's the way the system works. you don't take them back, state then takes the step that it's an obligatory duty the statues uses the word -- statute uses the word foul. it's discretionary, up to the secretary to determine whether that step needs to be taken. as i read it congress has expressed the will the secretary of state needs to do this. is it an obligatory duty? >> i'm sitting here before you. i want to be honest.
i'm not lawyer and my lawyers at the department would get nervous if i tried to interpret law here. but those countries are taking back criminal deportees. they have not refused as a matter of policy -- >> just the three countries at issue here. >> in particular, yes. >> but there are other countries in the western hemisphere who are not taking some -- if there's not, then we are getting two different stories between state and d.h.s. that's why i think it would have been good to have d.h.s. here. >> i would have liked to have my colleagues here. i think what we are talking about is a question of whether it's a country's policy not to take back any criminal deportees or whether they are simply not taking back as many or as quickly as we would like them to take back. >> i don't even think it's apolicy. as soon as d.h.s. notifies the state department that the government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, maybe it has to be in
all cases. it seems clear to me that if we are in a situation where we are releasing, d.h.s. is releasing a lot of these people, maybe they are not notifying the state department about everyone they are releasing. i want to know that, too. maybe they are notifying the state department and the state department is not taking the step that the statute requires. maybe the state department is actually returning a portion of them. i think -- you look at some -- president, people on the very far left who essentially an open border, people on the far right don't want -- they want to stop even some legal immigration, everyone in that whole gambit believes that when people are here and committing serious criminal offenses that we need to protect the american people. >> we are in the same place on that. let me assure you that d.h.s. and the state department work closely on the issue of criminal deportees. when we are notified by d.h.s., we work really closely with them
to push very hard to get countries to take back those criminals. >> not hard enough to where you would actually stop the issuing of visas. >> we succeed very often in getting criminal deportees rirned. >> i appreciate that. very -- returned. >> i appreciate that. we had 193 homicide convictions, 20 of those individuals from the western hemisphere very often maybe return 15 of them. that means five people that are going to be released by i.c.e., which i don't think is acceptable. i want to get to the bottom. maybe this is something we could do jointly between this committee and judiciary. >> if the gentleman would yield. it's something that i am pursuing. our sheriff of maricopa county approached me. i don't know if you remember a few weeks ago the two sheriff deputies in california that were murdered by an illegal. he had been jailed four
different times and released by d.h.s. four different times. then he told me there are thousands that come through his jail alone that are flagged by d.h.s., whether it's a rape or murder or drug charges, they are flagged and then they are taken and they don't know where they go. the sheriff has no idea whether they are released into the states, here in the states, or deported and sent back. he does know that they are coming back to his prison again because they are being rearrested for different crimes that they have committed since the original crime that they were arrested for. >> mr. chairman, we can get -- we get some people from homeland security because at the end of total 36,000 convicts, number of convictions in fiscal year 2013, 88,000 convictions
among that class, that clearly is not doing what is necessary to keep the american people safe. there is a breakdown somewhere. it was tough getting the information from d.h.s. to begin with. i want to see -- i think the system is supposed to work where they are not accepting them and there are consequence and most countries will probably rather accept them and accept the consequences. we need to make sure that that's -- >> it needs to be a joint hearing as you said. we are pursuing it. >> will >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i am chairman of the oversight committee, we are looking into the released prisoners in maricopa county. i think you involve the homeland security committee, the -- the secretary was talking about d.h.s. and state working well together they work so well together that d.h.s. is sitting
at the table today. >> i'm going to go ahead and if it's all right, go through one more round of questions. my first question is, regarding a report that was released today by the seattle international foundation, it shows that from 2010 to 2012, this is for you, ms. hogan, u.s. foundation invested $488 million in central america system of moving forward, how will the obama administration work with private donors to leverage these resources and ensure that federal government's dollars are maximized? also, are you currently coordinate anything public-private partnership in el salvador, guatemala, or honduras focused on vocational programs and work force competitiveness? if so, can you tell us ho how they work and huh they impact economic prosperity in the communities where they're administered? >> thank you for that question. i'll start with the work we're doing with the private sector on work force development that we
do in central america as well as mexico and the caribbean and we've seen some really great successes as a result of that combination of resources that the private sector brings to bear along with the training we can provide. what the private sector is looking for are people that have the kind of kills that can go into the jobs that they have openings for and so with work life skill, with computer skills, with market oriented training, what we've been able to see is these companies picking up these youth to go and work for them. in fact, in one of our programs, we have seen 77% of the youth that come out of our work force training programs either go to work or go back to school for increased education. the other thing that we're seing is that youth that come out of these training programs, these work forest development program, are also sometimes opening up their own businesses based on the skills that they develop as
a result of this training system of we're very excited about it. it keeps kids in the communities, the companies get the kind of skill mix that they need, and it's really been a very successful, flourishing partnership with some of the key companies of the region. as far as how we work with private foundation, one of the things we are doing in central america is designing what we call a safe cities approach to be sure that we can bring all the resources to bear and in particular, place-based strategy, we draw upon the resources not just of the u.s. government but as we already are doing work the private sector, but also with international, other donor, for example, with the international development banks that might be investing in this, as well as private foundations system of what we're doing is scoping out who has interests in this community, who has something to bring to the table for support, and how can we maximize our impact by bringing all of that together
under one strategy, one set of etrics for one set of results? >> mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i'm going to go from this hearing to speak at nasa, which is a student exchange convention that's here in town, and as part of the president's 100,000 strong in the americas, which is, as you know, not a government program, we've raised over $3 million of private funds to try and do these university to university partnerships but the part i'm proudest of are not the traditional partnerships. they're frankly the partnerships of either what we call vocational training schools or community colleges which don't necessarily exist in some of the central american countries to provide that gap between high school and a four-year college which most of these kids will not have access to. and at that conference today, there'll be chilean students who
are at montclair state, we are doing a lot of work with arizona, both with a.s.u. and in some of the community college systems. this is where i think some of our best private-public work can be done in the education sphere in places like central america. >> secretary gibson, i not only serve on this committee but on the education and work force committee also and i've worked maricopa na state and community college system for years and years, so i really would love to figure out a way, at least, maybe we could do some pilot stuff in arizona and i'd love to work with you and the secretary of education to try to come up with some innovative ways, because that really is the way to empower people. that's the way to get them out of poverty. it's the way to get freedom. so i'd really love to work with you on that. the chair recognizes the ranking member.
>> you know, years ago, when we used to deport criminals, i think we just sent them back. do we have a situation now where we send them back with a rap sheet, knowing what they did? and do -- is there any followup to see if some of these people reappear again? here in the states. >> what i'm going to give you is sort of a partial answer because some of the rest of it i'm going to get back to you on as well as checking with my d.h.s. and justice department brethren. we've worked over the last number of years to do better with the countries in the region at giving them information on the criminal history of the people that they're going to be accepting with criminal deportees. they ask, i think, legitimately, to know what kinds of crimes they have commit sod they can be prepared as a receiving country
to know what kinds of -- if they go back into the communities how do they have to prepare themselves. some of that information is now much better able to be transferred to other governments. we have pilot programs i know that both d.h.s. and justice have worked with countries in central america and in the caribbean to try and convey as much information as possible within our own laws so that they can give countries an idea of the history of criminal deportees. beyond that, obviously, those folks are put into a system so that in the future, when they might attempt to come back into the country through legal means, they are registered in the system as having criminal records in the united states and that should not be possible. if they come in via undocumented or illegal means, obviously, that's a different story. but obviously those -- that information is put into both
state department and d.h.s. databases. >> if the gentleman would yield, i've done quite a bit of research on this. the ones that we're talking about were never adjudicated. they're arrested and arraigned for an accused crime, but they never get to adjudication because they're plagged -- flagged and i.n.s. comes and gets them and either deports them or lets them go before they're ever adjudicated. so that's one of the big missing problems. they certainly if they are deported, they don't go serve in the prisons in those countries. they're out scott free. and of course they don't come back the legal way. the other interesting thing is, during the situation with the unaccompanied my no, sir, remember how we were told that they came -- they didn't come to the entry point. they came to the -- like the middle ground. why did they do that?
because then it took all kinds of agents off of the check points and meanwhile, the bad guys would sneak through other places. they were used as decoys. so it's not about being able to get a good handle on them because as i was told by sheriff arpaio, he's had some that have been in his prison 10 times or more, for 10 different crimes. they've been arrested, flagged by i.n.s., released, back in jail, arrested for another crime a few months later or a year later. it's a serious problem. >> the chair recognizes mr. duncan. >> thank you, i just have a few followup questions or final questions. the u.s. is contracting out refugee processing to the international organization for migration system of why aren't you working with the u.n. refugee agencies, unhcr, establish camps if the situation is so dire in central america
that these children are having to escape the situations there? >> sure. in fact, we are doing both. we work with the international organization of migration around the world on the processing of resettled refugees and as you know we have a very strong relationship with unhc as well. we gave unhc a grant of $770,000 as an initial contribution toward their work in central america with the express purpose of building up their presence there, understanding the dynamics of internal displacement within these countries and working with the governments to increase protections for children at risk of harm in their own countries so they won't have to flee. >> is the u.n. setting up camps -- i.d.p. camps in central america? >> they're not setting up camps but they're working with the governments to understand the die namigs of internal displacement. >> what's the cost to --
>> i don't have those costs. >> why was -- was it a competitive bidding process? >> i don't think we've offered any contracting yet for the in-country processing. >> my understand is -- >> the m.o.u. we have with the i.o.m. is on the repay trayuated folks who -- on the repate rated folks who go -- the pay tree ated folks who go back and we have paid for those who come in the summer surge. there's two different contracts. i'll let -- >> let me just add to what roberta just said. usaid has a $7.6 million grant to the i.o.m., international organization for migration, to help governments prepare to upgrade the reception services repatriatedovide to migrants and we have seen that the governments in turn have
stepped up to the plate in terms of make manager space available, getting volunteers to help in processing people, making sure they get food when they get off the plane, giving them medical referrals, job referrals, etc. so they have been doing quite a bit and we've seen, i actually got to see a plane of migrants repay traited in honduras. and it went very, very smoothly. i think that i.o.m. has really done a very good job and is stand big to see if additional service mace be required. >> congressman to clarify, i.o.m. does do a lot. they implement this program for usaid, they're the existing contractor for us for the existing resettlement support cent for the ecuador and it's that center we're going to be expanding to accommodate this new program in central america. when that contract contribution was awarded to i.o.m. several years ago, it was a competitive process posted online for the existing resettlement support center.
>> president -- vice president biden talked about providing $9.6 million to central america and in july the administration requested an additional $300 million. a lot of money promised. the president promised some money this week over in china. where is this money coming from? does it come out of your budget, the state department? >> as you know the $300 million the president was talking about was in the supplemental that was sent to congress this summer. and the $9.6 that the president talked about, i think it was probably when he was in guatemala earlier in june, was funds that we reallocated from within the state department's budget that we thought was much more urgently needed in central america for things like repat rimbings ation and resettlement. >> i get this question at home a lot. every time we turn around the vice president or someone in the administration is promising $100 million here or a billion there.
your budget is finite. it's set by congress. so are y'all shrinking your budget? reallocate regular sources? what programs are being changed here? >> certainly some of the funds are coming from reallocation. there was a congressional notification that went forward just a few days ago for about $76 million in funds for i.n.l., the international narcotics and law enforcement funds, to be reallocated toward central america. those, i believe, were originally funds from a number of years ago destinned for iraq that could no longer be used. those are being reallocated for central america. some funds have been from elsewhere, the $300 million as you know was the supplemental request that was not taken from elsewhere. but even so, as you know, the $300 million in the supplemental request was out of a brs 3.7 billion overall request so the foreign assistance portion of it
was really quite small. we continue to believe that although foreign assistance budgets are extremely constrained, we're well aware, it is in fact more efficient if we use those funds in the countries to try and address those root causes than if we try and deal with the effects of it right here on our territory at home. >> and i'm not arguing today about the appropriate use or inappropriate use of the money, but i -- i guess i am concerned as a member of congress and accountable to the taxpayers that -- i would love to see a breakdown of the state department's budget and all the promises made and where that money is coming from. how you're reallocating that money. mr. chairman that might be a request to the foreign -- that the foreign affairs committee as a well makes to the state department. because there are a lot of promises made by the administration that we've got to find enough money through a c.r. of appropriations bill to fund or they've got to reallocate.
i would love to see that the last thing that i wanted to ask, mr. chairman, really, probably, is for d.h.s. and they're not here, but i just wonder how many new d.h.s. personnel willing required at u.s. embassies in the northern triangle countries to implement this program? do y'all know? >> you mean the in-country refugee processing program? >> right. >> i don't know that we have a specific number yet of individuals although i think in general this will be carried out by others in terms of the -- in the countries, the three countries. frankly as we implement all of these efforts to reduce migration, i don't think there's any doubt that we may need some additional people in our embassies in all three countries. let me ask -- >> my understanding, madam speaker is that d.h.s. -- madam secretary, is that d.h.s. has interview locations in six latin american countries but not in
the triangle countries are they planning to shift personnel or add? >> they do circuits in many parts of the world. there are some refugee adjudicators based at embassies, but most are people who come in for a circuit ride of six weeks. that's the model we'll be using to start in central america. there will be no additional burden on the embassies. >> that's a good thing. mr. chairman, i had an experience with an afghan interpreter, translator, served with third infantry and it took two years to get someone that the army vouched for, several generals, i don't know if petraeus did but al lan did, a number -- but allan did, a number of others, vouched for by the military, fought alongside our military, threatened by the taliban, lost his uncle in the process, took two years, had his visa issued to come to this country and state pulled it away from him. he was chased from the embassy home and evaded taliban numerous
times. i throw that out there in that, i would hope the process is at least as taxing for refugee children coming from afghan -- from central america as it was for somebody coming -- coming from afghanistan and i say that, it shouldn't be taxes. it shouldn't be as taxing for people in afghanistan who serve our nation. >> and it begs a bigger question. i understand that the numbers, even though there's a 4,000 number, that can be exceeded if they come from another area, right? is that correct? what i mean is, the total number for the world is, what, 70,000. >> 70,000. >> and so, if you decide to reallocate that or have 10,000 come from central america, you just have to shrink it somewhere else to stay under the total global amount, right? >> there would have to be a reallocation if the number went above 4,000. there is some flexibility built into the system.
we also, as the assistant secretary noted, we won't be accepting applications before december system of the fiscal year 2015 comes to end pretty soon thereforeafter. >> because a concern -- thereafter. >> because a concern would be there are calamitous situations in other parts of the world, sudan, as you mentioned, afghanistan. and it would be tragic, i mean, i hope it's at least based on the most serious people globally and it's an equal standard. i would hope that. because if somebody gets over here because they're uncomfortable where they're living and somebody else has the threat of death for their religious belief in another part of the world, i would hope the greater consideration would be given to the latter. >> and there is prioritization given to people at the greatest risk of harm system of there's expedited processes for those cases. >> and does the gentleman, sean
duffy, have any questions? we have last round if you'd like. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hearing to shed light on what's oing on. do you have this document in front of you with a list of categories? would you do me a favor, would you maybe walk me through one by these just tell us what are and what was the rationale for putting them on the list. start with the lawful permanent resident who is a lawful pemple innocent resident and why did they make it on the category list? >> i'm afraid this will be another instance where we're going to be disappointed that the department of homeland security is not here because these are all -- >> i'm sure you won't disappoint. >> no, we are definitely. we'd like to be able to present this jointly with them, it's a joint program. these categories were developed jointly with the department of homeland security. these are all considered to be lawfully present statuses by the
department of homeland security and in designing a program -- >> i don't have a whole lot of time but if you'd walk me through each one if you know the rationale, who are these individuals and what was the rationale if you know, how they got on the list. >> i can walk you through the categories. lawful permanent reds dent is relatively self-explanatory, i think. temporary protected status applies to nationals of el value vador and honduras, two of many countries that benefit from temporary protected status they were awarded at different times in the past due to natural disasters and events. >> the first two, both of them in those two statuses would be here legally, correct? >> everybody on this list is considered to be lawfully present. >> ok. parole grainted for at least one year? >> parole is discretionary authority given to the secretary of homeland security to admit people to the united states based on an urgent humanitarian need or in the public interest.
