tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 28, 2013 7:00am-9:01am EDT
on immigration at 8:20 eastern with representative luis , a member of the hispanic immigration task force. host: the a nays areys are 68, the 32. host: with immigration moves to the house. good morning on this friday, june 28, 2013. a $60 billion price tag. it would also require the construction of 700 miles of fencing, doubling the number of border patrol agents, and require employers to use the government's e-verify system.
we will begin with yet a's boat and the senate legislation to get your thoughts. the numbers -- send us a tweet @ twitter.com/cspanwj. you can also e-mail us. let me begin with the front page of "the washington post closed " this morning -- and "the washington times" with the list of 14 senators that voted with democrats --
the four republicans of that so- called "gain of eight" voting for the legislation yesterday. what you think about what happens next? the house is uncertain. we will show you what house speaker john they had to say yes today before that vote took place. back to you "the washington post tose " this morning -- back "the washington post closed "
here are some actions the house may take -- michael in new york, republican, you are up first. caller: thank you. i think everyone, irrespective of their political beliefs, i think he will find the majority of americans are in support of many of the broad aspects of this bill that the senate passed it today. passed yesterday. the major challenge at the house of representatives is the expense of good feedback of ridiculous things that have been
added into this bill. if you were to vote on the bill as is, approval of the bill would not be so much approving an immigration bill, but fiscal responsibility. i believe included in this bill as it stands today there is a clause that has been inserted that includes giving away cars. in the past we have seen how the government was giving away cell phones, if they get involved in giving cars, what is next? the majority of the bill was written by a shock schumer -- written by chuck schumer. of these other people to fill this bill with the expense of garbage is nonsense. host: where did you hear that about the cars? the papers this morning -- reporters did not have quite
enough time as a to delve into it. caller: it was on the radio the other day that one of the aspects they were trying to insert into the bill was now would be giving away cars. the cell phone thing is ridiculous enough. if you want itself on by it, if you cannot afford it did a job. the government does not know anyone the right to have a cell phone. host: it sounds like we will have to wait and see what is in that legislation. let's go to richard in florida, an independent caller. hello. caller: good morning. thgood morning. caller: the bill is a really bad bill. it is obvious to most american citizens that this congress will not protect our southwest border.
9/11 wed think after would close the border and get control on who comes in and who leaves the country. they have no more control than what they had before 9/11. it sounds like you have been watching this debate. they approved an amendment that has been called a "border would ammendment, that double the amount of agents on the border. $46 billion over 10 years would be added to border security. have a government that does not believe in law or in the rule of law. they were supposed to close the border a long time ago. it is law. they refused to do it because of planned politics. not the security of the
country and people -- we need leaders that will obey the rule of law, that will work with people, and not special interests. there is going to be 50,000 people pouring into this country. it will raise unemployment, it will lower the wage, it would do a lot of negative things, it will put stress on the safety education,th care, security, incarceration where we have thousands of illegals in the prison system. did you vote for senator ?ubio caller caller: i did it, i will never vote for him again. host: let me show that list of
we are getting your take on the senate passing an immigration reform bill 68-32. republicans reject -- republicans -- next in colorado, a democratic caller. go ahead. surprisedam not too that people are listening to rush limbaugh on the radio. we expect this kind of baloney for the next six to 12 months until hopefully we can get some kind of bill passed. the only problem i have with the bill is i think 13 years is a longtime to ask people to wait that have been working and paying taxes for 20 or 25 years
bob, indiana, republican caller. hello. caller: good morning. the administration is going to entirely on the border patrol and i do not trust these people. they did not enforce laws that are on the books that they do not like. how are we supposed to feel good about this? -- the 14t primary should be primary it? john mccain has been in there for too long.
to debra,ill go on a democratic caller. caller: it seems like everyone is panicking. everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that the obama administration, over the past -- over to five years the past four 0.5 to five years, has deported more illegals than any demonstration in tended to 20 years -- than any administration in tend to 20 years. illinois, gorom ahead. these 14 think republicans betrayed their party. borderent of current patrol officers are laid off right now. they have not even hired the ones they have laid off and they
are not going to hire any more new ones because they haven't employed the ones to have. i think john mccain picks a fight with the tea party and he is going to have it rough time. opposed to a pathway to citizenship out rate? no path right to citizenship even with this beef up border security in the senate bill? big andthe bill is so they're so much extra stuff in it. they have broken the law and i realize they are here. there have to be a better answer than just letting them break the law and getting away with it. if they do not respect our country and our laws how are the coin to respect everything else in the future? ,ost: here is an editorial
the only editorial in the national papers today -- here is of the speaker had to say is a day before that vote was taken. [video clip] legislation, including a conference report, to pass the house it would have to be the bill that has the support the majority of our members. immigration reform has to be grounded in real border security. it is what the american people believe and it is a principle that are majority believes in as well. chairman good lad is doing a
good job at it missionary committee. if immigration reform is went to work is essential that the american people have the confidence that it is being done correctly. was john boehner yes today talking about prospects of that bill coming of the to the house and what house would do next. july 10 is the big day. they will be coming back from their july 4 recess and meeting behind closed doors to discuss which way to go behind this issue. we took to the 14 senators that voted for this legislation. "the wall street journal" this morning reports this -- that is why day, among other democrats, supported the legislation. a republican caller, maryland. hello.
toler: i can say goodbye marco rubio. the border needs to be secured. you cannot trust the government. they have not finished -- that is all i have to say. they need to secure it. goodbye republican party. host: do you think this is going to be tougher roc -- tough for marco rubio? caller: you better believe it. we may be different in south florida. i really liked him, i thought he was a great presidential candidate. host: did you vote for him for senate? caller: and certainly did. herald," --s "miami
bella on twitter wonders this -- lee from north carolina, a democratic caller. hello. you're on the air. we lost him. jim from hamilton, montana. an independent caller. hello. caller: a beautiful view from your window. eighth this is going to fail like all other bills. there is nothing for them down there. to the mexican government, every $2 you put up the u.s. government will put up $1. we could make them the food and vegetable capital of the world.
