More independent, impartial judiciary. You know, they are largely a historical vestige of their time. Tracy . I just agree largely what people have to say. Every selection method impacts judges decisions. Elections were adopted, as matt noted, to try to check the perceived abuse of the appointment process. I dont think it was merely perceived, the evidence is pretty strong on that. But in terms of the specific question of why dont voters then change the method of selection, whats interesting is the florida case since thats the case before us is they did change the med of selection the method of selection more appellate judges right . But not with trial judges, not with the judges that they think of as the judges in their lives. And i think thats pretty entering, to try to understand pretty interesting, to try to understand if voters feel that this tension between accountability and impartiality is one that they would like to resolve when the judges are closer to where they are. Whats disappointing, of course, is that judicial races are low salience races. Individual voters know very little theyre least likely to vote in judicial races, so i think in terms of answering the question why do we retain judicial elections i think its because of the ideal of accountability and the challenge is that, of course we dont really have that in the races generally. But i certainly agree that theres no perfect or system and no perfect judges even if we had a perfect system. Anything you want to yes, sir. Give us a sec. [laughter] hi my name is [inaudible] im with Transparency International usa. I had a comment and a question. I began my legal career as a state Court Prosecutor in miami florida, and i think it sort of goes to what andrew said earlier. My experience was i dont really feel it makes a huge difference whether or not the judge directly asks or whether or not theres a Campaign Committee. The practice at least in miami which is the largest, most populace jurisdiction in florida, is that the Legal Community is still fairly small, and Campaign Committees would organize, you know fundraisers, often times at bar, and all of us prosecutors who made 30 or 40,000 a year would come for the free beer and the Defense Attorneys would come to contribute. I think on the criminal side of things where i was practicing, and this is my question for tracey, you had mentioned that you see particularly closer to elections judges sort of become more law and order focused. And yet the prosecutors are not the ones donating the money. And so i sort of have a question as to how that actually works, because we dont have any money to contribute. Its the defense bar that has a fair amount of money. So i can see sort of on the civil side where, certainly, money may play a larger role. But on the criminal side i sort of have a hard time seeing how those studies would actually validate the suggestion that the Campaign Contributions do have an impact. But, you know, as a more general matter, it would seem to me that theres very little actual distinction, especially sort of at county levels where everyone knows everyone and a judge can look at the list of whos contributed, and it doesnt really matter whether or not its the Campaign Committee or the judge that asks the judge is going to know at the end of the day who his friends are and who are not his friends. So im curious begun sort of why, you know again sort of why, you know, there has not been a move florida says we passed these laws to solve this problem, but it doesnt really seem like this particular law solves the problem. And i think especially when you think about the massey case i think there was a trip to south of france involved in that one too. The issue seems to be not so much the direct solicitation, but the Campaign Contributions. The criminal defense or the criminal case findings are not as direct an effect as the effect in cases involving law firms and say, tort suits, mass litigation businesses and business disputes between individuals or businesses as defendants in tort cases. In those cases the hypothesis is and what theyre testing is a direct effect. A business gives, a law firm gives, it does better in court subsequently, or similar businesses do better in court subsequently. The theory behind the effect of criminal rights is instead that if a business wants to oppose you or a law firm wants to oppose your reelection, typically the best argument to the public is not especially if youre a plaintiff lawyer favors plaintiffs lawyers. The much better argument is youre not law and order. So the funding, especially in the postcitizens united world the funding behind campaigns to unseat judges is funding from entities typically indifferent to criminal cases but they recognize that the best ad is about a criminal case. And so thats the theory behind it because youre certainly right. Prosecutors are not substantial donors to judges and many states are not allowed to donate, in fact, to judicial campaigns. I just want to add something. One of my colleagues at the Marshall Project christy thompson, just did a long piece last month on this very issue judicial elections and the campaign ads that rise up against them. And, you know, youre dealing with one of the most cynical components of campaigns and especially judicial campaigns. And the idea that these business interests who care about tort reform or who care about, you know jurisdiction or who care about liability and other issues arent going to come to consumers of news and television and papers and say, you know, lets band together and, you know reduce the liability. Theyre going to come and say you know, this judge is soft on child sex offenders. And, you know, we those ads are more and more pervasive even as there is this countermovement in this country, i think, to be a little bit more sensible about crime and the dramatization of crime. I