>> so someone who was brought here but is not a status given to somebody who is already in the united states? >> correct. >> ok. deferred action for childhood arrivals. >> i can't say much more about that than i think what everybody knows. >> a quick question on daca. that was executive action from the president, right? is that correct? and if you're a child who is taking advantage of daca, do you have legal status or is it a deferred removal program? you don't have legal status if you're a child in the daca program. >> i think they would make a distinction between legal status and legally present. they would say under the daca program people are lawfully present. >> for how long? >> for the period granted. >> how long sit in action? >> i can't answer that question. >> so this is not a long-term, permanent status, it's an executive action made by the president -- >> would the gentleman zeeleds it's only guaranteed through the president's term.
>> would you agree with that? >> that's the definition of an executive action. >> right so if you're someone who is here in the united states and not going to be removed because of executive action, that's good for another two years. and they've made this list so they can basically engage in chine migration, bringing family members up from central america. >> i think what you're getting is the status that the children will have when they get here and it's true if you have refugee status you have a path to legal constituent zenship. it's also true if you arrive at our border and apply for asylum and are eligible for it, off legal path to citizenship. this is offering the same opportunity to the same children but before they take the dangerous journey. for those who would be admitted under parole, they would be admitted under temporary status as well. >> but being a lufle permanent resident is something far -- a lawful permanent resident is something far different for
someone who has a status for the remaining two years while the president is the president, correct? and they're able to take advantage of this program, though their legal -- the legality of their status will only remain for two years. is that fair to say? >> i think it's fair to say these are all different categories and some of them are permanent, some of them are temporary, all considered lawfully present. >> maybe you're right that i will be disappointed in this hearing if you're telling me they're all different categories, you have stated the obvious. that's why i'm asking about them. let's go to withholding removal guarantee. what is that? the last one. >> i don't have -- >> withhold regular mufle grantee. you don't know what that is? >> it mean there's a removal order on -- there's a withholding a a removal order. >> there's an order of removal but it's been stayed. >> i have to refer you to d.h.s. for details on the category.
>> and they can take advantage of this program. >> everybody on this list is eligible to apply for this program. >> there was an order to remove, it's been withheld and you can take advantage of the program. if there's children found ineligible for refugee status, they could still be admitted if they're at risk of harm. what is the definition of still at risk of harm? >> i think as the chairman and others outlined in their opening statements, we have all seen the incredible insecurities facing the region as well as the individual -- the violence faced by individual children on a daily basis. >> is there a standard for that? >> the definition of significant harm is a discretionary authority granted to the department of homeland security. >> so it's discretionary. >> correct. >> ok.
and we now have the current number that we can allow from the region is 4,000 but you've indicated that that number could go up, is that correct? >> the allocation for latin america and the caribbean region right now for refugee admissions is 4,000. >> and i it can go up to how many? >> i think what ms. wiesner indicated is that the global total is 70,000. when we sent the refugee numbers forward for this year, knowing that this program was going to start, we did not adjust that number. we did not think we would really need more than the 4,000. but it is only elastic up to the 70,000, but no one believes that it will be expanded, obviously, to 70,000. >> of the 70,000 number, how uch of that has been utilized? if you've used up to 20,000, so
far, you might have, you could take that -- >> are you talking about with this program? this program hasn't begun yet. >> but you said there's a total of 70,000. >> about 6,000 refugees have arrive sod far this fiscal year. from around the world. >> so in the next fiscal year, you could move it from 4,000 up to 64,000. in theory. not saying that you are. but you have a total of up to 70,000 you could use if you've used 6,000 this year, the total number could be much higher than 4,000. am i losing you. >> a little because the 6,000 of the 70,000 have arrived, this year, next year the allocation will probably be informed by the number who have arrived this year from he region. but it was set at 4,000 with an understanding that that would cover the expected number this fiscal year.
>> ok. we're speaking past each other. i guess, would you categorize this as a program for chain migration? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the question? >> would you characterize this as a program for chine migration? >> i would not, no. >> and i'm going to -- i'll yield back in just one moment. i would tell you, i think there's a desire within this institution to figure out how we get immigration reform done. and i think there's a willingness on both sides of the aisle and there's an opportunity to get it done without going through programs like this where we have a withholding of a removal guarantee that i don't think this is the process which we should use. my hope is that the president will hold off and allow this institution with the senate to actually work and go through proper channels to actually have an immigration system that is understandable, knowable, and going to work from one president
to the next because we'll have a new system of laws in place and as opposed to presidential executive actions which i don't think give certainty to those who have come here without documentation. and i think it actually exposes them to greater risk, especially if executive amnesty which i know we're not talking about, but is overturned by the next president or overturned by the courts, that could expose folks who are here without documentation, i think, to pretty significant harm. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> we need permanent solutions that will stand the test of time. not just a solution during one administration or two administrations. and as the gentleman, i think, just illustrated, the laws are so very subjective. and it leaves so much discretion person maybinghe the decision. my fear is that even though i
know it's supposed to be priority based, my fear is that, you know, given the fact that in government, so often, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing and there's not a lot of communication. is that some incredibly needy recipient would be ignored because -- and somebody else who is not nearly as needy gets granted asylum status or refugee status and that's why we held the hearing more than anything is that we really do belief that we need to have clarity going forward and that we want to solve the problem with central america. the answer is not some mass exodus out of central america but the answer is to solve the problems, the economic problem the security problems, and we just -- we want to take that on,
together, and we need your advice and your help to figure out what works, what doesn't, where can we put more resources, how can we leverage existing resources better, and how can we do a better job? i really appreciate you being here today. i know that at times it's felt frustrating, the line of questioning, it's not meant to be pejorative or, you know, as painful as it's been. it's just been that way because i think there's such a lack of clarity. and we just want to make sure that going forward, that we all comply with existing law. we can't comply with a law that doesn't exist yet. and i -- for that, again, i'd ask ms. wiesner if you could give us the citation, i know you're going to go back and look at that, of what specific law this new program falls under so that we can understand going forward and for the american
people that are having an opportunity to watch this hearing, you understand now as mark twain said, there's two things you don't want to see being made, sausages and laws, it's a very messy process and it's very frustrating. but we'll get to the bottom of it, we'll figure out the solutions and i greatly appreciate you being here today. thank you very much. and this hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]
>> one of several congressional hearings we're covering today on the c-span network, you'll find them all at c-span.org. we do expect house members to return to work at about 5:00 p.m. eastern, lawmakers have scheduled a passage vote on a bill that makes changes to the qualifications and selection process for those serving on the e.p.a. science advisory board. live coverage when they gavel back in. over in the senate, lawmakers have set up a vote this afternoon on authorizing construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline. with the house passing its keystone bill last week, passage in the senate would send the bill to the president's desk. the white house has expressed opposition to any keystone bill until the state department has completed its review process. you can watch live coverage of the senate under way now with their debate over on c-span2 and
for more on today's vote and the prospects for the bill in the senate, we spoke with a capitol hill reporter. >> what can you tell us about he status of the 60th vote needed to pass this. > it's looking -- it's not looking good for senator mary landrieux who has been trying to get the 60th vote. just recently, the senator pected to be the 60th vote announced he would vote against it. he only senator who hasn't announced how he'll vote is dick durbin, however, he's likely staying silent to help his
friend mary landrusme other than durbin, he's looking at trying to twist an arm and flip a no to the to the a yes during the whote. -- during the vote. >> what kind of whip support is she getting on the floor or off the floor? > we hear she has support from joe manson of west virginia and high dihighcamp. all of them are from red states and have long backed this pipeline. there's their leaders tv who've been holding up the vote on it. it was a surprise to everyone that this was agreed to last week when landrieux pressed the issue to help her in her runoff. >> does the fact of that surprise make it less likely that mary landrieux's bill is going to pass today and this is quite a change from last week when there seemed to be quite a bit of optimism on this moving through the senate. >> the source of optimism, frankly, just came from the near certainty that this would have
the votes next year when we have at least fur now -- four new republican members replacing keystone opponents. keystone supporters may be within striking distance of a veto proof majority in the senate next year, that's how big the republican wave was. however, they're far short of the veto proof majority in the house. it was always going to be a tough hill to climb. >> sounds like still a high hurdle for mary landrieux at 6:15 this evening, but the what if, what if it does pass, ho what do we know about how the white house will hand they will bill? >> one should never count landrieux out, she's pretty scrappy and has strong relationships with fellow democrats. the white house has yet to issue the formal, official statement of how it would treat this bill which is stoking observations that the white house many might be open to signing it, to making
so -- making some kind of deal but if you look at the statements the president's top advisors and the president has said over the last week, they're all fairly negative on keystone. they said what the president said before that he wants to let this process work is still true. >> thanks for that update. >> thank you. >> and since that conversation, the senate has updated the time on the expected final passage vote on keystone, look for that at about 5:30 eastern and look for live coverage going on now over ton c-span2. on the house sidering earlier today, republican leaders held a briefing with reporters, it's about 10 minutes.
>> good morning, everyone. as we approach the thanksgiving season, i think it's good to take a moment to reflect on the freedoms and opportunities we enjoy as americans. i find myself grateful for the group i get to work with in trying to make sure we continue to have great opportunities in this country moving forward. we have done a lot of work. we have been listening to the american people, we have passed hundreds of bills that will expand opportunities all across this country, and we've advanced solutions to make people's lives better. and you know what we need to do right now, we really do need to come together and unite around those policies that we can move forward on. focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us. let's come together as a white house and congress, republicans and democrats, senate and house, and let's lead, let's get the job done. last night, i was encouraged to see that the president passed, or the senate passed the bipartisan child care options bill for low income families that will expand more
opportunities for working families across this country. today, we expect the senate to act on longtime legislation that has broad support of republicans and democrats on the keystone pipeline which again means thousands of jobs for people across this country. these are bills that we need to get on the president's desk. the time for leadership is now. this isn't so much left versus right as past versus future. what kind of a future are we going to have? we are committed to one that is full of opportunities for people doing what is good and right for americans. >> good morning, everyone. we're back at work this week and continuing to make the american people's priorities our priorities. and clearly that means a focus on jobs. with another bill to promote manufacturing and the -- in the house this week will add to its
total of jobs bills awaiting action in the united states senate. tonight, the senate has an important opportunity to send a bill to build the keystone pipeline to the president's desk. let's be clear about this. keystone pipeline veto would send the signal that this president has no interest in listening to the american people. vetoing an overwhelmingly popular bill would be a clear indication that he doesn't care about the american people's priorities. it would be equivalent of calling the american people tupid. >> good morning. i don't know if you all got a chance to yesterday wish the speaker a happy birthday, we sang to him in the conference. there's one message coming out of this election, the american
people expect this new american conference to work on the best interests of america. it's a unique opportunity for us to all work together. if you look at the history of this country, in divided government we have achieved big things. ronald reagan had a divided congress and had tax reform. bill clinton had a divided congress and senate as well, reformed welfare and balanced the budget. we have a unique opportunity right after this election. those in the senate that have been stopped about keystone pipeline had a unique opportunity. we moved it in the house and hopefully in the senate when they bring it up, it will pass. i hope the president takes the same advice as those other presidents of working together. a lot of you have seen the tape of jonathan gruber. one of the architects of obamacare. where he talks about the lack of transparency gives you the opportunity to fool the american
public. we'd thing in congress always do is greater transparency. this week we have three bills up, dealing with transparency. chris stewart, dealing with the e.p.a. advisory board to make sure you have opinions from all side. mr. is week ert's, making sure the e.p.a. if they use tai ta to make a decision, the data has to be public before any decision can be made. and also our own majority whip, steve scalise's bill on manufacturing, that he'll talk about shortly. i'm excited about what the new year brings. i'm more excited about what a new american congress brings. i'm just disappointed about what i hear in the white house. you know, i know the president and i know the democrats, they have their leadership race today. i saw that situation before when i came in 2006. but the one thing i will say, if
the president had two years with the house and senate and did nothing on immigration but he won't even allow this new american congress to convene before we have an opportunity to do something about it, i think he should rethink that opportunity. >> good morning. this week, the house will continue our laser focus on creating jobs and getting the economy back on track. if you look at what we did last week, we took very quick action to continue to push the keystone pipeline to the president's desk. what was the president's response? he issued a vee vito threat and tried to hide behind this concept that he needs to keep studying the issue. this issue has been studied more than maybe any pipeline in america's history for more than six year -- history. for more than six year the administration has hid behind studies when everyone who looked at it objectively said this is a
project that ought to move forward. the american people are tired of the president hiding behind studies when they're demanding action. they want those 40,000 american jobs and that increased energy security for our country. they don't want six more years of studies while china tries to take those jobs away from our country. very interestingly, yesterday, the president issued veto threats over the jobs bills that we're going to be moving forward this week. and i'll talk about the legislation that i moved out of the energy and commerce committee, the promoting new manufacturing act. here's a bill that will actually bring some certainty to the regulatory process. where agencies like the e.p.a. come out with rules they know have no way to be implemented in the real word, they bring these rules out to continue some radical agenda that's going to kill jobs in america and continue to kill jobs in america and increase people's household electricity costs. all we say is there should be increased transparency by the administration. before the bill has even moved through the legislative process, where amendments can come to the
floor and be debated, the president issued a veto threat before he even let the process finish. which is another example that the president isn't serious about hearing the message the american people sent two weeks ago, that they want him to work with congress instead of letting congress even start the process of working through these issues of getting the economy back on track he, sits behind in the oval office and issues stree vito threats on bills that haven't even passed. the president needs to get back engaged in getting -- in the process of getting our economy moving again. the house will keep our laser focus to keep our economy move, to get jobs created in this country. it's time for the president to engage in that process as well. >> last week, many of us spent time at home in our districts honoring and paying tribute to our veterans. and unfortunately, the bureau of labor statistics has reported that our young veterans, especially those of the 9/11 era, are struggling more with unemployment than the majority of our work forest.