we could do so many more things and they would rather stay down there. mexico is the land they love. until we start getting businesses down there so everybody can have good work -- you do not see our neighbors from the north in canada coming down to america like that. let us build the country up, let us give people a reason to want to stay in mexico. we will keep getting your thoughts this morning on what the senate tydeus today, passing the immigration bill 68-32. at the front page of "the washington post" --
that about that investigation. we are talking about the senate bill passing immigration legislation yesterday. what a to show you republican of iowa had to say here in the senate in 1986 when they pass legislation then. he voted yes then. he has now been opposed to any immigration legislation. here is what he had to say on the senate floor yesterday. [video clip] >> they said their plan would be " tin -- would be "contingent on that success be " a dozen safety border have to be
secured and we have to see results. it only throws more money on the problem, put more boots on the ground. that is a good start but as we have seen before that is not enough. it is not enough to ensure that we will not be back here and it simply is 25 years down the road, and devising new planes. we will show you what proponent had to say before that vote took place. we are getting your thoughts, what you think about the senate bill? those that were advocating for put more pressure on the house. this on twitter -- jim in hamilton montana, what are your thoughts? i think that they are
good, hard-working people, but they do not have any jobs down there. that is why they keep coming up here. mexico,would work with tell them to bring their people back home, we have a lot of work to do. americans whoof work too. be surrounded by canada and mexico, everybody would be doing great. rose, a republican caller. hello. i just want to say that these senators are not going to feel the impact, like the average american citizens trying to get work. it is really bad the people are not following the law, just running over to this country,
they should try to better their country so they will be able to get jobs over there. we have problems over here. we do not need added problems. thank you. host: other headlines from "the wall street journal " " this morning -- and open " usa today" -- and open " usa today"'s money section. there is new information about the role that corzine played in the global collapse. about the nsa and the follow-up on edward snowden free chicken --on edwards know when
asylum to snowden. they have been using a preferential trade status to pressure on them. "the washington post" -- that as some of the headlines in to the's papers. carol in california, a democratic caller. caller: hi. host: what are your thoughts in the immigration bill? caller: i live in southern california, my husband and i have been married 60 years. we are very happy with where we live and with our trips to mexico, especially to baja. we have a home down there. sometimes i think that they are really unfair about their trail
-- their portrayal of americans and mexicans, especially in southern california. you would not believe how many americans actually live in mexico, too. especially in their retirement years. we have met so many people down here. i cannot believe how unfair they are. -- heren i ask you this is a tweet -- i am not talking so much about bill, i am talking about the history of california and mexico, especially baja. it has gone on way before california came a state. there are many people of mexican and hispanic heritage that live as our citizens and have been
jonathan allen, who was part of that program, wrote a piece and here is what he had to say beat it what he had to say -- you can watch the program on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern time. the financial times this morning on syria -- those country help -- those countries helping syria out financially. it says here -- also this morning, iraq open to u.s. military's is the headline in "washington post."
in warsaw, indiana, an independent caller, tricia is watching us there. i have a couple of comments. -- key as an elder statesman and he has a lot of experience. i think we should listen to what he has to say on this matter of immigration. i would like to comment to the lady who says it is unfair to make people wait 13 years. it is very unfair to make people, who have gone through the system and are obeying the law, to make them wait to be put behind people who came here
illegally. as far as marco rubio goes, i have the feeling that -- this is .is project all along he is going to be pushing for this. i thought he was a tea party person who cared a lot about the budget and giving us -- and getting us back on track financially. this program is not going to do that from what i see. host: here is a story in "the wall street journal" about rubio rate it -- about rubio --
judy in new york, a republican caller. about them calling surge. the search on closing the border will take place in a 10-year. only happen if the appropriations committee allocate money for it. 11 million illegals will be allowed to bring their entire families over to this state. host: where did you read that caller:? -- read that? caller: i am not sure if it is
on c-span or another channel. gut we will ask luis ierrez. he will be our guest later on. one more thing. there are 11 million people in this country -- 11 million in the people in this country and 12 million people out of work. next in will go to line lynchburg, virginia. caller: good morning i agree with one of your previous callers that says we need to work with mexico to make things better over there so they will not want to come over here is much. a good way to do that would be legalized marijuana, so that we it would get rid of a lot of the violence with the cartels and would expand our economy and theirs as well. host: here is what the
republican of iowa who opposed the legislation had to say -- this is chuck schumer on the floor guest today. [video clip] >> here is what a vote against this bill says, it would be nice to reduce the debt but not help immigrants, nice to grow the not if it helps immigrants, it would be nice to end illegal immigration and our security, but not to help immigrants. those of the three stated reasons. the only reason left to vote against [inaudible] -- [no audio] the support this bill has generated in the senate will make it impossible to anignore. i believe the vote will propel it to pass the house and be placed for signature on the
president paused desk by the end of the year. argument yesterday on the senate floor before they passed that bill 68-32. we are getting your take on that this morning. on twitter -- gail in jamestown, north carolina, a democratic caller. i have a couple of comments. first of all i think the legislator should have worked on as much earlier. everybody is paying to their base, including grand paul and mark rubio. some of the democrats -- i wanted to make this statement. people have been prosecuted for hiring undocumented persons coming into this country? think itt is racist, i
is unjust that all of these employers, hardly any of them have been prosecuted. two-way problem in terms of those who have been hiring illegal immigrants coming into our country. this is a travesty and i believe it is racist at its core. the other thing i would like to mention in terms of helping to document, or if this bill is enacted -- i do not think it will be enacted because the house of representatives, speaker boehner is not going to take it up because he is planning to a political base. if it were enacted i would like to see the united states postal service become a part of helping to verify those individuals coming in. the postal service is being hammered right now, for obvious reasons, and losing money.
where do people first come to receive their mail and the like? the u.s. postal to do a great service by documenting individuals coming in. we are setting up things at airports and things like that, i think it is a total waste of money. host: president obama is on route to south africa to see nelson mandela. his daughter is saying -- the international section of open "the new york times" has this -- in other papers this morning,
john in virginia, a republican caller, what are your thoughts on immigration? caller: good morning. i am an ankle print myself -- an immigrant myself. we act like we have no immigration law in this country. inhave to follow the laws this country. why do we have to talk about immigration laws when we know there are already laws in the
book. it is insane what is going on. applied for my wife. i am a taxpayer, i have paid my dues. changing. people are demanding to change the laws of this country. it is insane. this is a bribery. to clearwater,o florida, an independent. caller: good morning. . am quite happy i would like to comment more -- this is not only for a legal people, it is for legal people and illegal immigrants. i came here on a student visa. i am reading for seven years to get a green card. i still have to wait five more years.
for anyone who wants to stay here legally, 10 to 12 years we time is too much. host: you have been waiting for seven years? what is your status? caller: i am still legal. i am on fec. we did on visa. 20 --rrent present the is in 2003. we reduced the that -- i think that will be a good thing. can you believe this could have with an immigration bill together? we could have done better work.