think thats going in one direction, these ads are going in the other direction and obviously, theyre effective because theyre pervasive in all of these states. And if they werent working, you know, they wouldnt be happening. As to why states are barring only solicitation by the candidate rather than by these committees, correct me if im wrong, but i think this is the aba code proposal, and i think it reflects an understanding of the to First Amendment concerns would be far more severe if they were that broad a ban. Yes sir. Were making it increasingly difficult for mr. Microphone man to pretty soon its going to be at the ceiling. [laughter] thank you bill [inaudible] from the aba. Im drawing this question from memory rather than recent review, so i might be totally off base but if i recall judge litman in new york on a recusal issue put in a threshold for recusal. Has that gone into effect and have any of you looked at it . And how is that working . Yes. Its slightly different. Its not actually recusal, it is it takes place through the assignment system. So if a judge has received more than 2500 contribution, and the amount differs slightly based on the level of judges. We elect our trial judges and our intermediate grade appellate judges intermediate appellate judges. A high court or judge is appointed. The Administrative Offices of the court automatically assigns the case to a different judge, and the judge never even knows they were potentially getting that case. We are in the process of doing some research on various recusal regimes and trying to assess their effectiveness, but i think its a very interesting system. It completely removes the discretionary element from the challenged judge. It takes away any sort of, you know appearance that a judge is a judge this their own case in their own case, and we hi its a very interesting system. [inaudible] to contribute heavily to judges you dont want on your cases. [laughter] one of the issues with any recusal practice is there is the potential for gamesmanship and its one of the reasons why it is so effective to design an effective regime. It gives the option by keeps the cases out, so thats an option as well. I have an easy one for you. Thanks so much for putting this event together. My names michael im a reporter at the center for republic integrity here in washington, d. C. And in terms of the notion of candidates doing the direct solicitation versus their campaigns, judicial races are not something im quite as familiar at as, say federal candidates running for office. So i was curious how professional are, you know weve got these 39 states that have different things, you know . In all of these cases, are we assuming that there is a judge, theres a campaign manager, theres a treasurer . Or are in some cases some of these races really just sort of one person operations and whats the practical difference versus the Campaign Making a solicitation versus the judge making this ask . While you guys are thinking of a response to that go online and look at some of the web sites. I mean, for example some of the justices in texas some of the web sites that they have up are as professional as theyre not oneperson shows. I havent done any empirical studies, but from what ive seen not just in texas, but elsewhere theyre often very sophisticated operations because theres more money available. I mean, its an investment right . If youre a judge and you want to stay a judge or if youre a judicial candidate and you want to become a judge, its part of the price of doing business. Which is, ironically, exactly what the donors are saying, right . They want to get something for what they pay for and they expect to get something for what they pay for. So my sense is just from writing about it a couple years ago and last year its a very sophisticated operation at this point in most cases. And id say there is a big difference between states and between races. Weve documented many state Supreme Court races are just multimillion dollar affairs. They are huge, sophisticated, wellfunded, expensive operations. Going down to, say the case were discussing today you might have a much smaller affair where not much money is raised and spent in a case and perhaps you could have a very small Campaign Committee of only a couple people. One thing i would say is it doesnt seem especially onerous to require as pyring judge to aspiring judge to read the rules and follow them. If they are unable to do that i think we should question their fitness to sit the bench. We stumped you . No more questions . Well great. Well we appreciate you being here this morning and listening to us and hopefully, you guys have taken something out of this, and well be around after to answer any questions. [applause] [inaudible conversations] wednesday british Prime MinisterDavid Cameron takes questions from members of parliament during question time in the british house of commons. Thats live every wednesday at seven a. M. Eastern here on cspan2. And this thursday and friday Prime Minister cameron is in the United States for meetings at the white house with president obama. Well bring you coverage of any press briefings with the two leaders on the cspan networks. Dr. Anthony fauci our guest this sunday on q a, is on the front line battling against Infectious Diseases. We have drugs right now that, when given to people who are hiv infected if someone comes in and i could show you the dichotomy in the early 80s if someone came into my clinic with aids the median survival would be 68 months which means they would be, half of them would be dead this eight months. Now if tomorrow when i go back to rounds on friday and someone comes into a clinic whos 20plus years old, whos relatively recently infected and i put them on the combination of three drugs, the cocktail of highly antiretroviral therapy we could do mathematical model ing to