and that's why the house has been focused like a laser on helping people get back to work and helping this economy get back on firm financial footing. and we passed the hire more heroes act over to the senate. so we're calling upon the senate to take up that piece of legislation. america's veterans should not have to wait for a new senate to be seated in january to receive some help. these rhett rans deserve an opportunity. so whether it's increasing their opportunities for better health care, better mental health, holding the v.a. accountable, or getting a good job, we're going to help them with that. >> thank you, i appreciate you all coming out for my first press conference. mr. speaker, thanks for inviting me. i had a chance to drive out from wisconsin a couple of days ago with my son jack, we hit a
snowstorm on the way, nothing chames in waveg as we drive to d.c. as any parent, today i think about my child's future. as i look at jacking he's about to turn 13, i know other parents are looking at their own kids graduating from high school, graduate trg college, and looking at what opportunity exists for their next generation. i think it looks pretty bleak right now. as they look to this town they want us all to work together. they want us to work on solutions that advance opportunities not just for them but for the next generation. and to work together, that means you need republicans and democrats, singing off the same sheet of music. i look at this new american congress. we're willing to do that. we're willing to work on ideas that are going to grow opportunities and allow people the pathway into better paying jobs. we need the president to help us. we need the president to engage. i found a quote from the president from 2008.
the president said, if you turn the page on ugly partisanship in washington so we can bring democrats and republicans together to pass an agenda that works for the american people. well, bipartisanship doesn't just work when you have a democrat controlled senate and house, it works when you have a divided government. and now more than ever, we need the president to engage with us, work with us, so we can grow opportunity and grow jobs. he shouldn't poke his finger in the eye of the new congress with an immigration bill before we've had the opportunity to let the congress work its will. let's work together. let's fight together for the american people. i'm looking forward to the new congress and hopefully the president will extend his hand and we can join up and fight for he people. you have all
these different options but do you think the idea of a decision is the best option to go because you can avoid that fight? >> there are a lot of options we're considering, we're talking to our members and when we have something to announce we'll let you know. >> but is there certain ways the bill works, that seems to be one of the better options? > maybe. [laughter] >> everybody else does around here anyway. >> happy birthday. inaudible] >> i'll consider -- continue to purchase my expensive health care coverage. >> [inaudible] >> soon. oon.
>> [inaudible] >> there are a lot of options on the table. when we come up with -- >> is that a good idea? >> there's a lot of good ideas out there we're considering all of them. hanks. >> december 11 is the deadline for the temporary funding for the government so a budget has to be passed after that. "the hill" is reporting that house republicans are considering two options while limiting executive order from president obama on immigration. they would keep all departments en except those enacting the executive order. or they can look to rescind funding from agencies carrying out the order.
"the hill" at thehill.com today. and off the floor, house democrats reelected most of their senior leadership team with representative nancy pelosi staying on as party leader and maryland congressman steny hoyer continuing as second in command. following the elections, democratic leaders held a news conference in which they laid out their agenda for the remainder of the lame duck session, including passing the remainder of the government funding bills. >> javier becerra, re-elected chairman of the caucus, along with our leadership, just elected as well. i want to say congratulations to everyone from the leader on down within the house democratic
leadership for having been re-elected by our caucus by acclamation. i want to congratulate our newest members of the leadership team, we have with us mr. ben ray lujan, the new democratic congressional campaign committee chairman. i know donna edwards and rosa delauro are co-chairs but the leader will be recognizing them since they were her appointments but we're thrilled to have them be parking lot of our leadership team. i think we can say without any reservation that democrats come here, including our newest members, prepared to work on behalf of the american people. clearly the american people want us to get things done. they want us to focus on getting the middle class back to where it should be, they want us to help all working americans understand that if they give a hard day's work, they're going to get paid right and they'll be able to send their kids to a good college. we want to make sure that health care continues to be something
that everyone can enjoy, that health security will be there for them so that they'll have the peace of mind that they can send their child to a doctor or hospital without faring personal bankruptcy as a result. we know that we have some challenges before us abroad and we look forward to working with president barack obama to make sure that not only will the american people be secure in the homeland and abroad, secure economically, but secure financially in their neighborhoods and knowing that the future will be prosperous for their children to come. that's why democrats are ready to lead. that's why democrats ran to be part of the democratic leadership in the house of representatives, and that's why we're thrilled to work with our colleagues on the republican side to get these things done for the american people. with that, let me yield now to our leader, nancy pelosi. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as you indicated, i was going to proudly acknowledge our house democratic leadership, newly
elected, some, some presented to all of you yesterday. it's an honor to be here with our -- with steny hoyer, our democratic whip, jim clyburn, assistant democratic leader, javier becerra, our caucus chair, joe crowley, the caucus vice chair and i feel his tall presence there, steve israel, chair of policy and communication, ben ray lujan who has been acknowledged, we're so proud of the response that the announcement of his chairmanship as received as chairman of the d-triple-c. rosa delauro, chair of the policy committee, donna edwards, co-chair with rosa of the syrian policy committee, where we'll be going into session momentaryly. chris van hollen will be the ranking member committee on budget. in the interest of time, because we came in ate ll later and have a meeting shortly, i associate myself with the remarks of our
distinguished chairman mr. besear rah in terms of the priorities and recognition of a job that needs to be done for the american people. i would just say this. that in the campaigns which did not -- we didn't like the outcome, let's say it that way, but it's really important to continue the conversation about where we were when president obama took office. we're at a place where the chairman of the fed said if we don't act by monday we will not -- tonight, we will not have an economy by monday. that's what he said in september, 2008. that was the state of our economy before president obama took office. when he took office, the deficit was $1.4 trillion, it's now under $500 billion. the unemployment was approaching 10%, it's under 6%. the market was around 7,000, now it's over 17,000. we've had experience -- we've
experienced 56 straight months of job creation. millions of people have health insurance. the american people with many more positive economic data, still the american people feel that uncertainty. they were scared and they were scarred by what happened in september, september 18, 2008. while the economy is improving, it has not reached the people that it needs to reach, the middle class. the increase, the in wages and salaries has not been commensurate with the increase, the progress that our economy is making. it's really tilted to the high end. we don't grudge anyone his or her success, we recognize achievement but we cannot have that achievement be at the exploitation of america's workers.
much more needs to be done and perhaps without the big money pouring in from special interests to counter our argument and drown it out, perhaps in the normal course of congressional debate we can make clear that the -- make clear the distinction between where we were then, the path we're on now and the attempts by some to take us right back where we were. with that, my voice demands they yield to the distinguished house democratic whip, mr. hoyer. >> thank you very much, madam leader, congratulations on your re-election, congratulations to all my colleagues on the expression of confidence that the caucus has given to all of you. i look forward to working closely with you. this was a tough election. it was a tough election for the american people. the american people are apprehensive. a lot of angst about the future. and 435 of us share two things
in common. a, we're all americans. b, we've been sent here by our neighbors to make america work better. we have that responsibility. this leadership team will respond in a positive way to working together, build an economy that provides jobs for all of our people. so that all of our people, as you've heard me say so often, can make it in america. this 113th congress has some work that it still needs to do. we need to pass an omnibus appropriation bill. we need to pass a defense authorization bill, when we were challenged abroad. we need to pass the terrorism risk insurance bill so that construction can move forward on a number of projects. and we need to do other things as well. to make sure that they do not
lapse. tax extenders being one of those. so that we give confidence to the economy, so it can grow, it can create more jobs, leader pelosi pointed out, absolutely correctly, we are in far, far better shape today than we were in january of 2009 when president obama became president. but we are not where the american people want us to be and we're not where we want to be. and therefore we're going to work very, very hard together and look forward to working with our republican colleagues and seeking compromise and forward movement where we can find it. i urge my democratic and republican colleagues that not to allow that on which we cannot agree to undermine that on which we can agree. that's what our american people expect of us, that's what they want of us and if we do that, we will reinstill the
confidence in the congress that our people ought to have and want to have. now, i'm very pleased to yield to my dear friend who has been unanimously re-elected as the assistant leader of the democratic caucus in the house of representatives, jim clyburn much south carolina. >> thank you very much, mr. whip, madam leader, other distinguished leaders of this 114th congress. it's a pleasure for me to be here as re-elected to the assistant democratic leader position. but i look forward to the challenge that we all have moving forward. as steny has said this was a tough election. i did quite a bit of sole searching after the -- soul searching after the election and i've spoken at length with our leader and i thank her so uch for sort of giving me an
expanded role going forward. so that next year we can begin to refocus our attention on middle income here in america. i think all of us have been reading, i am particularly concerned with gentlemen'sia yellen's most recent -- jessica yellen's most recent speech where she stated that the thing that bothers her most today is the fact that over of the last 20, 25 years, we have seen the upper 5% in the country gain 38% in their wealth and the lower 95% only 10%. the income inequality that exists in the country today is something that this caucus is going to focus like a laser on to make sure that everybody feels a part of the recovery and that a few people are
enjoying. so i look forward to working with these members of congress to get all of this done and a i am pleased now to yield to the newly elected vice chair, newly re-elected vice chair, joe crowley. >> thank you, jim. i want to join jim and all my colleagues in congratulating all my colleagues on their re-election to the house leadership. it is an honor to serve in the house, but to add to that distinction, the honor to be elected by your colleagues as a member of the house leadership is really in many respects overwhelming. we oftentimes speak about the respect that we all collectively have here i think on the stage for the american people and the decisions they make collectively when they go to vote. i would suggest that this afternoon we all collectively respect the decision of our colleagues in the democratic caucus as much as we also like the decision that they've made as well. and as mr. hoyer has said and
as our leader has said, leader pelosi, there are things we look forward to tackling issues we will be engaged in. we may not be setting the agenda but we will be working all those issues and being a part of how that agenda in many respects is molded. and this year we have a number of issues that still need to be addressed. i look forward to working with our colleagues in this 114th but looking forward to the new members who will reinvigorate us as well as we move forward to do the work for the american people, to strengthen and grow the middle class, not see it weakened as it has been this republican caucus over the last several years. with that i'll turn it back to he leader. >> we can move to questions. >> i just want to thank my colleagues, congratulate each and every one of them for the leadership roles that they will
play and the support they have in the house democratic caucus. i will say that it is humbling and it is prideful to be elected leader by your caucus, part of it that i particularly enjoyed was a nomination of jan schakowsky pointed out that how we conducted ourselves when president bush was president was something that we hoped the republicans would emulate. that is, we disagreed with him where we did, which was on the war in iraq and privatizing social security, but as mr. hoyer said, we did not let opposition in one area stand in the way of cooperation in another. whether it was the biggest -- one of the biggest energy bills in the history of our country, whether it was our stimulus package which really did help poor people, whether it was issues that relate to the issue of pet far, the -- petfar, the
president's very proud of his initiatives for drugs internationally, for fighting aids, which he wanted and we wanted to be large. we cooperated. and as mr. hoyer is saying over my shoulder here, the tarp. that's where i started my remarks. september 18, 2008. we supported the president on tarp when his own party abandoned him. then with all of the initiatives taken by president obama, supported by us in terms of the recovery package and so many other things, the health care, affordable care act, we were able to reduce the deficit, increase job creation, and do so enso many things in a very positive -- and do so many things in a very positive way to take us in a new direction. i was particularly disappointed to learn that one of the first things this new republican congress is doing is hiring a lawyer to sue the president. let's hope that that's just for caucus consumption and that
when it comes to working for the american people we must find common ground, where we can't we stand our ground, but we have an obligation to try. with that i'll take any questions you may have. yes, sir. >> the other day the congressional black caucus sent a letter reiterating their support for seniority as the primary determinant in ranking member decisions. that's something you talked about in regards to the eshoo-pallone race. could you give a response to that letter and how that may factor into the decision? >> i respect the view of the black caucus in terms of what their view of it is. the rule simply states that the policy committee should resm a member from the committee without regard to seniority to the caucus as the ranking member or chairman, hopefully one day soon. i do believe that many of our members we have now, congresswoman -- ranking member
wey, engel, smith, cummings, who else? maxine's a senior. but there are others who are not -- were not the senior members on their committee when they were recommended to the committee. then if you go back in history, u all know dave obey and people who, if we were strictly seniority, would not be there. so it's a difference of opinion in the caucus and i myself believe that we must have the most talented people and that seniority makes you a contender. but it does not make you a chairman. it is a consideration, it is not a determination. my other colleagues may wish to address that or maybe they won't. >> what do you think of the potential proposal of a rescission bill maybe to aa lou the government to be funded, and of course there are many on
the right who would then like to go back in time and rescind some of the funding for potential executive order. is that -- obviously you wouldn't be for rescinding the money, but is that a way to get around a potential showdown in december? >> we've heard from our ranking member on the committee is that we just really don't know what the committee is going to do. whether it's going to be an omnibus, whether it's going to be a short-term omnibus or a c.r. or whatever. and we're waiting to see what that is. of course i would object to rescissions. they would most likely be vetoed by the president. mr. hoyer and i, mr. clyburn, mr. -- congresswoman -- well, she is a ranking member on the appropriations committee. so we all have a view about that. >> i don't know fully what the proposal contemplates but i do know this. both speaker boehner and the incoming majority leader of the united states senate have said
that we need to put our country on a stable path. you do not put it on a stable path by appropriating with the thought that you may rescind at some time in the near term. that is now how we're going to grow our economy, create jobs and make our economy better. i would hope that the republican leadership would come to agreement. i know mrs. lowey, our ranking member on the appropriations committee, wants to do that. i know that hal rogers, the chairman of the appropriations committee, wants to do that. and that is the best policy for this institution. but much more importantly it is the best policy for stabilizing and growing our economy and reating more jobs. >> rosa delauro, i'm the ranking member on the labor, health, education and human services subcommittee of appropriations. where quite honestly we are the only subcommittee over the last
two years who have not had even subcommittee markup for the committee. and after defense we are the largest portfolio of programming that affects people in this country. and also the largest matcher of resources. -- we continually and ought to move forward on appropriations bills on the subcommittee level, full committee and to the floor of the house. one of the latest rumors is that some of the subcommittees will move forward and others may not be part of a c.r. and so it's really, as mr. hoyer has pointed out, that direction ack of
for the people of this country and a especially in the areas which labor, health, human services takes up, which has to do with pell grants, it has to do with worker training, it has to do with biomedical research and with biomedical research we have seen our public health infrastructure between 2010 and 2014 absolutely decimated. with the n.i.h. and the c.d.c. there are critically important matters and my hope would be that we could come to a decision and an allocation for those programs that our families in this country are relying on for their future. but this lack of direction or pointed nd mr. hoyer out, there may be the will but we haven't seen that really demonstrated in the committee
for us to move forward on all 12 appropriations and meet the needs that the country is facing. >> as the whip let me just add one additional component of this. i believe that the democratic party, the 199 of us or 200 of us in the 113th congress who are democrats will vote overwhelmingly, overwhelmingly for an omnibus consistent with the ryan-murray agreement, but i didn't vote for as you recall, but was an agreement made by mr. ryan and ms. youry -- ms. murray and adopted in the congress of the united states and meets the views of our ranking member and that mr. rogers and mrs. low hey have an agreement on. in my view, i think we will so overwhelming support, the republicans will support