the republican and house passed a bill last year that the senate killed. now democrats are trying to pass a bill for illegals and the republicans killed that. host: a big week in washington for the supreme court. we have had coverage here on c- span of their decisions on gay marriage as well as the voting rights act. the new york times has a piece this morning -- front page of "the new york times " " this morning. and "usa today" has this piece --
kennedy sided with the below that, in political news, net to pelosi is saying democrats are uniting behind "clinton 2016." democrats uniting behind clinton 2016. lots of story about the marriage in the papers this morning, about how the federal government will do with benefits after the supreme court struck down the defense of marriage act. here is "the wall street journal" --
hosts on the show. i would be too biased. my point is three variations on the 11 million figure that everybody uses -- who is going to process these 11 million people through all this ifmarole of back taxes everybody in government has their job doing what they are doing, how many people are we going to have to hire to try to process all of this? another part of that 11 million is -- who came up with that number, anyhow? how many people here smoke marijuana? i cannot tell me how many people predict how many illegal aliens live in this town. rapids, michigan, an independent college. caller: as far as the colors
of: -- as far as the callers that called in -- if you are between 18 and 25 in this country and you are male and you do not register for the draft, that is a felony. that is a fact. are you going to give amnesty, or something? next, doug collins will be with us and later illinois democrat luis gutierrez will join us. a break and then we will come right back. ♪ >> this sunday, american history tv on c-span 3, murray is the
150th anniversary of the -- commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. of new yorkout city. this particular regiment, the 73rd, was recruited in the fire halls of new york city. the firemen of new york city were asked to call into the army as union soldiers. there would be about 350 of them out here on july 2. they will suffer 46% casualties. the dedication ceremony, the honorable robert d. said this -- actions andtic courage of even a small number of men were aroused and others the highest sentiments and spread them on to a sense of their duty and a greater degree than the chivalrous eloquence of even the most gifted orator."
>> do hundred 50th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg, live coverage sunday begins with historians throughout the day. bake at 5:30 we will take your calls and tweakets. at 8:00 p.m. the commemorative ceremony, followed by a candlelight procession at the national soldiers cemetery. you can submit questions and comments to our sunday guests today at facebook.com /cspanhistory. h." me i had tominal to authorize my financial people to write a check for $450 million a month ago to extend our contract
with the russians to continue to -- because we have not yet brought about the american capability to come in with our commercial crew program. the president's budget calls for $821 million for commercial crew. we are not halfway there. persuade congress that the plan is good and we are going to be efficient users of the taxpayer cost money. i have not been successful on that yet. ofi have told every member congress, 821 million in the 2014 budget is vital if we are making the 2017 date so that americans are transported to face again on american space program. bolden with charles sunday night at 8 on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal"
continues. host: we are back with congressman doug collins, a member of the judiciary committee. what are the prospects of passing the legislation? the senate bill is dead on a rival. there are so many different issues, the house is taken a different approach. right trying to find the answer. it concerns me that, in the words of chuck schumer, the only way you would oppose this is if you had an inherent bigotry about those wanting to be legal. the problem is there are a lot of problems on the bill coming over. you had an amendment that was passed on friday, -- passed on understanding the cost or implementations. not having a good metrics. those are issues that are going
to come up and i think the house has a different feel. host: this is "the hustings to post" -- host -- thengton huffington post" -- will any immigration legislation make it through the house? about it ine talked my district. look at all three. the legal immigration side is that the broken. illegal immigration side, with those already here and those on what we do and the prospect of their moving forward. and also the enforcement side. i think the feeling of the house, and republicans in particular, in 1996 reinforced the mechanisms that would keep
as getting into the issues we were into. and then we do with those that were here illegally. the problemill -- is simply that we are dealing with the legalization status of first and that we are getting through the enforcement part whenever we want to, which we believe will be to the same problem 10 years down the road. that is the definition of insanity. host: to you think something is passed and then you go to conference with the senate? guest: there's also a concern and they thought that is the way it is going to be. there is a concern we get this seventh monstrosity in conference. i think what we are going to see is the voters will make the decision and the next few weeks. we have been passing legislation with internal enforcement, we passed immigration issues, we passed immigration bills with the pieces. we looked at these different aspects of immigration, which are all needed. those bills are in the judiciary.
i am sure at some point there will come forward. chamber of commerce, sent a letter to gop senators on wednesday saying vote for this legislation. open "national journal" saying -- i want to get your reaction. [video clip] >> what we have today is chaos. >> we have to invite them to come out of the shadows. >> let us welcome our new neighbors and practice the values of freedom and family. >> we all wish we did not have this problem. -- weaving the way it is have to solve this problem. >> create jobs and economic growth by conservative -- by supporting conservative immigration reform. host: congressman doug collins? guest: that has been running for
awhile in georgia. there is a need. businesses' desire to move forward. i think there is a general feeling among the nation. our immigration policy is broke. simply focusing on one -- one of the things that disturbs me is -- one of the very first hearings we have had on the judiciary committee was one of the witnesses was talking about the issue of comprehensive immigration reform meaning a pathway to citizenship. the concern that i have is the only definition you have of comprehensive immigration reform to a pathway of citizenship, you are leaving everything else that is broken up a system on the table and saying we only want to focus on one end. that leaves me a political solution and not a policy-based solution. host: would you ever vote for a path to citizenship back guest: so i think we will have to see. more openness to
looking at dealing with the 11 million -- i have said it before and in my district, there is not enough budget to send everyone back home. why vote for somebody that woman apparently caused this problem to reappear five years or 20 years down the road? -- that would apparently caused this problem to reappear five years or 20 years down the road? i want conservative immigration reform. i cannot believe that is what we found. host: in "the wall street journal" yesterday read it -- yesterday --
guest: i appreciate his opinions on this. one of the interesting things is an article in 2008 when hispanic levels -- hispanic voters did vote -- the question is what we want to accomplish? are we doing this for policy? all we doing this for voters? i think being very disingenuous to the people, i will not discount the vote of anyone else. is it good policy? is it something that will take this down the line and provide a stable work force? will it provide protection and security for our borders? is it good policy? if we continue to go back to the political ankle and i think that as a problem. on thisaid to comment thing.
in 2016 republicans can win the white house if we share a message that affects people around the dinner table. if we share a message that says this is why conservatives values matter, we get in and get real conversations with people, sharing our message. instead of worrying about top- down messaging and sharing how it affects them on their bottom line -- right now i am working on regulatory reform. imagine what americans can do with $15,000. they could buy a car, send children to school. i believe people want to be free. let us share a message of economic freedom, of hope and opportunity. when we do that these other issues will get resolved. host: philip is our first phone call for you here. caller: can you hear me? hearing impediment.
this morning's program seems to illegal and me -- illegal aliens are going to become u.s. citizens. guest: that is not what i am talking about right now but i think the discussion in the senate wants to lean towards amnesty policy. mississippi, aom democratic caller. am the 11th generation american. i do not support this immigration bill. i am old enough to say that i believe what the senate tydeus a day was try to legalize their traitorous activities. i am ready to send all people that are not supposed to be this -- supposed to be in this country immediately to where they came from. guest: that is the feeling we
get from a lot of people in our district. that is to work on issues, work on problems, and we have never secured the borders. host: what is the percentage of hispanic voters in your district? guest: below 10%. but we have a huge agricultural presence. with foration i dealt six years, because georgia was a destination place for those illegal aliens coming to work in our construction industry. , and wey processes have trouble finding a stable, legal workforce. with sort of endemic along our society right now of our benefits and other things causing workers to stay out. host: don't you need a pathway for citizenship for those benefits to -- guest: no.