say if you take your medicine, you could live an additional 50, 50, years. So to go from knowing 50 of people are going to die in eight months to if you take the medicines you could live just a few years less than a normal life span thats a huge advance. Director of the National Institute of allergy and Infectious Diseases dr. Anthony fauci sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on q a. The House Rules Committee met monday. This portion of the hearing is an hour and 45 minutes. Debate on the Homeland Security spending bill begins when members return at noon eastern. The meeting will come back to order, and thank you very much. We were trying to wait for several other members, but it looks like that here we go there. As i was reminded theres a Football Game tonight that also is on our schedule. And so as we bang the gavel down, its my hope that our other members on both sides will want to appear. And i want us to know that were now having the second Panel Related to h. R. 240 department of Homeland Security appropriations act for 2015. Previous to this just a few minutes ago we had nita lowey who appeared on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, we had the gentleman, john carter the subcommittee chairman, who spoke about the bill and now we are reconvening here at the rules committee tonight to hear about the amendment process. And i recognize that we now have mr. Attar holt, mr. Barletta, mr. Gutierrez, mr. Castro concern i did not have you on the list, but im delighted that youre here and ms. Lofgren, were delighted youre here. Ms. Lofgren, you been here for a couple of hours id like to defer to you first. Of ill just go back and forth. Well go ms. Lofgren then mr. Aderholt, then mr. Ambiguity less mr. Castro mr. Barletta, you will be the cleanup batter tonight. Pretty good thing for a pretty pitcher, pitchers normally go last in the battle order anyway. So nothing new here. Were delighted that youre here. Ms. Lofgren, youre now recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Noting that my friend judge carter and Ranking Member nita lowey spoke on the underlying legislation, i will limit my comments to the five amendments that were released on friday night by the majority. The First Amendment offered by representatived Aderholt Mulvaney and barletta is designed to [inaudible] l all but one of the executive actions from taking place. This includes the deferred action for parental Accountability Initiative that would offer temporary or protection from de30ration to certain parents of u. S. Citizens and the expansion of deferred action for childhood Arrival Initiative to include people brought to the country as children who have extensive ties to the community. In the absence of any other reforms to our immigration laws this provision would break apart more families and destroy more communities. It would insure that we continue to deport the parents of u. S. Citizens and lawful permanent residents and send many thousands of these children into the foster care system every year. But the amendment actually goes farther than that. In the interest of time ill touch on just a few of the initiatives targeted by this amendment. It would prevent dhs from using formal rulemaking to approve the additional waiver of the three and tenyear unlawful [inaudible] to help u. S. Citizens from avoiding extreme hardship that would result if their close relatives were forced to remain abroad for three or ten years as part of a process of obtaining a green card. The changes the administration intends to make to the provisional waiver process would wring the waiver more closely bring the waiver more closely in line with the terms of the waiver enacted by congress. Second from taking steps to insure that u. S. Citizens who want to serve in the military will be permitted to do so, notwithstanding the fact that they have an undocumented parent spouse or child and, third, the amendment would prevent dhs from finalizing regulations to permit spouses of h1b workers who are waiting for a green card to get Work Authorization themselves. It would also prevent dhs from increasing job portability for h1b which helps raise wages increase opportunities and reduce exploitation. Fourth, the amendment would prevent the administration from using its Parole Authority and National Interest waiver both created by congress, to capitalize on the innovation of foreign entrepreneurs and to make green cards available to accomplished entrepreneurs with a track record of creating jobs and generating substantial revenue. Finally, the amendment would block a series of initiatives designed to promote the integration of immigrants and refugees into our communities and to help lawful permanent residents complete the naturalization process to become u. S. Citizens. In fact, the only november 20 executive action not blocked is the one pertaining to pay increases and work force realignment in i. C. E. The message this sends, i think, is that pretty much everything the administrations done over the past six years to defer removal for the parents of u. S. Citizens to promote Legal Immigration, promote citizenship, sensible enforcement priorities, spur entrepreneurship, protect american and foreign highskilled workers was somehow an unconstitutional abuse of power by giving more money to i. C. E. Officers to track down and deport immigrants is just right. The Second Amendment is offered by representative blackburn and is more targeted but no less objectionable. This would prevent the use of funds to further implement the original 2012 dhaka memo dhaka memo. Because there had been some confusion in the past, this amendment explicitly applies to new applications, previouslydenied applications. It would prevent hundreds of thousands of young people who have already come forward and receive renewed action from renewing their deferred action and wo