the implementation of the ryan-murray that is consistent with mrs. lowey's and mr. roger's agreement so that we fund the priorities that are important for our country, i think they will find very, very significant strong support on our side of the aisle. the problem is unfortunately they apparently can't find that support on their side of the aisle. >> there have been a number of reports that have questioned the amount of confidence that your fellow democrats have as well as questioning some of the leadership decisions. could you respond to those? >> i'm very proud of the support that i have received from my members of the caucus. i had my name put forth after they encouraged me to do so. so i go into this role very confident and i go into it frankly liberated because i think that the house democrats know that when we go out there to make the fight for working
families in our country, we know of what we speak. we're close to our constituents, we know their challenges, their aspirations, their anxiety. and we know the legislative process. so while there may be a few people who are talking to the press and maybe there's some others who don't, overwhelmingly i feel very strengthened and encouraged by the support that my colleagues have posed to me. and i'm very excited, as mr. clyburn said, this being the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act, he will be taking the lead to a voter engagement. a reason to register, a reason to vote, the inspiration, the education, i'm very pleased that mr. israel will be chairing our communications and policy initiative because it's ry important for us to generate by listening to members in the caucus, by listening to the actions of the steering and policy committee,
the priorities and the positive initiatives to end and reduce -- hopefully end but certainly reduce income inequality in our country. we have shared values in our caucus, we have great respect for each other's legislative ability and i never felt more confident going in than i do now. yes, sir. >> you said that it was important that democrats continue the conversation that started with president obama in 2009. i'm wondering, given the reality of being the minority now, if you'll look to a republican example of how they were able to flip the game on you guys in 2010, if that's at all a model you can look to or how you'll approach the next two years in messaging -- [inaudible] >> i believe that some of the republican model is not based on fact and so i would not want
to copy that model. we believe that, to the extent that we can engage the public to understand what's happening, the difference, and quite frankly i would hope that it would help change the minds of the republicans. because this isn't about democrats and republicans, it's about the american people. and what we want are initiatives that help the american people. that reduce the anxiety because it reduces the income disparity and the rest. and that people, because of 2008, were so concerned about their jobs, their wages, their home ownership, the education of their children, their pensions, a lot of that is still existing. and they still do not feel confident and our model is really just to make sure people understand what the choices are here. at the same time when we have that conversation coming out of policy and communications have that engagement with the voters. so our model is about following
abraham lincoln, another republican, i'll follow his model. public sentiment is everything. and so it's one thing to believe in all the good things, it's another thing also to have legislative proposals to go forward. but it's another thing also to make sure the public understands what is going on. and i feel very confident about where we started with building ladders of opportunity for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, that they can help reignite the american dream. a. b, the next one, the issue of the middle class jump-start, the middle class jump-start with creating good-paying jobs here in america, building the infrastructure of our country, making college a-- higher education affordable and having equal pay for equal work. these were ideas that -- these are initiatives that are very supported by the american people. we just have to make sure they understand how strongly we are fighting for that and what the
obstacles are. but right now we have a surprise guest who is joining us, so it was the last question but it was not the last conversation. i'm pleased to welcome mr. -- congressman emmanuel cleaver of kansas city, the home of the great kansas city royals, who re here to deliver on a bet. all right. here we go. are you licking your chops? inaudible]
i think it's just great to get to the world series but once u get there -- [inaudible] >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> that's leader pelosi accepting her payoff of the bet for the world series. congressman cleaver with the kansas city reds and she returning the favor with some chocolates from san francisco. this briefing happening today, earlier today, after the leadership team was elected for the 114th congress, for the democrats, and pretty much staying the same. leader pelosi staying on as the democratic leader in the house. the whip is steny hoyer. congressman clyburn as the assistant leader. javier becerra is the caucus chair and representative lujan will be the campaign committee
chair. we expect the house to return from its recess at about 5:00 p.m. eastern. they'll vote on a bill that makes changes to the qualifications and its election process for individuals serving on the ian:'s science advisory board. we'll have live coverage when they gavel back in. the senate continues at the bait -- debate this afternoon on a bill authorizing construction of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline. the house passed its measure last week. the senate expected to vote at about 5:30 eastern. so another hour or so of debate left and you can follow that over on c-span2. the issue of the keystone pipeline and whether or not the president would veto or sign the legislation came up at today's white house briefing. a spokesman also answered questions about isis and the terrorist attack today, earlier today in jerusalem against the sent going there. >> we're still fighting off --
i'll be honest with you, but we're hanging tough, i guess. it's nice to see you all. i don't have any announcements so we'll go straight to questions. nancy, do you want to get started? >> can you talk a little bit about the scope for the review on hostages? >> i can. this is something that the president ordered back in -- over the summer. that given sort of the extraordinary nature of some of the hostage takings that we've seen this year, the president felt it was warranted to direct the relevant departments and agencies who have traditionally been involved in assisting families as they try to recover the safe return of their family members. so this is something that the department of defense, state, the f.b.i. and the intelligence community have been reviewing. the one thing that i do want to make clear, though, is this review does not include a reconsideration of a long standing policy of the united states government that ransom should not be paid to terrorist
organizations that are holding hostages. but this is obviously an issue that the president takes very seriously. we have long said and we continue to take the view that significant resources have in the past been dedicated to trying to ensure the safe return of american citizens who are being held hostage overseas. there was an incident earlier this summer where the president did order a rather remarkable military effort, principally military effort, to recover some american citizens who were being held hostage in syria. that was a mission that was successfully executed but it did not successfully result in the safe return of the hostages. but this is a review that's ongoing among the relevant agencies that are principally responsible for working on this issue. >> if it's a comprehensive review, why would -- [inaudible] not be included in that? -- even if you're not doing are you looking at the policy
of how family members who might want to pay ransom are treated, they're at risk for prosecution? >> i'll refer you to the justice department for how the law is applied in those matters. the reason why we're not reviewing the policy as it relates to not paying ransom is that our views on this are clear. and the president continues to believe, as previous presidents have concluded, that it's not in the best interest of american citizens to pay ransoms to any organization, let alone a terrorist organization, that's holding an american hostage. the reason to that is simple. we don't want to put other in -- other american citizens at risk around the globe. and knowing that terrorist organizations can extract a ransom from the united states if they take a hostage only puts american citizens at greater risk. >> do you have a timeline for when this might be -- [inaudible] >> i don't have a sense of when this review will be concluded
but when it has been we'll let you know about it. >> the other question i had was about immigration. i need a sense whf the president would make his announcement -- [inaudible] >> there is a lot of spenglation on the hill and across town -- speculation on the hill and across town about. this i don't have updates as it relates to timing. i mentioned in a briefing that we conducted in burma last week of all places that the president was nearing a final decision on the executive actions that he would take to fix our broken immigration system. >> has he received a d.h.s. recommendation on this? >> as i mentioned, last week we did talk with the fact that the president was nearing a final decision and beyond that i just don't have an update. >> any meetings today or -- about this? >> i don't have any meetings to tell you about. the president was obviously pretty busy over the course of the asia trip. did not have the opportunity to spend much if any time on this issue. but did plan to work on it when he got back. so i don't know if there are
any meetings that are on the books but i know this is something that's on his agenda this week. >> what about this republican strategy we're hearing about, that they would try to sort of cut off funding for various aspects of carrying out the order? >> well, i know there's been talk about this but i haven't seen any specific proposals. obviously this is not something that we would view very favorably. >> are you hoping that this, by going ahead and acting, that it will somehow spur the house into its own legislative action in the near term or what's the strategy? >> that possibility certainly does exist. i've said this before. there is a trump card that republicans hold right now. and that is the president has indicated that if the house of representatives does pass the senate bill, that already passed in bipartisan fashion more than a year ago, that the president would not actually follow through with his intent to use his executive authority to fix our broken immigration system, the reason to for that
is simply that the legislation that passed through the senate would do more to fix the broken immigration system than the president is able to, given the confines of the law. so republicans can certainly prevent the president from taking this executive action if they pass the senate bill and i will say that if the president does take action sooner than that, and house republicans decide before the end of the year, before this congress adjourns, that they do want to take up the senate bill, the president has indicated that he would happily throw away any executive actions that he did enact in favor of bipartisan legislation that would have significant benefits for our economy in terms of economic growth and job creation, would reduce the deficit, would strengthen border security, there are a whole range of things that are included in this commonsense, bipartisan senate bill that would be good for the economy and good for the country. i think that's why we had 14 republicans join with almost every democrat in the senate to support this legislation. there's a lot of commonsense in there. unfortunately we haven't seen house republicans be persuaded
by that common sense to actually take it up. >> just to clarify what you said, asked if he's received a recommendation, you're not saying whether this is in the review stage at this point or whether he's still waiting for a full recommendation? >> that's right. i don't have any update beyond what i said last week which is that the president is nearing a final decision on this. >> why don't you want to say whether he's received those recommendations? i'm just curious. >> only because i don't want to be in a position of doing sort of the regular daily or even hourly play by play of all this. that the president has indicated that he's going to act before the end of the year and that timeline hasn't changed. >> in the meantime this rhetoric has been building out there with now threats of, you know, everything from itch people. -- impeachment, lawsuits and now shutting down the government. does the white house have a response to that kind of, you know, pretty fierce rhetoric at times? >> it's certainly not anununprecedented rhetoric from republicans unfortunately. even with a commonsense people of legislation that has bipartisan support, republicans
have been vociferously critical of that bill. for reasons that i'm not entirely clear on. the question that the president has before him is a pretty simple one. which is, given that congress and in this case house republicans have refused to act on legislation that would be good for the economy, good for the deficit, good for border security, and given that the speaker of the house convened a news conference shortly after the elections in which he refused to commit to even take up this legislation again, the question before the president of the united states is, is he going to use his authority to actually do something good for the country that would be helpful when it comes to our border security in terms of strengthening our border security, is he going to take steps that would be good for the economy? and the answer to that question is yes. the president is determined to take the kinds of steps that are in the best interest of the country. he would prefer for congress to actually fulfill their responsibilities in this regard, and that's why the president has indicated that if congress does pass this legislation, the president is
happy to have commonsense, comprehensive, bipartisan legislation that supersedes his executive action, but if they don't, the president is not going to use that as an excuse to not act himself. >> the suspense is killing everyone. will the president veto the keystone bill? >> the president's been very clear about what our views are as it relates to the keystone bill. the consistent with past practice, the state department has a method of reviewing these kinds of projects that span our international borders. and that means that the state department can conduct a review that includes a wide range of considerations, including at the president's direction the consideration about whether or not this particular project would substantially contribute to carbon pollution and the impacts of climate change. so there is a process that's under way that is currently going through its regular course. this is complicated at least a
little by ongoing court proceedings in the state of nebraska as it relates to the route of the the president: line in nebraska. but there is a process under way and the president is confident that that process will evaluate the consequences and that's a proper way for a decision like this to be made. it is an answer to the president's view that the state department is the proper venue for reaching this determination. justin. >> i just wanted to go back to something you said about the possibility that republicans would attach something to the ending bill that defunded, whatever, the president's executive actions. you said that's not something that you view very favorably. is that in the same way you'd not view the keystone pipeline legislation favorably on a scale of veto to not veto? [laughter] i'm just trying to understand
what you mean by that. well, it's hard to render a particularly definitive judgment on those kinds of proposals because they haven't been put forward yet. i think as a general matter, as it relates to the immigration reform decision that rests on the president's desk, that the president is confident that whatever action he will take will be within the confines of the law. so he'll be taking a lawful action, that is not inconsistent with executive actions that previous president, including republican presidents, have taken on this specific issue of immigration reform. so i think that's why in our view we would consider it to be unwarranted for republicans in congress to try to undo that executive action using the budget process. >> on the timing issue she's come up a few times, will you concede the part of your calculation is part of the political consideration of if you bring this out before a spending bill is brought up, it gives republicans an
opportunity to -- [inaudible] -- the budget process? >> i guess the question you're asking is the legislative strategy, right, whether the president should make this decision before congress has acted on either a c.r. or omnibus, with the thinking being that if the president waits until after they pass the c.r. or omnibus that republicans are less likely to attach some kind of write that are would defund in the -- rider that would defund any of the president's actions. i think the fact is you could argue this both ways. republicans, as they should be, are well aware of the president's intent to act before the end of the year. and my sense is that even if the president doesn't announce anything until late in december, that will not prevent republicans from preeveryonetively trying to attach to the c.r. or an omnibus bill a proposal to make the implementation of that
executive action harder. so there are a variety of views on this topic and while i guess i would concede based on the long explanation i've given that it is something that's been discussed at the white given that i'm not sure, that you can argue it either way, i don't think that this strategic decision that you've raised here will determine the outcome at all. >> the last one, do you expect the keystone bill to pass today? >> i'm not nearly as keen as observer of the legislative process as all of you. i know that some supporters of the proposal say that they have the votes necessary to pass the bill but they'll put the bill on the floor tonight and we'll all find out. >> i'm going to try. a formal -- [inaudible] to find out what the administration's position is, whether he'd veto the bill or not heading into
that vote, do you plan on sending a statement of administration policy on the keystone bill today? >> i have not heard any discussion of doing that, but if our decision on that changes, we'll make sure that all of you get it. all right? lauraa. >> what's the white house action regarding the situation in israel today? >> i don't have any phone calls to preview for you here. you've seen that the white house has put out a written statement from the president and i believe he had the opportunity to address this senseless act of violence at the beginning of a meeting that he convened earlier today. deeply iously are concerned about -- specifically -- specifically about this terrorist act. we're talking about attackers senselessly and brutally killing innocent worshipers at a synagogue.
those who were killed include three american citizens. the fact is there can be no justification for an attack like this against innocent civilians. and the thoughts and prayers of the american people are with the victims and families of those who are killed and injured in this horrific attack in an other recent violence. at this sensitive moment in jerusalem, it's all the more important for israelan and palestinian leaders and ordinary citizens to work cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence and seek a path forward toward peace. >> there's been a growing chorus of business leaders asking the white house to step in on the -- [inaudible] -- right now a slowdown, but threatening a strike as the holiday season approaches. is that something that the president is considering being discussed at various levels? obviously president bush did step in in 2002 in a similar situation.