in the house judiciary committee, we're working on ian ag-guestworker program. they have access, they are verified, we know the time they're coming in, the time they are leaving, they have to go back, and then they can actually travel back and forth. they can actually do the work that is needed, but they're not here for benefits, status, they are here to a job and go back home. host: a tweet -- shunted aliens that serve in the military be granted citizenship? guest: i have an issue for the the process for than to get in the military to start with. that is another issue we deal with and this whole aspect. my staff and i talked about this all along. it is not just the effort of jobs, it is the aspect of other opportunities and benefits that it lets you close off, you have an issue with. whether it be in education, jobs, other areas, those are areas that need to be discussed. explain to me how that has been discussed in the senate, and i will show you that it has not. i will show you the big lines that have been discussed in a bill that has relatively been untested. , you independent caller
are on the air with doug collins, republican of georgia. caller: hi, this is john. , andked in a restaurants i worked there for five years. over the last five years, i took the bus to work. i have seen more and more americans not, you know, working. , and i work everyday see all kinds of the illegals working. am sorry, but i do not think that the senate is addressing that. i see a lot of americans coming in and applying. these are $10, $12 an hour jobs as cooks that are getting undercut by illegals working for eight dollars and nine dollars an hour, whatever. guest: i think she is right in
what she is saying. i think there is this issue. this is why this matter is important. when we deal with immigration, we do with wages, workers, americans who want to work who may not be able to find jobs who are also dealing with employers who are saying we are having trouble finding legal workforce in certain areas. what we need to do is deal with this in a comprehensive way, and conference of means legal, illegal, and enforcement. when you put those together we are solving a policy problem. then we can solve something that comes together with business and society and we can say we made a good-faith effort to attempt to do what we need to do. but simply moving things forward without having the metrics, without having other things to know who is coming in, who is going out, this is the problem. one thing that surprises me is most of our illegal aliens who are here, 40% came in on overstays on visas. it still baffles me as a united states congressman to understand how the united states government can give a visa to someone to come into our country, but then lose all
control on where they are at. that is inherent flaws in where we are at. host: the senate bill has a system at all ports to the -- to better track the very thing. guest: these are the kind of things we have to have in there. the question is are the metrics in place to make sure the facts are being followed? wese are the kinds of things have to flush out. i do not think it as an flushed out very well. we have to continue to do it at. that is why this issue is so volatile in our country. host: we will go to tampa florida. james. caller: i have two questions, actually. the first one is about the is i going law, how to help us keep the costs down if they will not let these people have any of the benefits to get in there to bring the cost down? the other question is -- you can go to any home depot or lowe's, and you can hire a man
there for $10 an hour. if you go to one of these helping hand places, it costs $16, 70 dollars, $18, and they pay eight dollars, and they keep the rest of it in their pocket. that is what i would like to ask you. i will take my answer off the air. thank you very much, sir. guest: thank you, james. one of the issues we have is the issue of health care and the obamacare legislation. how this will fit in. i will seek from e-house perspective. this is one of the big speaking points, dealing with those coming and coming in for benefits. one of the issues being driven on these discussions is are we dealing with a path to citizenship, or a status issue, or are we having access to our social safety net. i think that is the concern that has been out there. i know there has been a cbo report that says this is a cost
benefit over time. i would love to see how that number, if it has has been changed since the passing of the amendment from last week, i think there are some issues there. i just do not see the benefited we have enough problems in healthcare law without having to bring on the added dimension of those in the immigrant community. we are already struggling with that. that is part of the rising costs are rising, part of the reason we're struggling with medicare and medicaid is because we are having this issue. as far as regards to the workforce and finding workers and laborers, again, whether it verify system, we need a stable workforce. james, great question, there are just some things we need to work on. throw out another issue -- gay marriage. the supreme court rolled onto issues. here is the "journal" for thursday -- public opinion has been shifting on gay marriage
-- host: what do you think? guest: i was disappointed in both decisions. i would link to justice scalia's dissent. i think his dissent was right on. notaid that the court was only eager but hungry to actually weigh in, and really what i would think of a political bend, and what they would want to see at the outcome of the law. the problem is, what concerns me greatly about the case, especially the doma case, is the justices use language that say that anyone would have voted for this or signed it into law had a malice or intent that they just inherently were bigoted and their views on gays, and i think billy is decision,
that is a wrong way to put it,. ie decision left nothing -- think justice scalia's decision, that is the wrong way to put it. the decision left nothing. in regards to dealing with people of different persuasions, my personal backgrounds, my faith backgrounds teaches me that all people should have a basic guarantee of equal treatment. they should be treated with respect and love and dignity, however, that does not mean that i have to agree with their decision, it is not mean that i have to agree with what their choices are. the decision the supreme court, but basically implying that those who would pass such a law are bigoted or wanting to get back at something, to treat them unfairly is a disservice to what the court is supposed to be doing, and that is interpreting the law. i believe in the end this will be a victory for those who wanted it and really soured those who feel that we were left out on the other side. host: under the constitution, when you talk about equal rights and you believe all people deserve that, that it's
not apply to marriage and the benefits that go with it? guest: marriage -- we're not talking about treating people with respect. that is different than a marriage, which is always been expected on the state level on dealing with issues of how we deal with marriage and we have issues on the books where marriage and the familial relationship, how close it is you can marry a blood relative, how many wives and husbands you can have peered we have always been in this arena where there is societal discussion on what marriage in the definition of that is being promoted. i think we need to continue that process. this is a disappointment. host: this is the "washington post on thursday it says that hill camptive tim huelskampa -- tim will file a federal marriage
amendment. your thoughts. guest: they way they dealt with the proposition eight issue or doma, they dealt with public opinion. i understand there has been a ,ifferent thing -- a differing and views tend to vary, but i will point out in north carolina, 60% of voters in north carolina approved a referendum that would be opposed to gay marriage. so i think you have to look at, 138 states have this on the books, this is an issue that is still right for debate in the states. i think the supreme court weighed in in a very wrong way. host: bill in ohio, democratic caller. caller: yes, good morning. i'm calling to comment on immigration bill, and i think it is the thing to do. i think we need to start somewhere because their are too much people here are illegal. we need to bring them out of the
shadow. i think with congress, they just don't work together. one person pulled in another direction, oh and another pulls in another direction. you need to compromise. that is the only way you will move this country forward. that is all i have to say. thank you. guest: bill, i appreciate that, and i agree that we need to work together, but i also believe that sometimes, the bill from the senate was in on a step in the right direction. it was from a foundation that is shaky, not workable, you will work with -- you will end up with an unworkable product. what we are doing in the house is the right way to do it. issuesoing to take these individually, we're going to take them -- we may not put them together after they've been dealt with in an individual way. we do have to work together. this is an issue. i'm not one that says that we cannot not deal with it. as a former state legislator issues we of the greatest had is that we can only do so much to try to enforce the federal government to act in an -- the states are
struggling with this. these are the kind of things that need to be dealt with on a national level. it is my hope we will do so. but we cannot just blindly go along and do something that makes us feel good without being good policy in the process. host: a tweet -- what were the shortcomings of the 1986 immigration act? why not start by fixing those the amendments or revisions? guest: sometimes that is probably a good way to do it. the biggest problem with the 1986 act and the overreaching act was the simple fact that it was a promise of enforcement if these who were here illegally were given citizenship or status. the problem with that is -- multiple iterations of republican administrations and democrat administrations, that's why the concern is with the bills we are dealing with now, to make sure there is no ambiguity, that enforcement is something many see done, and it is not something that the president or the administration
on a will will say we will enforce its own not. we need to say this will be the thercement center, this is standard for working in the country, and in doing so, we can provide certainty to people to say we are not going to up back where we are now. int: independent caller tennessee. caller: thank you, ma'am. thank you for taking my call. this congressman here seems like he has a good head on his shoulder. i like the ones we have in tennessee. mr. corker came up with this idea, hiring 20,000 border agents, they have got to have vehicles, guns, this, that, and the other, but there is no bill to pay for it. right now, we are $17 trillion in debt. lay off aoing to brigade of soldiers that have fought for us because they not have any money to pay them. i think those two senators need to go up there and shake those people have when they get run out of the gate up there.