>> i don't know if there have been discussions about this at the white house. there are none that i'm aware of but we can certainly look into that for you. >> is there a threshold at which the white house would weigh in? >> that's one of the things that would be discussed if discussions like that were ongoing. i just don't know the answer to that. that ave to look into for you. >> coming back to the immigration executive order coming, does the president still stand by what he said last year when he said, quote, i am not the emperor of the united states, my job is to execute laws that are passed, is that still operative? >> absolutely. >> not a king either. >> that's right. >> he was asked very specifically about the idea of expanding the deferred action executive order for the dreamers to their parents. and he said september 17 of last year, very clearly, if we start broadening that, then essentially i would ignoring the flaw a way that would make it very difficult to defend
legally so that's not an option. is that still operative when the president said specifically that expanding the doc executive order is not an option because it would be ignoring the law? does he still believe that? >> i don't want to get ahead of what any sort of announcements that the president may make before the end of the year about executive actions that he may take to fix our broken immigration system. since the this -- since this interview aired, the president did direct the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security to conduct a review of the law to determine what, if any authority, he could use to try to use some of the problems that house republicans have refused to address. so this is something that has been under consideration for some time by the attorney general of the united states and by the secretary of homeland security. >> you're saying that this is no longer operative because we've had a review? so when the president said that expanding daca to apply to the parents of the dreamers, for
instance, would be broadening and essentially ignoring the law in a way that would be difficult to defend legally, that it's not an option, that that statement is no longer operative? >> what i'm saying is we'll have an opportunity to evaluate the actions that the president has chosen to take after he's announced -- >> i'm not asking about the options. i'm just saying, does the president still stand by what he said in that interview in september of last year? >> obviously there are some things that have changed. >> that would be a no? >> it's not. obviously there have been some things that have changed, right? we have been in a situation where the president has ordered a broader in depth review of the existing law. to determine what sort of executive authority does rest with the presidency to determine what kinds of steps he could take on his own. the other thing that we've seen is we've seen house republicans refuse to act even on commonsense legislation that would fix so many of the problems of our broken immigration system in a way that would strengthen border security, reduce the deficit and be good for the economy.
>> they'd already refused to act at this point. >> they've been refusing to act for quite some time. at that point it had only basketball a few months. now it's been almost a year and a half. >> why are you not using -- switchback to keystone, why are you not using the word veto? why are you not saying, previously when this issue had come up, you said you'd issue a statement of administrative policy that the president's advisor would recommend a veto. it seems substantively what you're saying is it hasn't changed but you're not saying it again. are you leaving options open to not veto it? >> i don't want to lead to you that impression. this is a piece of legislation that the president doesn't support because the president believes that this is something that should be determined through the state department and the regular process that is in place to evaluate projects like this. but again, i'm not in a position to issue veto threats from here. but as you rightly point out, there are similar pieces of legislation that have been introduced in this congress
where the president's senior advisors have recommended a veto. >> one other subject. the videos of jonathan gruber have now become kind of almost a hit series, there's like seven of them out right now. variously talking about the stupidity of the american voter, of the ways -- the processes of passing the health care law, the ways in which people were duped as to what was actually going on. i'm wondering what your reaction -- obviously it was a very important figure in the crafting of the health care law, so what is your view of what he said? >> i think the president, when he answered a question on this at the news conference in brisbane over the weekend, was pretty clear about the fact that the sentiments that were expressed by dr. gruber are not sentiments that the president agrees with and frankly don't actually reflect what actually happened in the process of passing and implementing this law. the fact of the matter, is i do think that -- is, i do think that people are understandably pretty tired of relitigating
all of the political fights from 2009 and 2010 as it relates to the affordable care act. and there are some republicans however who do seek to sort of fan the flames of those old political arguments because they think it is political advantageous for them to do so. my suspicion is that they do so because it's easier to talk about six and eight-year-old videos than it is to talk about smoothly the opening of the second open enrollment period has gone so far or to talk about the millions of people that have gotten health care as a result of the affordable care act. or to talk about how the growth in health care costs is the lowest in recorded history, again in the aftermath of the passing of the affordable care act. the affordable care act guarantees a bunch of patient protections, including that people can't be discriminated against because they have a pre-existing condition. all that stuff is pretty inconvenient for people who oppose the law to talk about. so it's easier for them to talk about these kinds of videos and they're certainly welcome to do that. i don't think there's a
particularly large and you yes, sir -- audience of the american people that's eager to have this discussion. >> would you acknowledge he was an important figure in the crafting of this law? >> i think the president acknowledged in the news conference that he did over the weekend, i believe ed asked about this, that mr. gruber was an advisor. >> would he be welcome to more government contracts? he's made $2 million from the federal government. $400,000 specifically regarding the health care law. of course a lot more money from the states as well. is he now kind of persona nongrata. no more government contracts for jonathan gruber? >> i assume that those kinds of conclusions are made on a -- decisions are made on a -- based on a merit. but certainly the comments that he's now famously expressed are not views that are shared by anybody at the white house. i'll come right back to you. april. >> i want to ask you first
about something the president said, that we're not out of the woods yet. is this an assumption that you're hoping for the best but expecting possibly another scenario about eeb? [inaudible] >> i think the reason that the president said we're not out of the woods yet is that we are -- we continue to see ebola cases being reported in west africa. there's new concern about the potential spread of the disease in mali. we've been pretty candid of the fact that a risk of a widespread outbreak of ebola in the united states remains low tpwhaufment risk -- remains low. but that risk is not eliminated until this disease has been stopped in its tracks in west africa. that's why you're seeing the significant commitment of resources from the federal government to try to stop this outbreak in west africa. that's why the administration has asked congress to pass an zirble funding, to -- pass
additional funding, to increase readiness here in this country, to respond to ebola patients, if there should be others that materialize in this country. but also, just as importantly and in some ways even more importantly, to make sure that we're mobilizing the necessary resources to stop this outbreak in west africa. > on the second subject. [inaudible] >> about anything specific? > january -- [inaudible] >> i guess i don't really understand the question. >> you've got a congress that doesn't like health care reforms. >> that's been true for four years. >> they're now in control and looking at doing things to change it. immigration reform, president's talking about pushing immigration reform now and in january when they're here they're going to push back. are you concerned about a big
fight? >> i think the president's been pretty clear about what he believes he can do with the next congress. and that is specifically that we should be able to find some areas of common ground where we can make progress for the american people. that said, we're going to have plenty of disagreements about probably lots of things and i think the key here is to recognize that we don't want to be in a position where we prevent those disagreements, some of them significant, from allowing us to identify some common ground and make progress for the american people using that common ground. so whether it is tax reform or even making it easier for american goods and services to be sold overseas, there may be an opportunity for democrats and republicans to work together and we'd welcome those opportunities. >> are you looking for common ground when marcia fudge said that she should talk to harry reid to put on the schedule to ave ms. lynch have her
confirmation hearings before january because nothing will go through come january, that's what she said. what do you say to people like that? >> all i would say is that ms. lynch is an exceedingly highly qualified nominee. she's somebody with a stellar legal track record and somebody who deserves prompt and bipartisan confirmation in the united states senate. we've seen some early indications from republicans that they are going to give her a fair and prompt hearing. we would expect nothing less and the president's confident that she'll get the bipartisan confirmation that she deserves. >> has this administration -- do you know anything about the potential of a verlander -- the officer who shot and killed michael brown?
>> i think st it's been broadly reported that there are ongoing grand jury proceedings in ferguson related to this specific case. but nobody at the white house has any special knowledge of those proceedings. >> the national guard has been called up and there's a presence there to quell potential violence in that town if the verlander does come out that he's found not guilty? >> the president did have the opportunity to speak on the telephone with governor nixon from the state of missouri. i believe it was november 7. information about that. the president spent time talking about the work that the governor has been focused on in terms of ensuring that the community or that steps are taken to protect the community if necessary. and that does include in this case the mobilization of some national guard units.
the president has also been in touch with civil rights leaders, over the last few weeks, to talk to them about the important work they're doing in communities across the any y, to try to prevent other violence associated with this particular circumstance. that said, i think the president's pretty mindful of the advice from mr. brown's parents who urge people to pay tribute to their son's memory by expressing their views peacefully. the president's mindful of that and hopes other people will be too. >> if the verlander does not come out or we don't know if they're nearing a decision or they're going to go up to that day of the window, do you think it might be good to put the national guard troops out untiled verlander comes out? right now they're there and the people are using their rights to speak out about what they feel. >> for any sort of tactical conclusions -- decisions about where and when to deploy
national guard personnel, i'd refer you to the governor's office. obviously they're making that decision. the white house isn't. >> in brisbane, the president really down played jonathan gruber's significance i think and you say that his views are not shared with the white house. but the president's former car czar says gruber was the man on obamacare when he was here. >> i don't know that the car czar would have a lot of insight on this. >> but he was here. >> and mr. gruber was an advisor, as the president said. >> he was a czar. >> that could be. >> are you down playing his significance in crafting the affordable care act? >> no. he obviously is somebody who knows his profession as it relates to being a health care economist very well. he's somebody who has operated -- offered advice to democrats
and republicansed a they've implemented health care -- republicans as they've implemented health care policy. he was involved with governor romney's efforts to implement health care reform in the state of massachusetts. that principally is why he was involved with this effort, because so many aspects of the affordable care act are borrowed from the successes of that law as well. he certainly is somebody who is well versed in understanding how economics will have an impact on health care policy. but i think it's pretty evident from these videos that he doesn't have nearly as much insight as it relates to politics to or communications or legislative strategy. >> republicans say his comments show a lack of transparency in selling the affordable care act. for example, not calling a tax a tax. and they say they're going to, based on that, challenge the president's veracity in selling
obamacare. how much of a political problem is gruber now? >> i think i quibble with that critique for a couple of reasons. the affordable care act is something that was debated over the course of 14 months. there were 79 bipartisan hearings that were convened in the house of representatives. there were about 100 hours of hearings on health care reform in the house, including from 181 witnesses from both sides of the aisle. over in the senate, there were 53 additional hearings on this matter. but the suggestion by some that this was something that had not been carefully worked through or is not transparent, i assume that all these hearings were open. i guess that's why i just wanted to raise this. because i do think it significantly undermines the charge that there wasn't a lot of transparency as it relates to the debate around health care law. it was debated in -- i'm just going to do the math here in my head, 132 different congressional hearings. >> when you have the author say, you can't call a tax a tax
because politically it won't go through, that's a problem. >> well, again, it wasn't his responsibility to figure out how to get this bill through. we have people who are responsible for making those kinds of legislative decisions at the white house. his expertise was focused on the economics of health care. this is the expertise that he lended to governor romney's legislation in massachusetts as they worked on health care there and that's the role he played here. it also i think is why it's pretty clear that the views that he's articulated don't reflect what actually happened when it comes to the passing or implementation of this law. >> let me ask a few more questions about the review of the hostage and a policy here. i want to start with, i know that there's been a lot of talk about how much people who day pay ransom, european countries, whether directly or more likely through a third party or through a company actually do pay ransom, how concerning is
that and where is the onchte putting pressure on governments not to pay ransom? >> we've made the views of this country very clear. again, the reasons for that are that paying ransoms are making it clear to other organizations , only puts american citizens at greater risk. that's something that obviously the president and his team are very focused on. trying to protect american citizens. the other thing that we know, based on our insight into the way that isil works, that they rely on a sort of ransom payments as a very important source of their financing. so shutting off that source of financing is an important part of our strategy for defeating them. that's why -- again, this is this isn't a new policy. this is a policy that predates this president. >> is there progress on putting pressure on having any success
in getting other countries, other organizations, to back off on that? >> we've certainly impressed upon other countries and other organizations the wisdom of this view. but ultimately they're going to make that decision for themselves. >> at the time of james foley's parents were critical to the relationship, have there been any changes since that time in the way this administration deals with the families of people who are being held hostage and is that also -- >> that's part of the review. >> but no changes at this point? >> not that i'm aware of. but again, once this review is completed, i'm sure we'll have more that we can say about this. >> just a quick question on immigration, because today, well, actually on a number of occasions, the president has talked about that he's tired of waiting, including at that postpress conference. he suggested that you've also
said here today that, you know, this isn't going to make a difference in terms of budget, that the republicans will go ahead anyway, you think, if they're going to do some sort of attachment. >> i think the point i was making is you can argue it both ways. which is why a decision about that doesn't necessarily term the -- determine the outcome. >> harry reid said today, quote, i think it should be done now. is there any real reason for the president to wait beyond this week? >> i think justin floated sort of the reason that you might consider doing that. i don't have any updates in terms of the timing. the president has been waiting a long time. more importantly, the american people have been waiting a long time for congressional republicans to stop blocking a commonsense proposal that would actually do a lot to solve so many aspects of our broken immigration system, in a way that would be good for the economy, good for the deficit and strengthen our security at the border. so there are some steps that the president can take using his own authority, that he's going to pursue.
to try to mitigate some of those concerns. but the fact is, the president is not going to be able to do as much as this legislation would do. and that's why even after the president does take action before the end of this year, he's going to continue to press congress to take the kinds of steps that he believes are necessary. the president pointed this out in the news conference that he did in brisbane last week or over the weekend, i guess. that it's not just the president who believes that the commonsense, bipartisan proposal in the senate would be good for the country, the business community, the labor community, the evangelical community, even law enforcement believes that that legislation would be in the best interest of the country. i think it makes it very difficult for republicans to explain why they continue to block this proposal, because the other thing that we know about this bill is that if house republicans were just to allow it to come up for a vote, that it would surely pass the house of representative, also in bipartisan fashion. so again, we'll have plenty of
opportunity to evaluate whatever steps the president takes and we can sort of at that point have a discussion about the wisdom of the actual timing that he chooses, but at this point i think the case is pretty clear for why the president should act and eventually sometime relatively soon, we'll have the opportunity to have a discussion about what steps the president has actually taken. . >> there was a story today that the president's thinking was to veto now and go for some sort of a trade after the state department reviews. can you speak about his thinking -- [inaudible] >> it presupposes that it's going to pass in the senate. i think we'll wait and see what happens in the senate and see if
this comes to the president's desk before we make decisions about the next steps. >> sounds like he is already thinking about the next step. >> fair to say. >> can you expound on that? >> not at this point. maybe at some point as we advance further in the process. >> what would be the advantage to waiting if the president is so derled. why doesn't he do it this week? >> maybe he will. who knows. the clerk: a bill to amend the environmental research development and demonstration authorization act of 1978 to provide for scientific advisory board member qualifications, public participation and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: when proceedings were postponed earlier today, all time for debate on the bill, as amended, had expired.