for us to think that they're going to do this is ridiculous. they're not going to do this. host: we will take a point for the congressman. guest: you are hitting on an issue that has been the underlying. i do believe that there are benefits that are pretrade, even from the illegal population that are here because of the jobs of their doing anything going on. so there has to be a balance. but there is also a cost. what really concerns me about these amendment was a third of -- what is the cost of this? how does it over -- how does it affect the scoring of the senate? to do so and think you can do so over a weekend, i believe, the senator said crews out of texas had it right -- here we go for obama care again, you have to vote for it before you can find out what is in it. it is a scary proposition. i have a friend to our liberal in their beliefs, and we are friends, and we talk all the time. they are even concerned about
washington doing things in a way that we really do not know the end result. you cannot ever predict what the actual, 100% this is what is going to happen. but we have got to limit the unintended consequences. host: you are also on the oversight and government reform committee. here's the headline in the "washington times" -- nosedown done -- no stand down order at benghazi. it says here -- colonel gibson said wednesday that no stand down order was given, according to house armed services subcommittee, the subcommittee l.a. briefing with the kernel, -- the colonel. how much of gregory hicks' testimony is important to the overall definition of the oversight and government reform committee? guest: very important. here is somebody was actually actually on the ground. my question is this -- how do
you diminish the fact that he was there, that he was actually speaking to the operators in which he gave testimony for us in committee? how do you wait that any less by saying he was actually they're doing it? i think there is a difference in what may be stand down and do something. there are two different orders. i will go along with that, my military background, there is a difference on my children come i did not tell them not to do something, but i do not tell them to go do some either, and i cannot imagine them when they didn't, so it is a contradiction. i will not comment on a committee hearing that was not a part of, but i will say say this -- greg hicks was a very compelling and very, from everything we've seen so, a a very forthright witness. host: are you concerned that this undermines his testimony? guest: no. i think it will come down to an issue of what was understood. what is understood in the ground was don't go do anything. you can call it what you want call it. greg hicks' testimony stands on its own. will bee committee
deciding how to go forward on lois lerner and her testimony when she pleads the fifth. some are things she waived her to the fifth amendment when she had somewhat of an extensive statements beyond saying i plead the fifth. how will you be voting on that today? needs tobelieve she come testify. you made my case in your first argument. you said the testimony of lois lerner. when she came and testified. she did testify. she came in to give her side of the story and said but i do not want to answer any of the questions. i think that is the part we're looking at now. we have got to get to the bottom of this. this is not something worthy american public public deserves administration officials not anng able to come to oversight committee and asking questions about an issue that is going on and to simply pleading the fifth and going off after saying, by the way, oh, i do not do anything wrong. said herrell issa, he is then after this vote going to bring her before the committee. guest: that is the issue for
this morning close the committee if we go forward. so i will reserve comment, but i believe she needs to come. i believe she needs to testify. and not have the true meaning of testimony, not only what you believe, but the asked other questions. you cannot sadly come and say i do not do anything wrong i'm not going to testify. that debateovering about whether or not to bring lois lerner back. that is at 9 a.m. this morning on c-span2, and if you want to follow along with the debate and add your two cents to it, you can go to twitter.com and chat as you'ren watching the debate. again with the irs, here is the " this morningmes this mornin -- iris harsher on tea party then liberals. i want to show you what our
-- show you and our viewers what joe crowley had to say. take a look. [video clip] anmy fear is the ig, appointee of george w. bush, and ia former staffer chaired by terrorize that, definitely report that service chairman i suppose the personal ideology and not the facts of the case. issa's personal ideology and of the facts of the case. an election-year targeting, again, all foss. we know congressman issa knew about the targeting investigation in the summer of 2012. well before the national elections occurred.
does anyone think for a moment that if there was a white house targeting of conservative groups before the 2012 elections that chairman issa would not have said anything about that? that he would've sat back and said nothing about that? then, as we see progressive groups were targeted side-by- side with their tea party counterpart groups, the chairman of this committee excused that both the public releases as well as here in his opening statement today. there has been no outcry by the chairman nor by my republican colleagues when progressive groups were also targeted over the past three years. congressman, your reaction. guest: i believe the reaction that's coming out as a reaction from the democratic perspective and saying that this is something that should not be investigated. i think that if the wrong answer answer. i believe that the irs and what
is going on -- let's just lead with facts. let's not leave with the politics of this. let's simply, and what i have made a commitment to, is less star the facts. they believe in a truth. they want to see what happened. let's see who works harder. it is amazing to me that the group started working party, conservative, religious groups that were targeted. even in your headlines, progressives, you can say they were on there, but they were never treated with the same scrutiny that these other groups were. why? when it came up, there were no answers given. now we are asking the question again because now to coming out more. let's deal with the facts. let's have the investigation, let's go through this process so the american people can can be assured that an agency of the american government is not taking a look at them and arbitrarily targeting. meeting withd-door eric holder about his testimony before the committee. what we be talking to him about?