for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek roll call anything? -- utah seek recognition? mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment printed in part a of house report 113-626 offered by mr. stewart of utah. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 756, the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, this amendment makes a number of technical and conforming changes to address revisions to existing statute that occurred with the passage of the farm bill. i'm pleased to have worked with representative davis to strengthen the changes to this statute that he was able to secure in passage of the farm bill. this amendment is critical to ensure that underlying bill can be properly applied to existing statute. just this morning the legislation received the support of the american farm bureau and the national association of manufacturers and the u.s. chamber of commerce, and i ask for your
support and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from oregon, for what purpose does she rise? ms. bonamici: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend from utah, mr. stewart, and i want to state again that i've appreciated mr. stewart's collaboration on bills that have come through the science committee in the past and i definitely appreciate his intent to strengthen and bring more transparency to this science advisory board. however, as explained previously and as i will explain, this bill and this amendment do not accomplish what needs to be done. although my friend's amendment seems to make mostly minor and technical corrections, there are a few changes that raise concern. one consequence of this bill is the expansion of the scope of the science advisory board's work to include risk or hazard assessments proposed by the agency, and unfortunately the
amendment offered exacerbates this burden and potential delay by adding draft work being done by the agency to the board's workload. a letter from several leading environmental groups, including the natural resources defense council and the environmental defense fund note that the inclusion of risk and hazard assessments already represents a dramatic and unnecessary expansion. it would increase the burden on the science advisory board and slow the board's ability to complete its task's objectives. asking the board to constantly peer over the shoulder of the agency at this stage is an inefficient and ineffective use of the board. i'm also concerned about another part of the amendment that requires the board to be fully and timely responsive to congress. this seems inconsistent with language in the underlying bill that requires the board to avoid making policy determinations or recommendations. the amendment appears to put the board in a precarious position, making it vulnerable to political interference and
placing a shadow over the independence that we all agree the board should have. the science advisory board can provide congress and the e.p.a. with important scientific advice, but it should not be beholden to congress or to the e.p.a. administrator. finally, it's clear that this bill would have a serious impact on the membership of the science advisory board in a way that will prohibit qualified scientists from providing their advice to the e.p.a. unfortunately, this amendment only deepens that impact by increasing the number of prohibited activities. if this amendment is adopted, the bill would read board members may not participate in advisory activities that directly or indirectly involve review or evaluation of their work. i want to clearly illustrate what that means. if the e.p.a. were to consider a rule involving gravity, for example, if an albert -- if albert einstein were alive it would prohibit him asking
expert advice. that's obviously an absurd result that would result in fewer qualified people serving. we should want the smartest and the most knowledgeable scientists advising the e.p.a. instead, this bill prohibits them from doing so. again, i have great respect for my friend from utah. i'm proud that we worked together in the past and hope we can find areas where we agree going forward, both with the remainder of the 113th and in the 114th congress. unfortunately, what -- regardless what happens with this amendment, i will have to oppose the bill but look forward to continuing to work on this issue and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, we have debated these issues throughout the day. i believe we have made our case. i believe that we have made our case persuasively. i believe our case is complete. this amendment is technical in nature. i believe that the bill itself
is common sense. it will lead to good government. it will lead to better government at least. it will lead to better advice and counsel given to the e.p.a. through these reforms of the science advisory board. i urge all members to support it. i look forward to the vote, and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended and on the amendment by the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. ms. bonamici: mr. speaker, i do ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.
isnu t t re xe e al h itoak or ouror cmpite. y? ecsehe w'lha me bune. a wllavmoob and wel is ren tha w ratr any raisg xe yo s, if we boost our eno, the renue wl cme. he secd em on this menu he, mr. speaker is taxing erseas' profits earned by american companies only where they are earned. we are the only remaining country with a global tax system. everywhere else that they pay taxes where they earn the money and bring the money home and here in america, our
multinational companies, companies like ge, gm, every company you can name, if they earn profits overseas and pay taxes at a lower rate, they know if they bring that money back to the united states, they have to pay it at 39%. so what do they do? they part that money overseas. only common sense. they are competing tooth-and-nail worldwide to make any other choice puts th at a hugeisadvantaglee ve t1 n ina dmeca antho a aoiio dto, tego0h tego
cora. tsasrishinge, mefrom plienhure yrs ago if u' sn the ocdsf e usofom th something sil, e rit nobl genem wch has aimareaning ahiy veed appacto bngole to somebodyodot al careor lstn the hsef reestavewhehere are 5 mb, l of the m and men don' eveknow who ea otherret' dingenuo. the sat ce of t senate the'snl 1, ey prab kacother. th m n like ea oer anorbuatea there a tt chancofhemeing at as acquaintaesf not acal gd fen. jrnisdad mark on e wod of pitalernogy suay nighat:0eaernd cific cpan's "a. next, dcuion onhe u.s. saty the cba is a whether or t ngss ll autri meynd tops. itrood's "wainon
jona" "washgt jrn continues. host we arba wh ngssn walt jes, reblanf ntharin from t aedervice coite. wh iyo aessmenofhe istrategsoar istorng guest:ete y thatnef e rst miak iadsie have bn oness wa t vo tpass t aum thizioofilary force, ge presidenbu t authority to gin iq. stin002? i yes, m'amthreon we hava nstuon reonbity and i dno thk should coiturou meanwon ar ueswe bad on t forf e ushewe hava constution that we promised to upld reof seeg l esd- ck commitnt oveeas ani's alwa the aricanolers
inthe. the he countest st veimed involveme a i ink i's on r psolly, i wanted sato secreta hel -- ani keimnd kw - i thk icore suld ps otherumfor the pridtialndhihas nointoo threde am- iould s ts a public psint- wod onesy colleagun wod deta o coressiol sponsility. host: shod erbe date onhe floor? fowh is pping gut: io cae 'just lihepridt am byssonestoom lya, te t qhafi, eriso ba in thflr t hoe. jt de disn to go in d keut qadfi wh d wet ngzi bau athme i iraq
it was an nessy re manuctedy the sh ministtion. st tyopusome oth blame thiatheeet of your o ltesh, e puic leaders borth elti sd eredent had thauory needsightow fht isis, we don' nd otruthoriti o mitaor? gues aolely, ilame our leaderipnd i wl veou other icexample. prede omaomd liby irafted hse relution that woulha t go t sate fothe hoe to ba sayinthat if a presidt who pvoti byss cgrs bb another cntry a we will dete thempchnt of that esent. i was yi to get a deba o wapowers. se it to theubmmte ai i ev wrote theeaof t
saii nti the experts onarows b atheeangnde got ck th me x senee later d idheeadership said w n't ha te to hold a hein thd't have time engho hold a dator heari wn r young meanomen are dyg w a gti their gslown o, atre we up he for? st what isoumessagto ureplin leaders? es i wrote john boehr leer poro the nemr elecon andsk h tplse louso have daton isssue of sya andra someti borthenofhe ar. we have o reee aer angiving. toe alti jt want t ma a stame. my hope is in theewoness in01th the leadehip wi sethat we ha a nstutional respoibit ihink at so pntn tim wi t buildup in ir, e ou sdiers is und toet risly inred orild
caur bthe sielroup knn isis. host: the presidents now ki f $6 lln to coatsis. iseinmo aisers er tt iss evil and you reth are a threat. llouotno againstor fuinfor the fos at are going the? eshebi clint left officeinhe yea20, is natias i $.6 trilln debt. todas we a tking, the btf our tion is $17.8 trillion. -s notn said huli tdend the wor? ctinue snd money we noha aare breaki t mita now. tt aring u owed a megogeradempse sd
we kw 15ill be a diffilt year for the milarsoe are ending- thk brgh th- we a spending ghtt $30000 per hr in fighting is. thesfireare ju about to nkrupt thination host:reou nvo? guest: i aa ve. . telle w you llay for it llonnue to fht these wars aunthe wod, we ed lk seriously at aax creaseo istas d t the eran pple help upa for this w bau ira you th we wi n he a futur at all one mbiesconcerns i tang care of our vetan i nto walter rd backn seemr. tw marin from my distrt, p jee,neidados both ls d a. i ok h fher in theye and ali saw re trs lsyearsldnd lost bo
d m. e co marinlost bh ls d tolde ate gngo veo veisecm rebut. this cnt inoprar t take ce our wnd a we are noreretoayorhe rse eigin were jussang to e xt geneti - y a bn to w tt lle nkpt th inorit. wt to continue esfits arou theor, we need b rong eugtooton the ooto rai teso y r thwaannopuitn the xtenation. sthe administratn yss t justnid at, have coitn. est: there is coitn. there waa cto ith "mmierald" thai he d says a. host:e will show ito r views. es yot a stasiing ba with clsaonisne anhes lling unclsa " go
t ere angethose ac dogs b d't spillnyovmy ru" 'alwaysmecas ood. the dd east unies- they should bcoerned out ice isikwe shod coerd ty shou sd eiow topo helpur oo wn we sd r top in a cnt tt'in the ddas ho:reoule othe isis stte? gut: don'kn wt e stragy is. th's wh isk srery geif he ulput inring me- t cmitteeife ulpuinringhat ou stte i wh ithimrtf our stragy? you ar se t leade sange lle er20r 30 yes. i owe veo ght isis b toe have toig is ou th wldnlcaot secure r own rds meca people iththird strict of nortarinand so othe acveut marines awell a reremarineage the.
ctie tfi reaso t goo esotr unies but we don't veheenop. ifouavnondin you ha n saty. st:e's okt athe fee crarhatoay cae ld t wrehe stragys rkg. id cp] sadaneing suaibl pgrs on dod' o inin offt,he foseeingfft tegratg and styings'ser fitiapitann nyg feav titfite. rectlyndhrghuprt of aqi fors,oaliti aitresavhi isil mmd-and-ntl h leaderipndtsevenue soceitsuly lin a giicanimired i abity toas fce in recenwes,hetres help ph rc out of zar in nthn iq d help iraqi cuty forces ben retangrerod jor oil
rene at bir leste n, astrikes th gatherg is mmde a su lti fhts d to -- is fite h tadt eir apoa. eyre maneuring ismler grpsomim makinitore diict to intyarts hiding lgequipme, d annghe cmucaons meod sustni this esre on isil wi pvi time and sce for aqo cotitetsorces d ntueoi othe offens th presse hing an fect oottialsi recrtsndolboto striking aloto more. wenow th a their teigce isle. gues igoes bk y point -
whist wa america? ere arthgeanros? whe are e heountries? iss a that to the worl not just tmecauto e rlanneed to be taken ce . i ink we as the world c te ref il b he g agn,mecaakg the ld. i ow we ll fgehewe ntntir h my args attend a they woulalys y a making progress. thin a fragi b ty e ttg lileitetr. yrsat, d e liry in iq fli art weonnutohi tt we a reonblfothe worldto li the wld cnoev pice ara couny. th iwhere a ctiin to go down rd clapse. at is why i us thatquote b pabuchan. mchf this yr,e will
25,eather date -- willavanheebe for raisinthdebt cling gd rae e bteilingeven out ofight tesnd george sh s esidento all h to spend more money tn e vernment was tinin he already raise thde ceiling on the -- on psident ama fi tesn yea so that h canorrow more mon t ke the gerenruin sompot in te,ne of these foren couniewiay d't trust u p dn youreb eror wwill not b your se. ste's t to calls. tuon, aron doct. ller: 'm little bit saointed. thgentlen u ve sitting the thinhe -- un le ds not deta athg. he supsed toavso knowlee. i'a tid army. i'm not undersnding how you do no kwhaa anf atta iss r dli with es people knowshastd, h
thnumber onebjtive ito get emut of aq. thnuerwo oectives to delish them cplel once we pu them back into syria. ats the an. i amhapl bak dn, d hr m talknd not derstand ect what'going . its id asorisr bords in this untry,he borders areece. at's sce ct. ste's ve theongresan reon west: larrythe prle i we gng to keut saddam hueiwhi uld behe fir to ait wasn ilear. we take hiout beuse we wanted toaka ttrafo thiraqi peopl lt over00amic kids dom. we h over 3 40,00 severely im did woundnd0000 iraqis kle can stay there fo10r
mo years b y d't agree th me d at's ne how do we pafoit w e goingo y rt? aryou wiinto pay tax? y want trae xes t pafothese rs or y wa to put th oyo grdchildn? a's re niothant -- we are a debtation. we cannot pay ouril ues evy ar we raise the debt ceinso we n spenmo money that we n'ta in. if you thinkhawos,he nd but there wl me a te en t gdown thisoad th weilnobebl t affd e mbs we drop, th's er were hded. ho: y bughichart thouhat we werju showing -- where did the mbs me fr? thicos om aiwar.com
d y your listeners ca fi i i's a running figure. you go onheebteit llhow itooundhoyou whe eyethenformation om. jamesadon sai t power dlare w ilus e poweofudging t causeof war and i's llan exclusivelvestedn the giature. th is congre, t e ecive. it's core a we coin t say co as you said f mites agabt r adsh, we wl fin $5.6 biiotoivthprident to continue to bb in libya and aq cler s to thfit th iarabt e defee thoury but s tt we are breaki t dense oth cotr seetary geand general dempseof already said 13 lle e of t mosetca budget yea f o mity. st:ilgoo xe d t
republican le. he. listene, 0% i'a etm ten se. the biggest prlem i have seen isha when we we eswa, weed that --e stthem on a licabas. --e we em on a potical si wendp walking ayik iq d sellheround had. if iisheilof the fm anfitsi amic point of view, igr th oerouryhould be involved oiouslythey a n very concerned. wdecide that weeetoe ene let's fit em n'have a psintayg araning whhath cts ll be. giveo e liryndet
em do . thk we c hdlth a iprtyho oerndt ulbe eensive 'm rtainlnofoth. es let me fit tnkon r e rve our nion in e vietnam r. a areciate hi being a veteran anth's thpot that atrng to s tt its wor t fanal veme and me poany, e inveme er unme anwon give e fe o th cnt, t'foowhe constuon and le's ba. but thpridt y ngssi ed forouo cle war and gooeft i ter the hadistnd wt iso aecrationf w uned stas meca and en do ate edoo he o topfus the r, t tngwe neeto d one ofhe bge tnas at ciniso kearefur ntly and psilly wode fr ahast a iq. are n ppad r that t. it wilberiio odollars anth'do t rd.