guest: discussing his testimony. host: what about it? guest: the contradictions and his knowledge and actual participation in the investigation. we were targeted with being asked of him in any scandals as far as the subpoena issues. that is what is going to be brought up. host: ap phone records. guest: those are the issues. host: giving him a chance to clarify testimony? guest: i will not comment because the meeting has not taken place and he parameters have not been set, but i think about will be determined during that meeting. host: doug collins, thank you for your time, appreciate it. we will continue our conversation on integration with democrat luis gutierrez. we will be back right after this break. ♪
>> i was also looking for things that were completely pessimistic. i think we could have won without patent. we could have won without lemay, perhaps, but i don't think -- you take away burned-out affluence and two thirds of greece occupied, the greens would have even fought with --, the emperor would not have recovered part of the western, part of the by the team-roman empire. i do not think there was a union general allies who could have taken atlanta at the cost that we took it, a very small cost compared to what was going on in virginia. i do not know anybody could've done what matthew ridgway, and i wish i could say there were
american generals, maybe one or two, but not very many that could have done done what david petraeus did. david hansenrds, doubts about five generals and he said single-handedly reversed the direction of the war to their country's favor, part of booktv this week and on c-span2. >> it is criminal to me that i had to authorize my budget people, my financial people to write a check for $450 million, a little bit more than a month ago, to extend our contract with the russians to continue to carry our cruise to the international space station for 2016 and 2017 because we have not yet brought about the american capability that is coming with our commercial crew program. the president of the budget called for $821 million for commercial crew. we are not halfway there. my jobgress has just -- is to try to persuade the congress that the plan is good and that we are going to be
efficient users of the taxpayer's money. and haven't -- and i have not been successful in that, but i'm working on that. as i've told every member of dollars in21 million the 2014 budget is vital if we're going to make the 20 17 date so that what newt gingrich said is true that that americans are transported to space again on american spacecraft. >> no more with nasa administrator charles bolden sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q and a. "washington journal" continues. with we're back congressman luis gutierrez, democrat of illinois, also the immigration task force chairman for the hispanic caucus, the lead voice for immigration reform for house democrats, for the democratic party. when it passed yesterday, 68-32, what did you think about the prospects in the house? guest: i think the prospects in the house are good.
i think the prospects in the house are good if we continue to understand that things happen in washington, d.c., as long as there is a consistent and persistent demand outside of washington, d c -- washington, d.c. an immense power for conference of immigration reform. it is broad, deep, powerful, and it is now going to visit the house of representatives. i think that you are not going to be able to stop the will of the american people, which was clearly voice on november sixth. they said stop evicted -- stop the bickering and fighting, stop picking winners and losers, stop scapegoat voting and criminalizing because we are going to elect the party that we want to fix immigration, and that is the party that won the election. i hope the house of representatives sees the will of the people as demonstrated on election day. host: what gives you hope?
the speaker saying it is dead on arrival. where working piecemeal alone here, but we're not going to take take up the senate bill. guest: surprise -- it is washington, d.c., and they are not taking up the senate bill. i have been here 21 years, neck and arm -- 21 years, and i cannot remember the last time they did that. your going to take legislation. that is not the way it works. anybody that washes watching 10 washington,hes watches the way things work here in washington, d.c. knows that the house of the process, the senate has a process, that is what you have conference reports. ,hen frank dodd got written dodd did something, nobody said, barney frank actually crafted his own response. even when democrats are in charge of each of the chambers,
each one puts his own. host: what does it look like in the end when the health of the weather legislation and the senate has there's any two sides get together? guest: i think you have a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people. the first thing you do -- he put them in a safe place. you say that you're going to protect those families. alot of people does have misunderstanding who the 11 million are. the 11 million, most of them have been here for more than 10 years. four point 5 million american citizen children whose parents are undocumented. they work and they are a part of our nation. they are part of -- they are woven into the fabric of the communities that they live in. what we want to do is say listen, we wanted you to get right with the law. you are your undocumented today, what we want to do is give you an opportunity to register with the government. what does that mean? that means we want your fingerprints, we want to do a
that project, we want to make sure you're not a criminal, we're going to make sure you never committed a crime -- a criminal offense. it is a terminal offense to be united states with out a citizenship. if you are a senator or wouldfor a reform law, that make you more likely or less likely to support that official for reelection? republican said 49% less likely. you know what? that is kind of what is happening in the house of representatives. in the senate, what occurred was republicans and democrats came together. as theyou saw,
legislation developed, you see a democratic majority yielding and yielding to wear a republican minority in order to crack the border to get the 60 votes yesterday. in the house of representatives, unfortunately, all we are is a republican response in the judiciary. we do not have a bipartisan response in the house of representatives. when i asked them in goodlatte when are we going to begin, he says well, luis, you had a chance to work with my majority, and you do not reach a bill, so i am taking up these bills. well, that is not exactly the way it works in washington, d.c. he is a chairman of the committee. he can at any point resounds a luis, i understand you work with paul ryan in chicago, i understand you were in san antonio. i figure you are working in good faith with republican. so if you need them know, how can i help you? that is leadership.
rig guarding to the gang gang of 8.he have you put any pen to paper? it is done, it has been drafted, the legislative language as there appeared a -- is there. i still believe in a bipartisan approach and the house of representatives. i'm so hopeful that we will be able to get one. there are dozens of republicans who want immigration reform. but i think you have got to do it -- you've got to let the house have an opportunity to voice its will. when that legislation was proposed to take away the youthrs, young, immigrant
who came here as children, and the president offered them deferred action, to say they are legalized, i am going to give you a work until the congress of 198 out ofstates -- 201 democrats voted against appeared that is a solid bedrock. we need an opportunity for republicans to join us. will they allow a vote? they say we will only allow a majority. the in other words, they will only allow a majority votes, where there is a majority of the majority. host: speaker boehner said he would like the gang of 7 to keep working, to keep meeting, you put pen to paper, it is 500 , which republican are
reading it? ,uest: congressman carter among others. i really believe that given all of the energy that is coming over from the senate, and all of that organizational capacity that is coming over from the , iate from diverse groups mean, we are talking evangelical to catholics, right? -- punditspendant and democratic pundits. it is a very diverse and powerful and deep group. republican leaders and democratic elder statesman. it is really broad and deep. those voices are coming to engage the house of representatives. anyhow,e gang of 7 your bill is 500 pages. the bill passed in the senate, 1200 pages. why such a big difference? what is in that build? way ofwe each have our
going about the process. rbc, centered -- obviously, senators at a lot of things. that is a pretty accurate description of senate description. when you look at a senate bill, you find what does this have to do with anything? or has to do that the senat wanted it in there for their vote, and that is the way they built it. look, important is what issues we are addressing. i just heard my friend, congressman say the promise of 1980 six with that we would secure the border. well, no, there was no promise in 1986 that we would secure the border print none. read the bill. it was the promise that we would fix it than that illegals will not be able to come here. what it said is that we would have employer sanction.
let me tell you what happened. aployer sanctions under ronald reagan administration, followed by a george bush, the father, and administration, here's what happened when they impose it. in georgia, when they do not have anybody to do with the chickens or to pick the onions or to pick the crops, they would call the republican senator and say hey, could you call those enforcement able to get out of here you go we need -- out of here? when it is able to be working our field. so let's make this clear. this is different. there will not be phone calls from senators or members of congress because we will have an important feature that is not love and to intervene. host: let's get our viewers and call. cindy has been waiting, independent caller, welcome. caller: every politician running for office last november campaign vigorously on jobs, so
why on earth would any of these elected officials be even thinking about passing this bill, which so hugely increases the number of workers coming into our country, flooding our country. guest: actually, that is not what happened in the bill. any bill, you legalize the 11 million that are already here. thecbo score, the score senate proposal says, that they create such economic activity that they actually reduce the deficit by $175 billion during the first 10 years, and they reduce it by another $700 billion in the subsequent 10 years. thes make clear -- read senate proposal. listen to what people say. read the senate proposal. it says legalize. , payll your back taxes taxes for the next 10 years, but do not expect a dollar from the government.