i's mi. host aou yes ve a th we hpe woulde reilng uprt dlarati of war d wod isind authizioofilaryor isncit's pce ada hifralora,t is stune, wha t niol fee authizatioacanhe d anmeme that ul suetotth aumf'snde sthaby0 4votes. on you p tse this plac 's rd to t em t. erore, l'dot e nstuon ss d to th amic pplanay wwi ha tpafothis w now, t moow. we will ve datin ngssnde lleclare r. stilgooaran indepeen cle caerheast time ias
terested ibeg aeplin s enisenhor s ofcendarnggast miliryndtrl cpl. iflleplicans tald as inlligeny as y d iou be intesd ai thkt'wonderl at meerf ur par h t coagtope uli ts. thatlanreed grnsn tid de id e as we went into iraqas r oil. i nevereardhabeg blized pnt s t inrvw t thk w t cpa dyoev g phbk omoureblanears ouththgs you say? guest:ne qckto -wh i me o ain t iq war ck in 2005, theepliis ju lt e usof prentives a o omy art ies d ilonof dcanest fen, hut ni.
and he id jon isoming t ait e r. duanunr meoe d idalter, i hate tl you desve to be a nkgemr wh repuic surgesheouse b iant ggt you become t rki meer oheubcommtee beuseou'llutitth democrats g o o iraq and w right i would. evtuallyid. i joined theas and f a timeble toeturros out iq. wead no nning ragy th'wi t gentlemanai earlr. we did not have a winng strategy atneim sdam hueiwa ou frien donaldumsfelunr e leadshf presint reagan i have a cte dal moms ft thainsaam ssn d akg s hand.
wld have be eieif dd, wld have slappe him down inste otanghe out andreinthe jihadist nng ound t world oufaen poly has ltor e last5ea. host sombeevth a nngtrateg oisiss geri obyheer aasd in sya. gut: yesterd iea tt x or seven syrian liry reeheaded. ha aeengha assads an evil man b i think his so antisis as ll stedrdoh, mocrat caer. haho iantoay thwa start w t republans -- it was l and that's wh it's always been. l of is is him esen obamaowows iryg to g a set setng
--o get us o osomethg. es i wldgr thai ve saidanti that we wer nilad aasal me r cions bad o formatn that hadeen manipulated whh is bically a litoo intora age th him totn that. the president ampeseut'm blinth proces thprocess is whai have oblemsit ats . stapnshamroba is the presint if thiwaa puic present, iou bupt th the pce. he a reonbilityo the op othis cnt tdete ese issues on e ooof the usanwere not debing the su. we' alwaysange are fine with $5.6 billn ge the pridtnde ll g t money to h, st keep doing atouant to do, mr. esent. th inot aboutba.
iss ouour constitutial reonbity and i a dippointed we d't haveor debatewh wse these kid toie i ha sned ov 100 leer ta npre this but've gned 11,00etterso famiesn thisouryecse of m wkness to ve conscicen the cker i will aays --n e aq war. i lle ospen wheit metoenngur kids t dive because wha a constitution ande ould follow theonitio host: 100leers to wm? guest:amieand exnded fali, lostov ones iraq and some ahast. st not jt from your diri? es no ', across ts uny. the w t proce wor, ry quicy, is if aolers ll or wter,he liaon fi wl ntact theamy d y ulyou li to reiva console a -a nden ltemeer of ngss
i haveigd er1,000 letters. host and in atapogin foyo ve? guest: yes 'am i have aoothick wi response lte tmy condolence lte. i have nereabuone beusitres my heart. iave sad tm. whev happenshei'go, mee willave them,ut op respo back to mand i nto say, i wish u ul nodo thibeusi de bad desi. on twitr, yr inof her cotrs lpg fight ait is ybotr uniefeel we starte it, we ou fisit. gues i do't disaeeit that, t e point isife are not art eugto s irit, i - age th that. wero. e problem is, a ting to
thaworld, a culte habe ts y for thounds ofea, d thinke n an? that is whyth cntries in e ddle east needo be inlv. they betr undeta t cuure. nosoucwi il. buthpot , we a not gog dit ho:loda,usisex puic. caller: i kw u presena t min. amispotewh you he d sd. am vtn veran. mess,oueoe- errehis the cotiti tt you are ppedosetotop this ki olawlessness. if youru fl thate are inis wronghocan yosi uphe and n bvongor
imacenofhe genem f wh his doing? you are senngeno e. u e ingo ve him biio odoars wiouan dearion ofnyin ho: let the conesan respond. u yavmissed whaheai earlie gut:ha y f yr rve tounaon i nto ste this wh psint obama bypasd congsso mbib, puin t hse se esutn th we would impeh prident oypsecoress wiou provoti tbo anhecotr age thou acal ved f areou voti bdeis kinh impeach gegeus at is maerf co. i rewi you. e nstituonee tbe llowed. he saidhat
abt tesod. thcotition ndso foowed a warno dng ani amthleerip warspeaki wh walt jes from noh cali, ss t aed rvesomtt. he rrentththird distct of nth carola,erd t north caronaeneralssembl n e0eafo yrs rtcali nional ar and a form binsm. bert iban ug losiana. tnkouoralng. caerictoaltoou thes arng to se bl ratnsate withhe erprg? aocitie barric inead of insri a inmiti, okg like eemighter a ty puinthavagpeonn e arab strts?
eier thearinmited or gn in or a n cdeing puic, my of uwod keheto do. kw, this, sly,s w yo can bncrady ei aum bng behded, i n undstd. but thissulturehais daers culte. him foriginis. i ink th a elndee toe imat, t d't think amiccagohiroe lone, d i don't inweanontinue to rr mey from foig govements denthe govemes. trere, weave to com ck ande veo ve policyla, atn pion nes be detein t core of thuned stas, d voten uorow i want presidentoayhi
iso ris,e e lkg abt 1to 20 reears to wi th w. i n'are what aonsa, thiss war. i uerand our cotris dprole a war wearinououmita. the is a rv tt u y haveeen a few ekag th mityoenobeevin tting otonhe gun tt re invey "t mine tim." hav dat thais o reonbility. the jihast gupardog rtn in tenure peoplehorefrkl ine ofel dyothk ernes to bbos t grounin deto defeatsis? gut: n at th te. amotonvinc. asaitoecta hel,
gi mth saty, givme e dpoint saw 12ears of oumean won inkiedndor o, limbs gone,n aq. lo aafghantan. righnoweren e pcess of waiting forheew adersh oafantato sign aileral sategic reemeno eps therfo 10oryes. have notald outh anha n te. ths another obliti f 10 moryes. wl duce the nber of oo ce but weilstl ma blis dlars o instnt yohave had t ipeor neral oyohoanheas lk abo tas, au anabe ahast. st:hiis a "washingt tki about the ghan w fal chaer. thu. will basebo 10 and may
rein thebity to us aac las to suppo lal fors tith. obert -exse . sierran lirn. puic. oomorning. question toou- d the atemen u ve spon that thiis a poticalarhawe have emrk o a iis congrs' timate rig tchsehe directioth t utestates avs this. my queioto you i iis a potil r. how come dnoha t otrouri finanally doti oleing thr asss r e it stetoome in d otect eicountries? wereotust their otti
our rightsbut were precting theiroury, thr liveliho, ei civilians, n, wom, and ilen guest:hank y f t statement. ats what i he enryg cvefothe last 3 mite th is wh i'm yi. th imyrustraon. ats why'm outsken. ork with conseatesnd libelsn isss of w d the invoemt o countr a the lk rpe for thcotiti bmeers of cgrshoonnue to loanprident tonnue to commiurroops d end thmoy that we do n he. u idt well whe are e othecotrs? th drop few bombs and everneays th a iold. the coition t iqar was aosze. you coay the topfr yugoslaviandth countries, s, ty went, anitasic for them tdo tt,ut it
alyshemeca carryhe brunofheoa st iepdent clein austin, xas. gut:oomoin --caller:oomoin representave suld be more iornt issuinur count. sms le lot ofeoe nto eep itnder the rug. u ow tse fur. most a trillio dlars - alst2 trilon sce001. ,0 peopl wouedn these wa. whishis not sething that n errace, everdiri across theoury iteems like people just nt shohawere war-fiting cnt and we are the ptect them, and that just r cse wellive a odife, b
thenga, want to kk the let theoadnd ople ithnext gerion pafoth. i ju wantetoncrageou continue wk withol acssheis, a ts progm es gatobf informinpele i will te y pef sponse u veffhe air. apeciate your svi. es thankouor those coen. i llelyowhat it wi ta. thoutart debatg raing the taxes arin peop to pafothwa now, d not lat, or y itite the dra. hink-- thisi war habe fghbyesth 1%f eopatn. thk e jotyf ameran , cee, li you a i
ouou top we wa t be for tm. dnoant toeehedie ore und. yet,t one othe things, unss youava mi mbe th is ovhe, you not thk out it dlylikely debated rsi tas and paying f t wnd now and nolar,nde lked abt initing thdrt. st ty spotsvaa, virgia gohe. h gta, coreman jones. i'm intosk somsiliic eson yotohed on raisingax. itusee le igoing be onhe bac of amecans --vegemecans w he toorha f aivg r waweidotskor asoulely state wwere drgein it, many of u
.ie, undal prext okt wherw'ret n. h cat aho vuum of prle asars going toars coerned, enf conesdi vo f i io't ow that i ulage witht, onl cause you n kw wt e d lle en youre dealing th steless emy. in termsfax, how y in time en the tial dats at workers e t inpa enoug wages ar staanorraondo t wanto me than wha they fl they sul smsike cooratio a al unwilngo ve i their ownountry they wldatr oshe ei ownon.
at lea mvis at rporationsreotayg ough into e xofrs int ouowcotry, so you ar asngeoe likee- d thwa igr wh y, so fa havlid erhi y said, t is questn oo out toe. host:e t eryoargog thhi gut:hank you vy muchan igree, i d't nto e taxeon themecapele i amot wl-to-dmabui bless. i llay thi g t arican people voed -- th ithpot watrngo make. appreciateouakg at infome i tinto say, ts congss- if bill w inodedndhey brghit wewd toebe d sd ll debe isg e xeon the eraneoe pay f
thwar, en we ulgeth peoplenvve thisoes back ta ini s ki elier, d alle dearlier, thamic peopleeetondstd that ate are inin wasngton they needo be iold. ift kea lloet peoe inlved to n s taxes raised mbehey do notan toee us mm a othe troo orss. it tieinneayr e he its th taxes or e dft get pp's tentio ha dtrt era t pelereurng rig w d amurting witth. i tedf ei js overse. th ianher ise for other me. bui'wi y, u made som grt in. st cumbia tyinan de, lce to t coerti. call: thankou bo oyodeserva t t ck u ou be prd wt u're dngod.
i amnef ose injured soie. i am cbat iraq ver w rired becau oinri suained the line duty. my spefic points,ig now, comnsio is upttg my ay retemt threonorhais becse waeted at 17ea o seic wasze,hacoenti createtory to id that ga b ianetou kw,he amou omoney thatsfft is my eirar riremen pay. i do not fl atomod wh 20 yrsf rvice is gointo ti bause omeca anyo i le did lie, conesan jes, ar in pitno ssect is n heixhis where do
my eirar rirement pa fset, enhoh am receiving mb rat speci coensati. hiisn iue that, agn,oebacko -- are gog to he aifcu015 -for tht mitaes and retiree -th buetilbe in frile ste. i ll look into this issue u ought m if youavbeen iur in wa ti ithis count, u serve everyenefit you can t. i wi aure you, my sff is obly watinba ith office we will g this and oknt the ise. erare a t of iue the moy tuio is wh g u staed on e ow. t i ameronrn tt for
rwoded, o retirees, whe weetnt20, it wl be a ffenyear. if ware spdi all oth moy atouhod minute agon these other unie how can we takcare of dn' prlems? are weoi tcu h a pele likeimecsee e spennghimoyveeas, anthose untries arno seing their troo oth ground that ithpoint of me being reod. nn is om upper rlromaland, a democr. caer iava mmt and a quti. th count, fathewain worlwar, so i'prtyld o brotrs ondi, one ledhrough rlwaii my husnd in t keawar. a phew in thvinam wa at i wt know iwhen has
this cnt not been ar wre alwayin theore -- . ou forourk fal's mmitment tour uny svi o nation in the miliry th is the problem ware trng to make. foso lon we have bn e poli of the wod. if there is prlehe, send o troopov there to gh t te changth ige it iime to be strong untry th a strong military buno tintoakca of otr unieproblems. th iwhe we get osees into trole. ds impacour buetth buetf reterans, t buetf r militarynd retireesanseoritizen meca to ke up a lk t pories of r untry. let's startoave those bas. let' notetny predent, mocratr republican, comt
r oops who flonghe constution host:esrd, the steering cmieea puican me s sehahehod be t nt aian of e committe erd on the pel you do notece o becomes e mmtee cirth republicanearso, t who yr choice? - gst:ik bo oth. maybe u could have seo el fm e outside talk abo that. eyavto havthe abitto ismoney for the rt bot qualify. ho: wt out your snce on is? itous like you disrewi bo of th. i he plne i afor deatg isis but i want see a policy wrethountri
in theor js uay. if the ionamic, t' veneau sdi. w p aolr , ey put doarn. have en carryinth burn t wldor too long and we nn aorto do amo. host p,e arrom pridt ama onhettk in rule that kill tee ameranabbis. thats lledy us rubcaan moatic lde. lar,wo heangonhe glal resnstohevi oure iwe aic ou t hrs a in th seteth failed to pass th keysto pele blt onred byenor mar lari. thbi fl short byneote. setor ldru fes runoff inouia on ceer 6
ainst prentive bl ssidy osketo bill passed laswe in thhoe. e bilwod lir l om bea the gf cst a is exct to beak u by th reblicanonesinanry ne, remas presint oma t ddlatckn jeruleth kild five. hi cmes meefe meinwith h ebola response am it is 10 mut. >> 'veot my teamertoal about ebolaut before i do i wa tmake mti othe horrif attkshato pce jusalem attacrswo seelesslanbral attacked innoct rspe a aynog during thr rng prer obouy, we conde ithe strongt termshese attac.