, congressman collins said, well, we have already got obamacare, now we're going to add all of the illegals. wrong, incorrect. they are specifically excluded from any subsidies under the affordable care act. not one subsidy, not one dollar, and they can't get medicare. we took care of that in 1986, but it has been reiterated for obama care. so they can pay all of their taxes, yet cannot derive single benefits for your first 10 years. host: the previous caller asked if the 11 million are here, once they become or have a legal status, can they bring their family over? guest: the number of 11 million can go up. those that are here are already going to be integrated with their families. so i imagine the caller would not want the undocumented worker to get documented and not live with his american citizen children in his american
citizen spouse. so the way the program is decided, if i am undocumented, obviously, all of my minor children under the age of 18 get to be incorporated in the program along with my wife. host: i think the caller was referring to people coming from other countries, mexico, to join their families, to join a family member who has just obtained provisional status. guest: no. the viewer should understand the way the program works. if you legalize during the first permanentyou have no status in the united states of america. you have a provisional status. it allows you to work, pay all your taxes, learn english, go to a background check, and after 10 years, you can then apply for what what is called a green card. permanent residency. you must stay in permanent residency for five years, so that is 15 years. then you can apply for american citizenship. should you achieve american
citizenship 15 years on the road, you may also have somebody young enough you can still apply for, but i doubt it very much. sandy, abilene, texas, republican caller. caller: i am concerned. i watched the march as of 2007. you can still get them on youtube. there were literally hundreds of thousands of these young, what we call dreamers, dragging our flag through the streets, letting their children urinate flagr flags, hanging our upside down under the mexican flag, and now all the sudden, there'll drew -- they are all dream children. i am concerned. i am concerned that these people do not really love america. they want to take america, but i do not think they really love america. host: all right, we will take that point. guest: i do not know what video
she saw. i marched in chicago, and i can tell you what i thought was american citizens, people from their neighborhoods and communities marching with american flags. saying i love this country. now, did he see people with like some other countries? yeah, you saw some of that. i.e. savants egg hey on say hey, listen, if you want to become an american citizen, kerry -- carry an american flag. i would have been the first one to stop any such nonsense from them. i am sorry that use all that. i will look it up on youtube, but i've not seen it, and i would be the first to denounce it. host: all right, alice, new jersey, democratic caller. caller: hi.
thank you for explaining everything this morning, representative gutierrez. is there something that is going to be in their, maybe grandfathering these 11 million people and then going forward after that? with something happened to employers? -- what if something happened to employers? would they get fined if they started to hire other people? she is right on target. what is the first thing we want to achieve? any job created in america, the first person they get fake credit the job is an -- that gets a crack at the job is an american. somebody was born here. in order to that, you've got to have a verification system. i've got to tell tell you, my grandfather was the first
gutierrez to get a social security card back in the late 1930's early 1940 per the. 1930's, early 1940's. for generations later got his sixth social security card in the mail, too. my grandson, four generations later, got his social security card in the mail, too. there has got to be some better way than a little piece of paper. even your debit card is plastic. so we do change appeared we do a verification system system. it means anyone in america has the first check. federal government says ok, he is ok, and if you hire that person without getting the ok of , then iral government think we should do what we do to be the one they do not pay their taxes, we should put them in jail for violating the law.
but she is right, you're going to need vigorous action against unscrupulous american citizen employers who want to hire undocumented workers. that is in the bill, and i think it is fundamental and critical to establishing security in this country. host: to be clear -- jail time in the bill? guest: absolutely. but it has got to be enforced. everybody always likes to see us rounding up the illegals. i want to round up those it employers after we do, is of immigration, that want to violate the law. host: we will go to ed, and applets, independent caller. caller: you stole my thunder. that is my thing. the employers hiring people that they are quite friendly do know is illegal. not only should they be put in jail, should also have to play -- pay the back social security that should have been collected from these people. they should have to pay what they had to pay in income tax.
if they go about the business, quite friendly, that is a bonus to the country. i am a descendent, i suspect, of an illegal irish immigrant, my grandfather. guest: first of all, i think we need to have the ability to enforce the law. but a couple of things that the caller said is important. number one, when you legalize 11 million people, you put them on the books so that now unscrupulous american employers cannot keep them off the books. you actually collect those taxes and send it to -- cindy revenue so that you can maintain the government that they're supposed to be there to maintain. number two, we should go after employers that decide if they're going to violate the law, but you need a verification system to do that. you cannot just go after the employers. you have to say, hey, if you use the system, you are safe.
from prosecution, from the federal government. if you don't use the system, we're coming after you. but it puts people on the books. i believe that is where we want our american workers. host: we will talk to gary next in dallas, texas. republican. a quick question about the child tax credit. if they're still here, and they are applying for citizenship and they are paying their back taxes, about these billions of dollars that they are claiming for child tax credit for people that are not in the country that really don't exist, and while they are still here, each year that they are here in the future, are they still able to claim continue to claim child tax credit for people that are not here you g? guest: you are asking me to respond if they can do something illegal. so it is illegal what you are proposing. i cannot do it, greta cannot do it, nobody can do appeared when
you do it, you are supposed to go to jail because it is a to file your income tax returns falsely and cranach -- and claim credits from the government. i do not know what the answer is other than we need a crackdown on people that do it. i do not know that there is anything specifically from the community. but i will say look, we're going to put them on the books. we are going to have them pay federal income tax and file those federal income taxes, and we are going to make sure that they do not get one benefit, and then you reiterate, the senate bill says the following -- you come forward, you go through a background check, you make sure you are not a criminal, you take english and civics classes, we give you a work permit, and for 10 years, pay every last dollar, for there is not one means tested program for which you are eligible, see pay all of your taxes, be you cannot get a benefit. let me reiterate, this is the primary language in the bill,
and it is like was that we will adopt in the house, you are excluded from any subsidies in the affordable care act. that is really the government subsidy. if you're going to get health care, you've got to go out and get it from your employer or paid out of your own pocket. so don't think this is amnesty. because that is a pretty tough proposal to make to somebody, to pay taxes and not be able to get a single cent of the dollar or taxes sent to support. "ost: the "washington post editorial about the border search amendment, they say this -- overspending at the border, that it at $30 billion to $8 billion embedded into the bill for border security. it talks about doubling the amount of agents along the border and questions what they will all do, and it goes on to say that mr. corker admitted that his amendment is almost overkill, massive overkill is more like it.
and adding drums, hundreds of miles of fencing, and high-tech turn the, it will border into a front steer -- into a frontier akin to the dmz separating the two koreas. is it worth it? as a means of ending the , self-s a rational defeating, marginalization of 11 million undocumented immigrants, the answer is yes. this is not a democratic proposal. you want our votes, you want us to support this program, here is our demand. the very party that says it is against any job creation program that just created 20,000 more jobs, a government job creation program, they want hundreds of miles, so they have an infrastructure development program. i will put thousands of people more to work. it may sound a rational to do that, but that is what they said. they said we have already got 21,000 border patrol agents.
we are going to double that to 40. we want more people on the border than in most countries have as armed forces altogether. you would with an army on the border. they want drones, fencing, they want to spend $30 billion to $40 billion. you know what a good to spend that? 11 milliongalize the people, they pay so much more in taxes and revenues to the federal government that there is 170 $5 billion surplus. what is the first thing i said? 170 $5 billion surplus. what is the first thing they said? billion.5 ,ost: kevin, democratic caller thank you for hanging on the line. you are on the air with congressman gutierrez,
democratic of illinois. go ahead. caller: i'm from wisconsin. i really love your enthusiasm. i really love your hope, but you just do not understand how dysfunctional the republicans are in the house. they do not want to deal with anything. all they want to deal with is coming into my house and going up into my uterus -- host: ok, we're going to move on. judy. caller: hi, that was pretty sick. i've a question because you mentioned it before, you're going from 500 pages to 1200 pages pages because you have to pay the senators to get their votes. i think that is so wrong to do. you are either voting for the issue and nothing else is put into their, and also i do feel senatorare going to, sanchez from vermont but as an amendment to allow people to get free cars, who these people are,
i do not know. but why do we as taxpayers have to now pay for somebody to get ?ree cars, if this is true ech i have no problem trying to do something with immigration. i was born and raised in yuma, arizona. only thing americans want to do is sit down and collect , i'mare -- not, medicare going on. medicaid, thank you. i get so excited about this conversation. but the main thing is, i want to know why you have but so many amendment into the bill get a vote from a senator? thet: i'm nine control of senate process. the senate process is the senate process. i said it tongue-in-cheek. but wes aren't quite -- all know senators put all kinds of language in bills and then later on we go wow, it is there.
but i'm sure that most of the land which and the bill was necessary. but there was some language that i'm sure they also put in the bill. having said that, to her point, there are now free cars. by the family finishes, i do not know what they think it's going to be free be free. there are no free cars and the bill. host: are you concerned that this diminishes prospect for passing anything gecko what else is known in this legislation that is not related? guest: we should work on resolution and i think another point she made was she recognizes that no one wants to work in the fields. it is dirty, filthy, backbreaking work. i've yet to see a line of people -- 75k, 75 out of -- people working in the
field, they are undocumented. they are here without any legal status. nobody in america want those jobs. let's face it. are going to pick the food that we eat in foreign countries and have it shipped here without the security that we need and oversight of the production of that food. pick the food here while we are watching and making sure that they are safeguarded. lynchburg,n virginia, republican caller. caller: good morning, congressman gutierrez. i think you are very charismatic, but at the time, i've heard you speak about being are partisan, i've heard you do nothing but peak ill of your republican colleagues.
remember how many budget bills went to the senate that were dead on arrival? let's be fair and honest when we have a discussion. also, what my biggest concern is policy -- common sense politicians, where you are -- why are you guys keep passing unemployment extensions when we can just have a common, comprehensive, a common sense approach. the fact is, i visited the fields in salina, california feels and --
california, orchard fields in washington state. i've been in meatpacking fields in -- meatpacking plants. let me tell you what you find there -- you find undocumented workers doing those jobs. and it is the reality of our country. simply needs to visit a field. that was recently a study was put forward on frontline showing the devastating effect of women. we can't protect women in the armed forces of the united states against sexual assault. what do you think the predatory nature exists out there against women in the fields that are undocumented? have visited those fields, i've seen those, the gentleman i attack republicans. sometimes i disagree with republicans. i am sorry if it comes across as
an attack. but let me say, i did everything i could to stop paul ryan from becoming vice president of the united states. he and i have never agreed on much. but we agreed to set this issue aside. he came to chicago. the media was there. he received a hero's welcome in an immigrant community that a plot of his presence there. i went to san antonio with congressman and former judge --los, concerted of conservative, and we sat at a roundtable at a televised conversation about comrades of immigration reform. you and others have seen me work and struggle from the very beginning. much of a democratic solution or a republican somoza -- republican solution, but a conference of american solution. 7st: so is the gang of meeting? guest: we are meeting today.
hope i'm not making news every will rush to follow everywhere i go, but we're going to meet today. my hope is that when we we come back after the july 4, i really .hink we need a space look, chairman goodlatte has a republican response. republican legislation, it is the same legislation that was presented before november 6, same argument, same scapegoating, same finger- pointing. that reflectsnse the results of the elections on november 6, and it is something that we can set this issue aside and fix this. host: so your meeting today, the gang of 7. when you expect you would put your draft -- guest: i am done, i am ready, i have read it, i like it, i hope that my republican and democratic colleagues can reach the same conclusions. and we can build upon it.
strategically, when you think you have to put it out there? guest: i think we should only come back after the july 4 break. i'm going back to my district. for everyone who thinks we go on vacation for the week, i will be coming back to washington, d.c. tomorrow. the working here on sunday, monday. i will be going to las vegas i will be there with harry reid, the majority leader. going to pass the baton on from the senate to me in the house of representatives in a symbolic ceremony in las vegas. monday night, i will be back home. we will be in our district working. because of the communication level today, i actually know how to use a computer command we can communicate and get the build on. host: "politico" is reporting that the key day in the immigration the house, that's
when republicans will get together behind closed doors and talk about the way forward. when i talk about -- one up at your bill for it before so that they can debated? guest: i would love to. maybe we can. , the house oft representatives about the coming near any minute. they're taking up offshore drilling in town today, and annually for the fourth of july recess. when you think immigration can possibly get through the house? probably not likely to fall or winter. long: i do not know how it will take, i know there is an .rgency from my perspective, the american public has to understand, there are 4.5 million american citizen children whose parents are undocumented. that leaves behind 300 american citizen children without a mom or dad. that is not the kind of system that we want to sustain.
all right, congressman, thank you for your time. i want to remind you on c-span two, they will be looking at or not slowest learner waived her fifth amendment right on may 22. that is starting any minute on c-span2. and of course, our coverage of the house begins now right here in c-span. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]