a nuerf op we und anoueoe reilled cling the eran tins. reas out tth uering trenus gefight n. crary kerry has ok t pre nieretya. bbas h -- presidt coemned the aac tragiclyhis isot the rslo olife wha sn. o nysrlian pastia he ed. it isdiictim poanfobo pesnis dsrli ttrtoor tother to lorenonnd rect violenc e rds dareest e ndf extresm tha threatens bngllf e midd east
apira from icit is ryifficu to emge is vionccagewoe er me tthe rinurlv e jotyf paleinnsnd israisveheingly nt ae rsehe families kwi ty e fe and cu. the ited statewas more omll paresnvved to makehaa reality i w nto turno the pi of thimein tbola siatn. obouy, somofhe aenon vethecsiha eed la ser wksut alng rai weavse mt reny . caa, sgeon w coraedbo isira
lldeing with transrey. chs ewt aling th the a viryoa, make sure u vepionfr a de ki se e a, if theyse da tma aecision, that da h tbeadpublic befo a disn n me. anth ao r n joty whip, e bill on nufacturin i eited authathe new arris. i me cid out wh a w eranonesbrings amusdippnt about at hr in the wteou. i owherede, kn t moats ha tirearship ce tod. sath suaon befe when i camen in 26. thonthg i wi s. ifherede h t yrs wi t housendene d did noinon immigraonut he wl t alloth n
ngss to nve fo w have aoprtunittoo meinabout , i thk shld retnkhaoprtit this ek, the hoe ll ntueurocus ocrti jobsndetnghe ecomy ba on trk. you lk what d las we, took a quk ti t coin tpush the keyste pili to thprident' desk. wh was t psin's response? he issued a tohrt and then trd he behi ts coepthat hnes to kp udyinghess. this issueaseestudied mo than maybe anyipinin america's histy. fosiyears, this adniraon hasidn hi stiewhe evernehat ha looked aithod ve foard. thameric peoplartid e esenhiding behd uds. eyanthose 40,0 jobs d creaseengyecitinur untry. eyo t want sixoryes
oftueshi cnari t kehose js away froou uny. yeery,herede iue veto teats on thbis at wereoving forward ts we. i wi tk outh leslioi moveouof the energyndomrccoite prome manufaurg at. th bl woulbrg certain t rulory preswhere agci le e a meut wi reshere ty veo way toe mid t rl world,uthebrg emut to continue so ric and th would kill jo iamic and crseeople'hoehold eltritco. we sayhe suld be increas transparcyy e admisttion. bere theilhaev med thugthlegislative pres where it c bdeteonhe floor, therede iuea to thrt befo halw the ocs fish, whichs otr ame ate is n seouabt arg e meagfr t arican op
that thewa h two with ngress. ineaofetng congrs stt e process of wki thugthsss,e just si bininheval ofce and sues vo reats bls th have not ss. e esenneeds eage d ttg the onomy vi agn. thhoe lleeoulaser focus g js vi in the country. it is time forherede to engagen thatrocesss ll. >>ast we, nyf snt me at homen r stct nongnd paying ibe r tens. founel t beau of labor atti h rord th o youngetan peally thosef e 11 er a suggling more wh unplme tn the jority of our wk rc th is why thhoe s en fosed li aaser on hein peopleetactooran
lpg is economyetacon rmfinancial oting. weassed e re more heroes acov tthsete. are calli othseteo take up that pcef giation. eranetanshld not ha to wait for aewene seateinanuary to cee me hel the tensesven portuny. whetr iineanghe portuniefobeer health ca, better mtal heth, lding e a. accountableor geina tt job, will lphewi that. i appcie u ming u for our rst prs nfence. i d a chanceo ivoufrom wisconsin a colef ysgo thy son. wead snowstorm thing ans. we had a lotf aly me. asnyarent, today, thk oumyo's futu. as i lk jk, kw other
pares are okg theirwn kids gduating from hh scolcolleg a ty e loinathaoprtunities exist r eir ne-geratio i think it loo pttblk rit w. ashelink tthis town,he wa uto wortoth. they wt us to wo o solutionth advan opportities t ly for the bufothnext gerion. toortoth, thateans w needeplinsnd democra singing f e mehe of muc. wereilng to tt. wereilngo work on ea thatilgr opportunies and jobs and all pplth pathway in a better yi jo nd the presidentoel us weeethe pridt engag spe t psint in 2008. he said, tni t page ugly partisanship whiton to bngemocrats a publicans togethero ssn en tt workfoth
amican ppl paissh ds not just work when you have moatically contrlesete anhoe. itor wn you ve a did gornnt w rehaev wn ed the presentonge th us d work with uso c gw oprtunits and jobs sulnot be poking his ng itheye of the core borweavan opportunity wk its ll let's ghtoth f t amic people. i ho t psidentill extend hiha and wcajoin up and fit r e op. [audibl
evyo fm e ader on dn with t hseemocrac leaderip f hinbe reelecd o ccu i nto ngratuteur west mbe othleadership am newe .on t moat cgressial mpgnomtt cirn. e ad wl recogzing th. we arehrletoavth b pa oouleerip tea think cayitut any servatn at docts ce reinudg r we meer ppared two o belff the eraneoe. thamic peoplwa uto t in de. theyans tooc ogeing e dd cssactohe ithod be. eyans the wking amics detand tt th ge hd ys wor the are gointo get pai right a beble tse tirids to
go cle. weanheth ce b sothg ernean enj. so that hltseri wl be ere fhe kw ate he me chalng bor u weooforwartoorngit pridt ama toake sure th notnlilthamic pelee surinhe held d abro, cuconomicall sere fanaln ei nehborhos, and kwing tt e futu wl be pspou fothr ilen moatarrey ld. tbeshy demra r partf e mocrat leeripn e use. th iwhy werehrleto rkitoucoeaesn e repuic sideo t in do for t arin ople. wi tt,urear,an pelosi. tnkoumr. chairm.
mylf witthrerkof nada sahn rmof the ber -shnchrm iner oth poritie impta t contuehe cveatn ou whe we we en prede obama . aiaianf e f th iweidotct b moaywe would n he ony. is ate id seemrf 2008. th w t stef r ony fo psint obama to oic efitto office, t waoneoi $ trillion. inow unr 00ilon plme -unplme is unr . e rk iov 17,00
6 raight mont ojocrti. millio opeopleavhealth sunc the mh re pite da . stil t amerin op fl ceaiy. ey werscedy at ppenednepmber of 2008. while e econy is irong it hasoteaedheeoe att edtoea, the dd css saries veoteen coen oitit the proes th our econo imang its al tted toheig en aieme b w cannotavth achvent be athexploitation ofmec's rks. muchorneeds to bdo.
peapwiouall thbig moy urg in fm ecl terest to coter our arme and drown o, rhs in a rm course of coneson debatee n kele ts stinctn tween wherwe were the t ph a o now, andhe attpt bso to ta us rit ck where w we. ovoiceemd that yield the distinguhehoe democrat wp, mr. hoy. >> tnk you vermu, da leader congralationtolly llgun e exprsi o coidcehathaus s vetollf u. i okorwardo rking osy thou. this was a tghleion. w aough ection r e american peoe. e eran peoe e prenve. about t fur 5 of uha t tngs in
mm. a, we are all amics. b,e veeen se here our nehbs make era work tt. we he at resnsily. is learseawill responin pite w t working togetheroui a that -- acomy prid joborllf r peop, tt all our peopleanakit in amera. cgrs has se rk that it sti ndso . we nd asn aroiaon ll weeed toasa fee thizion bill. nd ps e rrorism risknsan billo that nstructionanoveorrd o a mb oprojec. d nd dother thin as wel
toake sure that eyo not lae. e veondee thecom sit canroand crte more jo. ointeduti rrtly, we arinarfa betterha tay than we were juaf 29 when esidenoba became pridt. the areothe eran peoe want us b and were nothe wwa to be a going to workerha tother a lk rwd woinwiur replin coeagues iseing corose d rwd mement wherwe can findt. ur mreblicanolags d my democticoeaes not llow that wche nnot tt which c agree. arin op expectf . th iwhat ty ntf . if we that, weill
rensllheondence congre tt r ople oht he and wt tha. w am pleedoield tmy ar friendwho has be unanimslreecd t asstt ad othe ithhoec ccu reprentiv, m ybn stharina. >>ha y very ch higuhe lders 11h cgrs, ia eare r to be here, reeleed to e aisntemocratic lead poti. loorrdo the alleng th we alha goingorrd sai ts s toh econ itf uleahi afr the ection i ve spoken lgth wi o ad a ihank her smu olinme an extend
going rwd. sohane yr can bin to roc o attti o middle incomhere iamica. i inalofs veee readin -- amarcurl l's most rece secinhi s stedhat the thing at boths rosisheac th or the st0, yrs weaveeethupr ith cotraid % their al a t ler 95% only %. thinmenealy at is ithcotry today is meinthat ts ccuis intoocus le lasen to me se atvebo that aoti rovy
fepelerenjoyin i okorrdoorngith the mbersf congresso t all ts nend a plsenoto yldo e jo ect veha clur ha y. wa tjo jim and m colleaguesn ngtuti a myolags eectn. its horo rvinhe hoe. todo atisnction, be ect byo colleagueas memberf us ldehiis erelng wefttis eak abt the spt wcoecvely he he f t arin ppl. i ul sgest tt is teoowe all cleively reec t disn our coeaesn e moat uc amu awelsik thdesi as we.
moy h sd and r adai trerehis sssrwardotali wl eag i we wl wki oalthose sues a bng aar of ho th agendinan rpes moed thisear, wha aumber su tt ilne tbe areed. o e worwa, mbers o lleiigorate u inhe14 cgrs tdohe rkf e eran pple, t streth t mdle cla not seite c aitas by e repuican ccu th tha i turn itack tohe ader. >>e c me ueio. iuswant tthank my
coeaescoratula eh d erone of thefoth leaderipol they ll py d e suppt ey havinhe usdecratic caus. is hbling to b ected leer by youraucus. pa oithat i particully owe ndte rsves whepresidt bush s esidenwasothg ho t repubca c ela weisre wh him erwe thearn iraqnd ivizing ci secit b asr.oyai wdino leppition and in theay ofooraon one of th biesengyil in th hiorofur courywhhe itasurtilus pka whh ally did help or op, whether it w iues th rattohess of e
presids vy ouofis iniaveor dru inrnioll for fhting aids asr. hoyer w sinov m ouerth tp. septembe 18, 2008. sportedheredent o tarp wn s n part abdod m. willnitiatesak by presidt obamsuord bys tmsf e coryacge d he tngs, the affordle carect, wereblo reduce thdecit, iree job eaonnd do my in in piteay ttake us in nedirection. this this w republic cgrs dngs ri a lawyer to sue the esident. l'sop tt is jt r
uc csumpti a when comes wkiweincommon ou. we he oigiotory. wi tt,nyueions y m ha. aucusoth day, e sentetreirating the coern f sioeady. thats meinyou talked .bt wa wonri iyocod ve a rpoe tt tter. esctheie othe black ucus ites what eivi oits. e syrian pic cmiee allecme aemr om e committee withoutegd seniory to taus as the rainemr chama pefull one d sn. doelieve that ma of ou
, adam whave now it elijaumng w el? erarthers who were n the seoremrs on ei coite enhey were coend t committee we can gback ihior peoplhoou n be the. it a differencof opion in e uc. i lie we mt have theos tanted peoplan that niity makes u onnd bu ido not me u chrm. its t dermation. myth cleueand i wish are that. >>hadoou makof this teia ppolf bill to
alw e vernment tbe funded and tn bk te d rescind se of tt ndg foa tentiaexute de aunwato get shdo in decemb? whaweave heard omur nking membnhe comtt ishawe do't knowhath coittee gngo . whheits a srterm r atever. were waing to see athat is i ulejt treison itou most kely be vetoed t psident all he vieabout that flyhenow opalut dknow this.
hough speaker boehr d e congajiteader ve idhawe ndo t r uny atae th weo t t oa ab pa wh e thout thatou y rci setime in the nr term gw ris not howe econy, catjo a me our econy tt. i wod he e puic adsh wldome to agemt. ourains. lowy memberan to doha i knowhaal rogerhama ofheppprtions mmtee, was dth. ths e stoly for is stution. chorimrttly, it ishe stolyortalingnd growg r econy d eang moreobs. ra lauro,anng mber onheab and hlt edation subcommite apopatns. submmte oy
ts couny,ndspecially t aashi lorealth d maseic picksp, ich hato do withorr trni, omic reah-- d heee our healt infrasucre betwe 2010nd 2014 aolel decimedith th n a t c. the e critical iornt tts and he ulbe thate n me t a dision d llation r os amiein o isountryreelng on for eifure , tsf decon --ndr. boy pntedut, ere mabehe wl t han't seharely
motredn cmittee for uto movfoard onll2 apopatns a oju adtialompone of th. ,lveheemrac pty n e or 2 of us 3tcore w a moat wl te ovwhelmily, oveheiny r oib csienwi th ryamurra agrment. itasdoedy the ngss t ute ste it mtsheie of o rainmeerndr.ogs and . w we he agemt. miew, i thi wwi he erelminguprto at puicans ll sporthe
plementation othe haisonstt withhegrme sth w fu t priits atre poanfoour cotr wl nd siifant, sonuprtn r def e sl e probm , fortunel th c' fd at suprtn theisi oth ale >>indie] rertha qstned the amntf nfence your ll decrs ven u. othe support i ve receivefr mmeer of the caus. i d ne tor aer they encrad me dso re very nfident ani io frklibat. think the usdecrs kno thhewe go o treo
keheig f wking famili in ououryweno of whawepe. werelo tou constients. we knoofhe cllge thr pitis, the anets. wenothleslivpress. whe ermabe few pple whartaing tohere overwhmilyi feel ver stngthened ancouraged by thuprt my llgu have ac ime i've eit tt m clur said,hiishe0t annivearofheotg gh ac heill be takg e ad for voter engent threasono gierth reono te iaelyleedhamr wi b chainur mmunicio a polic iniave its ry importa f uto nete, by lisni t memberinhe ccu b lieng aio oth
policyomtt, eriits and e sitiveniateso end andede- pefully en buceaiy redence eqli ioucotr he ar vuein our uc. he greareecfoea otr'leslivabilit me confiden gog tn i doow >>ouaid th i was impoanth docts ntueheonversio tha sttewith psidentba in 20. i'm ndin genhe , y wl look t rublicaxalef w they werab t flip i01 ifhais melouanoo to, h y are arohi thne two yrs ielve somofhe puicod iotas on
fact. would t nto pyha model. to e te tt caengeheubc unrsndhaha happed queralyi woulho i wod helphae e ndof puics. this isbo t arican op. aat we wt, iniatives th hp e americaneoe. peoplebeuse of00 were coerd outheir jobs, eir was,he he owrship, t ecaonf eichdr, eirpeio, loofhaistill existing. flill do not confent. oumodel is to ma se peop undersndhathe chcear he. wn hem time, that conversiocongutf li a communicationsour model aut flong abrah
liol anhereblan. i llolw s model. public sentints erythi. it is one thg bie i althgo tng it ianhethg t have gislative oposalto g foar ianother thing soo ke reheubc uerands wt gngn. feel cfintbo where we started witbuding lte of oppouny r op w wt wk hd,hathey can hp ale the eran dam de, e issuf e ddle reatinsrt, th goodaying bser in era, buiinth inasucref our untry, ki higherduti afrdle andavg equal pay foeql work, there iniaves that are ry ppteby the ameca people. sure eyveoake